FTC DRM comments
Comments 304-404
downloaded from http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/drmtechnologies/
| Comment Number: |
539814-00304 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 10:37:12 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
J Carson |
| State: |
GA |
| 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 invalidates my right to fair use. Under the fair use laws, I have the right to make a backup copy of the media I purchase; incase I break the disc, loose it, etc. With DRM I cannot even do that, so if my media becomes unusable I have to go purchase another copy.
The only people that DRM affects are honest people. DRM does NOT deter piracy, as it was intended. If someone wanted to defeat the DRM, it takes only a few minutes; but the fact is, one shouldn't have to do that to make a backup or even just play the music/game.
DRM is essentially "crippleware". Some music labels have installed "malware" without the consumers knowledge and called it DRM. Lots of games for the computer only let you "activate" them a handful of times then you have to go buy a new one; which isn't nice because things happen and you have to wipe your computer or you get a new one etc.
DRM is what keeps me from making a backup copy of my xbox games. I treat the Discs as if they were gold, but things (or children) happen. Sure, I could modify the hardware and void my warranty to make backup's work; but I refuse to do that as it will void my warranty; but that's besides the point that I should not have to do that.
DRM is not the answer. DRM hurts the consumer.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00305 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 10:41:07 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Denver |
| State: |
DE |
| 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 only a method to steal what I have legally purchased by the manufacturers of electronic media. DRM keeps me from fully utilizing electronic media that I have legally purchased in many of the ways that I require. By allowing the industries to continue to restrict usage of property that I have legally purchased you are allowing them to steal from those that are their customers. DRM keeps the citizens of the U.S. from having their rights so that it can ineffectually protect companies that are far outnumbered by their consumers. Additionally DRM is not much of a challenge for hackers and those who are interested in avoiding the protection that it provides, but it causes great problems for legitimate users.
Thank you
| Comment Number: |
539814-00306 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 10:43:12 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Anon |
| 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:
DRM was made to stop piracy, but pirates can usually get around it. DRM hurts the people actually buying the product; people who bought something will get the inferior while the pirates the the superior version. An example of this is music, if I buy a song and it has DRM, I can not listen it on all the devices I use to listen to music; if I would of pirated the song, I could listen to it on whatever device I want to.
A recent PC game, Spore, had DRM which only allowed you to install it on 3 computers; some people reinstall Windows often to keep their computer running fast. If you were to install the game on 2 computers, and later reinstall Windows on both of them, also installing the game again, you would not be able to, as the DRM would of said you already installed it on 3 computers so you would not be able to install it on the second computer. If you wanted to install it on the second computer you would need to buy the game again, I don't know about you but I don't like to buy stuff I already own. If that person would of pirated the game, they would not need to worry about an install limit.
The point is that DRM only hurts the people who actually buy the product, the pirates are going to get around the DRM anyway, so why have it?
| Comment Number: |
539814-00306 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 10:43:12 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Anon |
| 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:
DRM was made to stop piracy, but pirates can usually get around it. DRM hurts the people actually buying the product; people who bought something will get the inferior while the pirates the the superior version. An example of this is music, if I buy a song and it has DRM, I can not listen it on all the devices I use to listen to music; if I would of pirated the song, I could listen to it on whatever device I want to.
A recent PC game, Spore, had DRM which only allowed you to install it on 3 computers; some people reinstall Windows often to keep their computer running fast. If you were to install the game on 2 computers, and later reinstall Windows on both of them, also installing the game again, you would not be able to, as the DRM would of said you already installed it on 3 computers so you would not be able to install it on the second computer. If you wanted to install it on the second computer you would need to buy the game again, I don't know about you but I don't like to buy stuff I already own. If that person would of pirated the game, they would not need to worry about an install limit.
The point is that DRM only hurts the people who actually buy the product, the pirates are going to get around the DRM anyway, so why have it?
| Comment Number: |
539814-00308 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 10:46:04 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Tarun Nagpal |
| 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 technologies are an end run around the first-sale doctrine. They also are an attempt around the implied warranty of merchantability by allowing the publisher to later change my ability to use this product. They allow a publisher to suddenly decide I can't use the product, or maybe only between the hours of 2am and 3am, or hold me up for more money. DRM will not just be confined to music and software, but is already implemented in printer cartridges and will soon be everywhere. To see how it affects non-technical people today, one only need look at the Cable Card snafu which allows cable companies to charge for cable boxes when they should be able to purchase them. Imagine a world where companies can decide when you can use your toilet - "Sorry Ma'am, you only have a license to use it twice a day." - this may seem extreme, but this is the world DRM is creating and captured regulatory agencies are abetting.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00309 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 10:47:26 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
N Lawrence |
| 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:
While I can appreciate the companies that deploy DRM technologies wanting to protect their Intellectual Property (IP), the problem is the technology only serves to inhibit the honest. Historically there has not been a form of DRM yet that has stopped 'hackers' from obtaining the material they desire, while it often has a tendency to cripple honest consumers' flexibility to use the technology as they desire within the bounds of the agreement between them and the developers.
Those who have no moral compass when it comes to stealing IP will not be phased by a simple technological roadblock in the form of DRM. They usually have both the time and the motivation to break through such limitations, not only for their own personal gain but for the "bragging rights" such accomplishments often afford them among their peers (who are more often than not of the same moral fiber).
Additionally, there are often times people who will pirate an IP because they do not want the invasive properties of the DRM to be on their personal computers (PCs). There are a great many reported cases of DRM technologies such as SecuROM causing PCs to stop functioning in some fashion, either via a piece of hardware that stops responding to normal operations because the DRM has seized control of it, or the DRM causing a cataclysmic failure of the operating system (OS) itself. There is also the matter of DRM technologies such as the infamous "Sony BMG Rootkit" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_CD_copy_prevention_scandal) which were not only invasive, but actually *caused* harm to PCs worldwide.
No IP protection should ever inhibit the use of the PC where it does not relate to the IP, let alone create larger vulnerability threats.
As a final note I believe there are a number of people who pirate IP simply because they prefer a 'try before you buy' scheme; too many companies simply do not provide ample demonstrations of their IP, and expect that we as consumers will readily drop our money on their product based on press reviews that receive early releases of the tech. While this is certainly true in any number of cases, there are also a large number of consumers who are very cautious with their spending habits, and are unwilling to invest in an IP if it is not demonstrably what they are looking for in that particular technology. This results in one major implication that relates to most companies' "defense" of DRM: the "lost sales" that are often projected due to piracy are many times lower than the projections, since many of those people will go out and buy the product once they've been given a chance to actually TRY the product.
If more companies would make an effort to provide ample, consumer-available, hands-on demonstrations of their IP, I believe they would see a much larger number of first-day sales and a drop in first-day pirating attempts of their IP, on account of these savvy consumers who are more cautious with their spending habits.
DRM will never stop the determined corrupt from obtaining what they wish to steal. It only serves to handcuff the honest person's flexibility with the software they have purchased and agreed to use responsibly.
Thank you for your time!
| Comment Number: |
539814-00310 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 10:47:31 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Kevin Mullin |
| 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:
Please stop with the DRM, you are punishing your very customers this is ment to help, the pirates don't stop with this stuff, but me a gamer, will delete and not play a game that phones home or anything like that, if the game has to verify me, then I won't buy it, I can't tell you how many time the drm has locked up a machine, what for, it don't stop the stealers, most of us sirs buy your game and music, the ones that won't, will never, so to punish us, for the acts of a few, that not what the goverment is supose to be doing, arn't you working for the people??
| Comment Number: |
539814-00311 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 10:48:34 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Bradley Anthony |
| 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:
DRM has been ineffective, and frequently misused. Apple's iTunes songs REQUIRE an iPod, if you want to use them on a digital device other than a computer. They've been using DRM to give the consumer no other option except CD for portable playback, and create unfair revenue streams. They also have an unfair advantage in the marketplace because of DRM. Since the iPod is the only permissable device, other MP3 players made by different manufacturers, aren't as sought after by consumers. Apple has to be the biggest abuser out there, of DRM. Now they are to offer Un-DRMing for 30 cents per song, to remove DRM from previously purchased music. I didn't ask for DRM, I didn't want DRM, and I'm certainly not going to pay to remove it. They need to remove the DRM for free. This feeds further into their unfair strategies in the marketplace. This is why the iPod is dominant. When the iPod came out, the Creative Nomad Jukebox was much much better. They had no music distribution scheme at the time. Apple did, and to create a monopoly on music, they used DRM.
Also of note, other music distributors have shut down their DRM servers, so all the music customers have purchased will not work anymore.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00312 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 10:49:21 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Alex Mansouri |
| 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:
To understand how bad DRM is in the world one has to look no further then secuROM. SecuROM is classified as a rootkit to many users do to the fact it accesses hardware and makes your system less secure. Most company do not declare when they use DRM like secuROM clearly, this causes the average user to install it. Unfortunately for the user, secuROM cannot be removed via an uninstaller, so many will have to reinstall their operating system in an attempt to remove it. secuROM also has a nasty habit of causing hardware to not work. After purchasing the game "Bioshock" both of my CD/DVD drives failed to read/write disks. The final nail in the coffin is the fact that secuROM limits the number of installs for any given user. This would be the equivalent if you bought a new TV, you would only be allowed to move it to a new location 3 times. Then the TV would automatically break and require the company to come and fix it.
Another great example of DRM is Sin's of a solar empire vs. Spore. Sin's of a solar empire (6 in 2008) was predicted to drop in sale due to its lack of DRM, yet it was not even in the top 10 most pirated games of 2008.
Spore on the other hand had a very draconian DRM, which was not well received. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/10/spore_drm_amazon_effect/ ) Unlike Sin's of a solar empire, Spore manage to claim the prize as the single most pirated game of 2008. Spore also managed to get amazon.com flash mobbed by hundreds of negative reviews for several weeks.
I myself am a computer geek, I understand how bad DRM is and so do many other geeks out there. The average consumer does not understand what is happening to them yet. They know that their computers/music/movies dont work, yet they fail to understand that they are broken by design.
I use Linux on my laptop, now fair use says I can back up any data I own. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) on the other hand thinks I should not be allowed to do this, so they have made it so I cannot view movies on my computer without breaking the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. For the movie "The Dark Knight" you can download a copy from their website to your computer. Unfortunately this copy also has DRM, and will only work on Apple or Windows machines, and only with certain video players. So in order for me, a linux user, to actually use my product, I would have to break the law. Does this seem at all fair to the consumer?
Groups such as The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure and Electronic Frontier Foundation have criticized DRM as a trade barrier to the free market.
In short please get rid of it, DRM does not stop piracy, and only hurts the average consumer.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00313 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 10:50:33 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Robert Ellis |
| 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 is a method that seeks to provide hardware and software manufacturers with a protection that the goods they create will be used solely for the purposes intended. This made sense before the advent of the networked Internet age. Before this time, companies hoped to "lock in" a segment of the market, allowing the most "fit" good to win the lion's share of the market. This represented capitalism at its finest; and it played out in the VHS v. Betamax competition of the 80's; and more recently with the BluerayDVD v. HD-DVD debate.
Limiting what users can do with their rightfully purchased goods and software impinges upon economic growth and innovation. Our increasingly networked environment requires that products and goods be compatible with one another for the consumer’s ease of use; for new goods and services to reach the market; and for the market to thrive through further innovation existing and newly created companies.
To cite an example I've encountered in my own home: Tivo is a Digital Video Recorder (DVR) that allows users to time-shift programs. Basically it's a small computer that serves as a digital VCR, recording shows for later viewing. Over the years, Tivo improved its networking capacity, allowing the user to connect to a home network, and view online content (like Youtube). Users can also listen to music through Tivo if that music is located on a networked home computer. One of the things I personally enjoy is playing music from my home laptop through my home theater using Tivo. Unfortunately, a vast majority of my music collection was purchased through Apple's iTunes. This music is wrapped in DRM, prohibiting the songs from being played on non-approved devices. Tivo and Apple have never struck up an agreement to allow Tivo to play Apple's music, so those files are invisible to the Tivo, and I can’t listen to my music that way.
This example shows both the absurdity, and impracticality of DRM. Music is purchased to be listened to, ideally in any manner possible. If I want to play a song that I have downloaded, as a customer I should be able to play that song on any device that is designed to play digital music. Back when tape cassettes were the norm, it didn’t matter who made the cassette tape. If I bought a tape manufactured by Sony/BMG, I could play that cassette on a Sony Walkman; or on a Panasonic home stereo; or in a car’s cassette player. It would have been absurd then if Sony stated that any cassettes purchased from Sony/BMG would only play on a Sony cassette player. That absurd premise is what drives DRM today.
There is an argument that suggests that in this networked, digital era, manufactures need to protect the content and goods they create because of the ease with which the goods can be copied and distributed. While this is a real and pressing concern, the answer to this problem is not achieved through DRM. It requires a new approach that cannot rely on practices of the past. This is apparent in Apple’s recent decision to begin offering their entire library of songs without DRM by April,2009. Apple’s approach to this problem is to open access to allow users to play their purchased songs through any MP3 player, or device that can read digital audio files.
Apple’s move has already been made by many in the industry (Amazon.com, eMusic, and Walmart). This supports the fact that DRM does not work. If you prohibit what users expect to do, and have the right to do with their legally purchased content, then you are not going to survive in this networked age.
Finally, the extent to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) protects DRM is ridiculous. This act covers everything from DRM-wrapped music files, DVDs and even printer cartridges. This protection holds that if a company places a digital protection on an item, any circumvention of that protection– in itself – is a violation of the Act, and is punishable by law. What that means, is that if I own a printer that needs a new print cartridge, and I
| Comment Number: |
539814-00314 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 10:58:13 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
John Christie |
| 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'm well aware that there are many other companies that employ DRM software, however my question is directed at EA because they are currently on the forefront in regards to this issue.
Many reports have indicated that due to the excessive DRM in Spore, the game has become the most pirated game of all time. This, for me, is one of the biggest examples of how current methods of DRM implementation do not work, and only end up hurting genuine customers due to the fact that the pirates are able to get the game DRM-free without paying a penny. So my question is, in the face of recent events why a company such as EA, a company who have a lot of experience in respect to programming and marketing, needs such strict DRM software included within a game to prevent piracy? Seeing as, with Spore, the DRM only turned people to illegal downloading, isn't there a less aggressive way to protect your product/copyright, and, of course, your profit, without honest consumers recieving the negative effect?
| Comment Number: |
539814-00315 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 11:02:41 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Johnsson |
| 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:
My older relatives who are not grown up with the Internet often ask me why I download music and software instead of buying it so the people who've made the stuff get money for their work.
I then explain that i don't want to buy (read 'rent') every song I have for every device I have and that when my computer crashes I have to rebuy everything again.
Now they all ask me HOW to download music instead of why I do it.
The fact that the average consumer doesn't know that the stuff they buy/rent is restricted is completly wrong. If a product has these kind of horrible limitations it should be printed on the front of the package in huge letters, in plain english (not lawyer-english), like the stuff that is on the cigarette-packages.
Something like: "You will only be able to play this song on one computer,cellphone or mp3-player, to play it on more devices you will have to buy it again."
The most patheic thing about DRM is that it doesn't even work, I have not heard of a single program/movie/song that't hasn't been availible for downloading because it had too powerful copy-protection. All it takes is for one copy to make it to the web and then the protection was all for nothing, but it's still there on every remaining legal copy. DRM only causes pain for the buyers, the pirated versions are still always availible and they always just work.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00316 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 11:03:02 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Andrew Bell |
| 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 a well intentioned idea, that has terrible consequences. As a consumer I expect to be able to use what I purchase. DRM often makes it impossible for me to enjoy eletronics/games/music in a fashion I feel is acceptable.
If I purchase music, I expect to be able to LISTEN to that music wherever and however I want. I BOUGHT IT ofr this very reason.
And computer video games that use DRM are much, much worse as I often cannot even play the game I just purchased, and now I cannot return it (as it is an "open-box" item).
DRM is bad. Period.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00317 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 11:06:51 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Tim H |
| 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: |
539814-00318 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 11:07:26 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Woodruff |
| 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:
Hello there, I hate DRM due to its restrictivness One example of this is Walmart MP3 DRM, Millions of people bought music there, only when they shut down the DRM server they could no longer play the music they bought, whereas the people that simply downloaded the music off of a p2p site didnt get the short end of the stick and didnt have to pay the money. Another Example as many other people will point out is Sins of solar Empire and Spore, Both quite nice games
But One is riddled by DRM and one is not
Spore which did have DRM was one of the most pirated games ever due to the Anticipation, However when released with such horrible DRM people did not want to buy it resulting in mass piracy
On the other Hand people who bought sins of solar empire did'nt have to worry about DRM, they where just free to play the game without having to worry about having to reinstalling their operating system due to it.
Also as far as i can tell it also violates the Fair use clause legally prohibiting the owner from (in the case of spore and many other games) Not allowing them to make backups of the game, Or Sell it, Let a freind borrow it, Change Computer configurations multiple times etc, After paying for the game, and under the DMCA it's illigal to Circumvent DRM, So there playing the cards against the consumer,What if people want to play it again and ten years, after the DRM servers are likely shut down and even if they arent, Computer configurations would have almost certainly changed, barring the user from using the game they bought.
DRM is wrong and is a violation of consumer rights, Please do something about it, It does no one any good.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00319 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 11:10:08 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Murphy |
| 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, simply, does not work and is an infinite game of cat and mouse with the following consequences:
- more expensive media as DRM schemes become more and more advanced (a requirement given that each new level of DRM complexity is overridden eventually)
- land fill, garbage and waste as new physical technology is required to support advanced DRM which leads to old physical devices becoming obsolete much sooner then they would otherwise (and that path is traveled faster in each iteration)
- confusion brought about by the requirements of DRM enabled media and the physical/virtual equipment required to access the content (i.e. DRM is NOT plug and play)
- frustration when legally obtained media does not work at is should
- lack of portability and pressure to move towards new physical media formats to support these features (it should be a consumer right that we can copy whatever media we have purchased to ANY device we own)
- sustainability, simply NOT sustainable over a long period of time
- the further destruction of the producer/consumer relationship, we are NOT criminals and we resent the implication at every corner of our media libraries
- there is no defensive stance for consumers to reject a particular method over another, these decision to use DRM and what particular flavor are made behind closed doors
- money isn't everything! Perhaps a healthier attitude is required going into the future where by media producers can no longer expect to become ridiculously wealthy due to lack of options for obtaining the media they have produced
- licensing is a much better approach (i.e. if a consumer obtains a license for a particular piece of media that license is permanent and permeates all technology mediums and formats. perhaps such a thing would require *some* limitations but it is limitation that has brought to this ugly corner)
| Comment Number: |
539814-00320 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 11:13:44 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Cody Fitch |
| State: |
ID |
| 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 has become so intrusive and restricting of a product that it almost encourages pirating and stealing software. Most products I purchase, I expect to be able to use 10 or 20 years in the future if I so wish. The current DRM on most products currently on the market, specifically computer software, will not give me that option. For example, some software requires the user to activate it via internet on the company's server. I personally have run into the problem of these servers being shut down after a period of time or are down for maintenance. This causes the user to be unable to use the software that they purchased. Another restriction is a limit of how many installs a user can have. Currently, the number is an extremely low number, usually between 3 and 5 installs. There are ways to deactivate the software on the company's server and install it again on another machine. However, there is no safety nets in place to automatically deactivate the software in the event of a system failure. If a hard drive or entire system fails, the user loses an install. In short, I believe the current DRM technologies in place on computer software specifically are harmful to the consumer and does little to hinder piracy and may in fact promote it. I request that DRM be lifted completely or at least less restrictive toward the user.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00321 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 11:16:04 AM |
| Organization: |
Particular |
| Commenter: |
Daniel Soriano |
| 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:
There will be no problem with DRM IF it do what it´s supposed to do, that is, manage my (consumer) digital rights.
It has to manage my rights to see a movie, for all my life, if i already pay to see "Mumies from Mars" in the movie theatre then i don´t have to pay to see it in DVD, or at least not the same as who didn´t see it, because i already had access to that story, to those actors in that story (i already pay to be exposed to that movie), you are supposed to charge me for the difference in resolution (eg. DVD-to-Blu-Ray), extra material, different endings. The same is valid for music, if i already pay for a song i´ll not paying for it again if it´s the same song, at the same quality.
I shouldn´t be carrying a list with all my licences... the list should be online, forever AND totally fail-proof.
That is fair-play, anything different from that and the piracy will continue to exist.
Piracy doesn´t destroy the original copy and this propagates the idea that the pirate doesn´t harm the original owner, the original media, and let´s be honest, all those giant media companies doesn´t inspire us simpathy.
You can´s use the same business model for information as 50 years ago, i have a lot more ideas on the subject and i´ll be glad to help.
Sorry about my english.
Daniel F. Soriano
| Comment Number: |
539814-00322 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 11:18:22 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Allan Campbell |
| 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:
This is an illegal piece of software, often hidden from clear view when sold to the consumer. Software is often installed without agreement potentially opening exploits to the users data.
DRM is a restrictive, malicious piece of code often limiting what the owner can do with their legally purchased item, be it DVD, Blu Ray or any of the many other mediums that support it.
When the consumer purchases goods they should legally own that item and the works contained on it for private consumption. This should include being able to install as many times on privately owned hardware, play on any privately owned DVD/Blu Ray player and not be forced to use the predefined mediums chosen by the producers of the product. DRM removes this freedom from the user and often makes it impossible to be completely sure the product can be used on owned hardware.
DRM appears, to the public at least, as a dying effort to control media from large production companies when technology has moved on and made current market platforms unrealistic. They offer no real solution for the future and currently hinder honest members of the public who legitimately purchase their goods. In any other business, harming your customer base would be seen as corporate suicide but strangely it accepted as the 'norm' in the entertainment world.
A word of warning to companies that use DRM, when a product is sold containing this malicious piece of software the succeed only in turning more customers to piracy. Anyone with even a basic grasp of the internet can use Bit Torrent websites where the exact same products are readily available for free and as an added bonus have been hacked to remove DRM allowing full, unhindered use.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00323 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 11:21:29 AM |
| Organization: |
Self |
| Commenter: |
Nelson Ingersoll |
| 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 deprives honest users from exercising their rights of possession in perpetuity. The technologies used expose the honest users to harm such as, in the case of software DRM, root-kits and other software which opens the user's computers to external malware without their knowledge.
DRM has not demonstrated that it truly protects the objects from supposed inappropriate use. However, it has demonstrated that it harms users.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00324 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 11:25:05 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Nick Brosnahan |
| 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 have in the past purchased DRM-encumbered music and have in general been disappointed in the interoperability of the media with different playback devices. Content purchased in one DRM camp is incompatible by design with playback devices from a different DRM camp. It is irritating and makes me steer clear of purchasing DRM-encumbered content of any form.
As a specific example, consider Blu-ray. I do not own a Blu-ray player, even knowing the benefits of a higher-resolution picture and better audio quality, because I know that DRM is rampant throughout the Blu-ray ecosystem.
Simply because I cannot legally rip the content off a Blu-ray disk and play it unencumbered on my Mac, PC, or mobile devices, I will not buy into this market. In this case, DRM acts as a barrier to my freely moving content that I have purchased between the various devices that I have also purchased. This is unacceptable and I am voting with my pocketbook.
Consider another example, the iTunes Music store recently made a significant shift away from DRM-encumbered content and I am now much more happy with their solution since I can safely purchase content from them and play it back on any device that I have which understands the format.
In my mind, there are really only two exits from the DRM-encumbered world.
1) Eliminate it entirely. There is no benefit to the consumer and the consumer knows this. They will only reluctantly buy into this space because it is filled with lions, tigers, and bears worth of frustration. Freely available decrypting software makes content protection effectively neutered anyway, so their content is ripped and distributed without DRM. It is only a barrier and irritation to paying customers.
2) Standardize it. If DRM-encumbered products were required to interoperate, a standard would emerge and the consumer would no longer encounter the "Balkanized DRM problem". Music purchased with DRM from iTunes would play back just fine on a Zune if both Apple and Microsoft were required to cross-license their DRM technologies or adhere to a DRM playback standard. If the movie industry were required to make playback of their movies distributed on physical media or over streaming technologies publicly interoperable by any party, then I would have no issue purchasing any content or device, because I would know that as a consumer, I would be safe and have fewer irritations.
The first of these solutions is much easier and cheaper to implement and manage. To choose the more expensive and error-prone standardization route is to invite a layer of interoperability pain that the consumer and manufacturers derive no real benefit from.
Ask any content manufacturer if they believe DRM works all the time and they would have to honestly say no. Ask any consumer if DRM causes them to think twice about purchasing, and they would have to say yes.
It's a bad idea and it should go away.
Sincerely,
Nick Brosnahan
| Comment Number: |
539814-00325 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 11:28:54 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Pilkington |
| 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 personally feel DRM is a punishment for legitimately buying a product. Many pirated copies of games will incorporate a "crack" to bypass any DRM measures, yet users who have purchased the game will be inconvenienced by the DRM and if they themselves apply any "cracks" or modifications to bypass the DRM, they will be in-breach of the license agreement.
Take for instance the recently released game "Grand Theft Auto IV" which I purchased for PC. To play this game, I had to register 3 accounts with different websites and download 3 pieces of software, including "securom", which took over an hour, for what should have been a 2 minute installation process. To save progress on this game I must be connected to the internet and be logged into "Games for Windows LIVE". Users who pirated the software would not have had to deal with any of this.
In short, DRM is useless and counter productive; it disadvantages the legitimate user and does nothing to stop piracy, or the second hand market (as a user who has acquired the game second hand can also easily apply a crack).
| Comment Number: |
539814-00326 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 11:45:29 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Michael Shick |
| 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:
DRM should be used very sparingly, if at all, because it often acts as an incentive to pirates so they can avoid jumping through hoops just to play their games. Spore on the PC is perfect evidence of this. Having famously limiting DRM, it became the most pirated game of all time (http://torrentfreak.com/spore-most-pirated-game-ever-thanks-to-drm-080913/).
That seems to me to be working against both people's enjoyment of the content they buy and against the goals of preventing piracy.
It is also noteworthy that Apple iTunes is converting to an almost entirely DRM free system (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/06itunes.html), and already have to some extent with no trouble (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/02itunes.html). Sales have not plummeted, and people continue to buy music legitimately with the same zeal as before. Thank you.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00327 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 11:46:47 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Parsons |
| 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:
Why is it illegal to make a backup copy of a movie that I own. With kids that are not old enough to care for a movie and also not old enough to know that they will damage the movie when it is not cared for it is illogical to not have a backup.
I now have two children under 5 and have three movies that can not be played all the way through from scratches to the disk. If I had backups for these movies this would be a none issue as I could use the backup as a disk for the kids and the original can be safely stored in case the backups gets damaged and needs to be thrown out and replaced.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00328 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 11:48:15 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Chiu |
| 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 game developer, I recognize the importance of copy protection. However, I believe that the restrictive DRM measures used by most companies these days hurt only the honest consumers by limiting what they can do with the product they have purchased. When I purchase a game, I expect to be able to install it as many times as I want to, regardless if my computer has changed or not. In the end, the simplest form of copy protection will deter the common consumer from pirating, while even the most restrictive DRM measures won't stop the computer savvy consumers from pirating.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00329 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 11:48:48 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Joseph Hatcher |
| 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:
While some can see the value of protecting IPs once they are out in the wild, so that the creator can make money off of his works, other people simply see that zeros and ones are just that, data.
Those others view that data is free, all info is free. It is hard to fight that mindset.
Some things that help contribute to this mindset are high prices for physical media, and similar prices for the media in digital/download form.
Music CDs should not cost more then $10 retail.
DVD AND Blu-ray movies should not cost more then $20 retail.
Video games should not cost more then $40 retail.
Their digital counterparts should be discounted enough to be a good value, but not hardcopy retail form.
Consumers feel cheated because of this, and it helps push people toward piracy.
One way around this is to monetize data with ads, like over the air TV has done for decades. People are use to getting TV and radio for free. As they make the transition to more advanced electronics, this same mindset carries over.
DRM technologies hinder what consumers can do with their own media, and angers everyone else. DRM is NOT effective past a few days, a few weeks at maximum.
If IP creators think: "yeah, but we can make the most money in the first few days before its cracked", then they know their product is of low enough quality, that after a few days, word will get around about how low quality their product is.
It is a fine balance between making something worth buying to people who can get it for free, and selling a low quality product in a small time window at high prices.
Think of it as the battle for over the air TV versus cable or satellite. Same delivery methods, similar products, but different features and prices.
More research should be done directly with consumers, and the creators of IPs to help establish some guidelines to help offset piracy.
It comes down to price, convenience, quality, and the ways the user can use what they have purchased.
Trying to control what consumers can do with something once they buy it is pointless. Work within the limits given, and grow from there.
Good day.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00330 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 11:54:44 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Carlos Martins |
| 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:
DRM, although it might sound good in "theory" has been very poorly implemented.
If we weigh consumer satisfaction against it, I believe there should never be - in any way - allowed a system that makes it harder/impossible to access the thing he bought.
Not to mention all those DRM schemes we frequently see going out of business or shutting down servers - leaving thousands of paying customers with no access to their legally bought products. That's just insane...
If I buy a game, I should I be forced to install additional (often virus-like) software to play it?
If I choose a full-install, why should I be forced to keep the DVD in the drive to play it?
If I buy online music, why should I only be able to play it in one my players, or one at a time, or requiring internet connection to verify I can listen to it?
If I buy an ebook, why can't I transfer it to my iPhone to read it whenever I feel like it, even though I still want to be abel to read it on my PC, or Mac, or Linux computer?
The only "right" way to implement DRM is to figure a way (if there's one) that doesn't mess with my own personal rights to handle the products I bought as I see fit.
Until that day comes, people would be far better off without any of the current DRM protections that are more of a nuisance to consumers than an effective means to protect anything.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00331 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 11:57:39 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Casey |
| 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:
In our digital age it has become imperative for companies to protect their investments. It is understandable that corporations wish to protect their product thus Digital Rights Management has become a necessity. I as a consumer have no right to tell software creators how to or how not to protect their software. However, such protections must be clearly advertised to the consumer.
Clearly displayed on every food product we purchase is a nutrition label which advises us of the content of our food. On the side of a cigarette box the surgeon general warns us of the dangers of the product we have purchased. Over the counter medications and prescription drug packaging advises us of possible side effects. Is it so unreasonable to ask for the same full disclosure to be clearly displayed on the packaging of a DRM protected piece of software?
Why is this not already industry standard? Requiring a product to clearly display such restrictions seems to be common sense. During your discussions, I strongly advise that you consider requiring Digital Rights Management requirements be displayed clearly on the packaging of all software products.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00332 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 12:08:25 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Andrew Chinery |
| 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:
DRM is, in principle, an acceptable idea. However, in practice, it is far from it.
It boils down to this - there has never been a single system of DRM that is uncrackable. The illegal option is always there, no exceptions.
Therefore, everyone who buys the software did so because they wanted to pay for it, they could have downloaded it for free or gotten it through some other illegal means, but they didn't.
Therefore, the DRM is only affecting the people who paid for it, who chose the legal route. This is only acceptable if the DRM does not inconvenience the user at all, however this is not the case. It is clear that the people who pay for software are being punished, and the people who steal are going free.
In my opinion, a more effective strategy is to make people want to pay for your product, rather than punishing those who do.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00333 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 12:10:27 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Clayton |
| 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:
There should be limits on DRM. For example, a recent EA video game was released, and they proposed that every player in a family would have to buy their own copy. As far as I am aware, this never came to fruition, however in these tough economic times, asking a family of 4 to spend $60 each on a video game is beyond ridiculous. Additionally, suppose I get a game, and want to play it on both my desktop and my laptop. As long as I own 1 copy of said game, I should be able to play 1 instance in whatever way I want. However DRM looks to circumvent this by allowing me to play said game on only 1 computer. Or, if I have 3 xbox 360 consoles in different rooms for different reasons, same concept.
Finally. Concerning music. I have 3 computers, 4 cell phones, an MP3 stereo, and my car stereo. It is far more convenient to me to leave the cd's in my car, and transfer mp3's across my other devices. Again, I am using my own media, on my own devices, that I bought a 'license' for. However, for example, Windows Media or iTunes DRM will circumvent this. One of my computers is a Linux computer. Not supported by either DRM type mentioned above. One of my phones is a Nokia. Again, not supported. Finally, my stereo is a CD player. If I can't burn a copy, I can't listen to it on my home stereo system.
In all the examples above, this *should* be considered fair use, since I paid for a license to said media. As long as I continue to be the only user, fair use should qualify if I want to use the same license across multiple computers/devices. DRM is only damaging to the end user. It costs them money for extra licenses they shouldn't need, and results in useless lawsuits filed on behalf of 'copyright' owners that rarely represent the best interests of the artist or game developer.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00334 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 12:13:07 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Josiah Peters |
| State: |
ID |
| 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 DRM can be a useful tool to protect one's investment in technology or intellectual property. However I find that most implementations of it are extremely frustrating for me the consumer.
The world in which my generation lives in, one with such reliance on technology and mobility clashes with most current forms of DRM. I find it extremely inconvenient and feel almost punished for having access to three separate personal computers that I use along with a mobile phone, video game console as well as television and radio.
Below I will explain my experiences with particular media:
1. Movies, TV or Videos:
I find it extremely frustrating that I cannot purchase a DVD and easily convert it to a format which I can upload to my Video MP3 player (ZUNE). I also find it very frustrating that I cannot skip portions of a DVD for which I paid for. COPYRIGHT information screens, trailers those should be skippable. If the DRM included on the media does not allow me to skip such things I would probably attempt to remove the DRM so that I could view it how I please. I understand that advertising may be a requirement. However having to pay full price to not have controll of the media is not something I like at all. Hulu which forces you to view Advertising in acceptable quantities without frustrating the user. I applaud hulu.
2. Music:
I find it EXTREMELY frustrating and downright malicious that a company that sells music on a CD include a form of DRM (ROOTKIT) which can be exploited to cause loss of data, stolen information, botnet participation, and spam to be inflicted upon my computer. (SONY) I would never buy a CD or application if I knew this is what would happen to my computer.
3. Software:
As a software developer myself, I understand how frustrating it can be to prevent people from using your software without purchasing it.
An example of good DRM protection is STEAM from VALVE which requires the software be registered with an account, if you are connected to the internet you are required to log in. Another example is World of Warcraft, again this is account based with a monthly fee. Lastly I cite Netflix, they allow users to stream content over the internet to a program. Netflix only allows upto three computers to be registered at one time. After one of the devices has been inactive for several months you can register another, upto 3. My only concern is that you cannot force a registered device to be inactive.
I think that DRM can be very useful however I believe that a majority of the companies who use it to protect their intellectual property abuse it to the point that it frustrates users. I no longer purchase any CDs that come from major labels for that reason.
In conclusion, Hulu, Steam, and Netflix I applaud you! Sony, EA, APPLE, and others. You frustrate me and cause me not to purchase your products.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00335 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 12:15:26 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Jeremy Grozavescu |
| 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:
When I think of all the many of DRM music and video services that have gone offline (MSN Music Store, etc...) and the additional hassles legitimate buyers have to go through to listen to their own music or watch their own videos (the recent Zune malfunction requiring an additional work around to listen to their own bought music, having to rebuy music if you reinstall your own operating system or buy a new computer too many times, etc...) it makes me sick to my stomach. The ONLY thing it does is make legitimate users, the people who actually want to buy their music and videos, fed up with the hassle and they will find it else where. That's because the alternative is dead simple.
Amazon's music store is the first place I ever bought music besides off of CD's. They were the first to get it right. I could download a .mp3 music file and then transfer it to my external hard drive, put it on any mp3 player I happen to own. Reinstall any operating system I want on my current (or future) computer as many times as I want, burn it to a CD, or use it in any future music playing device that happens to be invented. I can do what I want.
This is IMPORTANT. The argument that DRM prevents some people from casually getting copies illegitimately is bogus. Because no DRM is fool proof (it can't be! because it has to be used by the end user!) so it WILL be cracked. And then any chance of DRM had of preventing casual copying and sharing goes out the window because the hassle of putting up with DRM is offset by the ease of downloading the files without paying for them.
So the only solution that makes sense to me, and countless many others I'm sure, is to make buying music as hassle free as downloading it illegally.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00336 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 12:15:53 PM |
| Organization: |
Black Widow Company, A Gaming Community 1000 Strong |
| Commenter: |
Tim Everett |
| 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:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Committee:
The DRM is quite frankly the most useless piece of entertainment restriction since Prohibition. I use the term "pirate" very loosely, and only to identify with people who use that term (a pirate steals without giving back). Pirates that steal games and electronic media have ALWAYS been ahead of bodies like the RIAA and technology like DRM. I work hard for my money and I am an avid gamer who buys games off the shelf. If I so desired, I could download *ANY* game on the internet at places like Piratebay.com. I know people who can "rip" (that is, copy and upload) a game fresh off the shelf and out of the box. That's with DRM technology.
All DRM is, is a lazy attempt at protection. It is useless, increases the costs of games, and takes up valuable space. It does not stop, let alone deter, any halfway-decent 15-yr old teenager who really wants to spread their new toy on the net for free. It is a righteous and royal pain in the you-know-what for responsible, law-abiding gamers. It is a malicious act designed to punish responsible, legitimate gamers. Half of the time (the actual number is about 47-48%, so round up), the DRM coding simply prevents players from playing a game they bought without massive patching (the process of fixing a game). Sometimes, legitimate gamers simply go download the program files off the net for the very game they bought. Does it royally tick me off when someone steals from me? Heck yeah. However, DRM is not the answer. And companies like Microsoft just shove DRM down our throats, which in turn increases piracy. Furthermore, DRM technology is utter crap - so you have a company charging sixty bucks for a game that may or may not work properly. Because it's Microsoft, there's no accountability. Consumers can vote with their wallets, but really what's the point? It's Microsoft, mega-giant monopoly.
I will close with a quote from a highly-placed industry executive named Gabe Newell at a company named Valve. And I quote, "As far as DRM goes, most DRM strategies are just dumb. The goal should be to create greater value for customers through service value (make it easy for me to play my games whenever and wherever I want to), not by decreasing the value of a product (maybe I'll be able to play my game and maybe I won't). We really really discourage other developers and publishes from using the broken DRM offerings, and in general there is a groundswell to abandon those approaches."
Additionally, Ryan Miller of Microsoft's own Games for Windows concurs. He states on his blog, and I quote, "I think the problem with DRM is not so much the particular method used, but the attitude behind it. It makes us feel like we're all being punished for the sins of the few. It is also pretty clear that most DRM is not a problem for the pirates, just for the legitimate consumers. These two factors combine to make a ton of bad feelings on the consumer side."
Regards, and /signed
Tim Everett
Taxpaying Consumer
US Citizen
Avid Gamer
| Comment Number: |
539814-00337 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 12:28:02 PM |
| Organization: |
n/a |
| Commenter: |
Leachman House |
| 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've had CD's get stuck in drive, caught in the drive tray and irreparably damaged, I have had CD/DVD storage devices that do more scratching to the media than leaving the disk data side up near a TV, and don't get me started on friends/relatives or just using the thing...
VHS/Cassettes the biggest issue with them is fire and/or a strong magnet passing by them which in truth make them better as far as direct physical wear and tear. CDs/DVDs etc, biggest issue is the slightest scratch can make the thing useless irregardless to fire or magnets. It is therefore mandatory that these things be made reproducible for PERSONAL use.
Otherwise, my only opinion is there are quite a few tools that a computer, device and/or object that required to have certain parts.
For instance, a local retailer has a sale on a couch that is apart of a complete set for $100 but each attachment that was supposed to go with the couch, even if it is SMALLER and does not necessarily recline or anything else, is greater $300.
Is that not economic entrapment?
Look how many times Windows was rushed for release only to be patched into no tomorrow from new bugs, security holes. Windows CD the couch, each annoying patch and/or upgrade, the attachments costing in something far worse than mere money, TIME. The patches and upgrades still in their own right cost money at times as well, both directly as new versions and indirectly in repairing damage/break-ins due to a negligent product.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00338 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 12:28:07 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Romano |
| 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 purchased most Sims 2 (EA games) expansion packs and stuff packs as well as the base game. Securom, a DRM, was installed on my system with the Bon Voyage and subsequent expansion/stuff packs, without either my knowledge or my consent. I did not have some of the problems that many are complaining about but this malware did affect my ability to use my CD/DVD burner in ways that are perfectly legal. I tried to record a few songs from some of my own store-bought CDs to create a mix for listening in my car. The Securom software prevented me from doing so and ruined more than a half-dozen CDs before I even realized that this was causing the problem. I was not doing anything illegal and certainly should have been able to make copies, for my own personal use and backup, of my legally store-purchased CDs. Then, I tried to make a copy of a software title I again purchased legally at a store, as a backup to protect myself should anything happen to my original DVD but again Securom prohibited me from doing so, again ruining several DVDs in the process. The last straw was when I was unable to back-up my own computer files onto either CD or DVD, to protect my file contents, as a result of Securom.
While I understand that EA has a right to protect it's own software, they have no right to distribute it with malware that affects customers' legal usage of their own computers. In effect, by using Securom, EA has made itself the arbiter of how one is permitted to legally use his or her own CD/DVD drivers/burners and software related to this function.
In closing, I am a middle-aged mother of three. I am a law abiding citizen. However, by installing Securom, a malware that affects my legal computer usage, EA has left me with only one of three choices:
1) to uninstall and never use the Sims 2 expansion packs and stuff packs that I paid for yet cannot return for a refund
2) to continue using the game packs but use an illegal pirated no-CD hack to avoid the installation of Securom onto my computer, turning me into a criminal
3) to install the Securom-infected packs and be treated as though I am already a criminal due to the DRM's affecting my legal usage of my CD/DVD burner to make backup copies of legally purchased music and software CDs and prohibiting me from using my CD/DVD drives to legally back up my own computer's files.
None of these options are acceptable however I have chosen the first option and have not installed the Securom-infected Sims 2 packs on my new computer, leaving me out of pocket over $100 because I can't safely use these packs and I cannot return them for a refund.
I realize that companies must protect themselves from software piracy but in doing using DRM malware, they are treating all customers as though they are probable criminals, in effect punishing us before a crime has even been committed. This is not fair to the majority who are honest, law-abiding individuals who purchase these game titles to spend a few hours on home entertainment. Most of us have no intention of spending our hard-earned money on software to turn around and just give it away, illegally, to someone else. All software purchasers should not be punished for the possible actions of a minority who will illegally distribute pirated software, especially when these people always manage to a way around it and are therefore not suffering the consequences of the DRM malware in any event.
As such, I hope that the FTC will protect consumers, as it is mandated, and properly investigate and stop companies like EA from installing harmful DRM malware onto unsuspecting customers computers.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00339 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 12:39:37 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Joseph Simons |
| 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:
As a game developer and player, I feel that some forms of DRM are essential in order to help combat piracy. However, when DRM hinders or interrupts the experience the valid customers rightly paid for, then it should be either reconsidered or removed. Intrusive DRM is difficult to remove from your system or that limits the number of installs or anything else that is not obviously stated to the customer only helps fuel the piracy that DRM is trying to prevent. Especially since most modern forms of DRM are still easily removed by pirates, many times even before the retail version of the game is available. Valve and their Steam system is an example of a good DRM system that is flexible and does its job well without intruding on the customers' experience. Stardock also is a champion of loose DRM restrictions and have even put together a Gamers' Bill of Rights that states their views and goals. I believe they also do a very good job of handling DRM.
In short, DRM needs to be a non-intrusive mechanism with its limitations clearly stated up front for the customer. While I do not think that restricting what valid consumers want to do with their purchased product is a sound business decision, it is up to the right handlers to decide. However, if their decision is to use a DRM system that might have undue hardship or potential negative consequences on the consumers, especially if this is not made clear before purchase, then it should be illegal in some fashion as it is lying to the consumer about what they are buying. In many cases, I believe that piracy is still a rampant problem that is fueled by these bad DRM systems or restrictive rights usage requirements that the media is saddled with. While we cannot prevent the rights holders from wanting to restrict what valid consumers do with their content, we can make it more fair to the consumer so they understand what they are purchasing, and hopefully help the rights holders to understand that their restrictions are only helping add to the piracy problem that they are trying to prevent.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00340 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 12:53:55 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
J Wilcurt |
| 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: |
539814-00340.pdf |
Comments:
I'm going to take the assumption that I'm breaking ranks with my fellow anti-DRM commenters. I won't talk about how DRM has personally affected me because it really hasn't. If a product has DRM, I just don't buy it. Instead, I'll talk about people I've come across who have been tricked into purchasing DRM products and the losses they subsequently incurred.
I work for a consumer electronics store. My job involves helping my customers with their technology woes. I can't put a percentage on how many of these woes are DRM related, only to say that even one customer is too many. The point is, these customers, who legally paid for music/movies/software, are now paying even more money so someone can help them use it.
I can't tell you how frustrating it is when I have to tell my customers "Sorry, this just isn't going to work the way you believed it would." When they asks why their friends can do whatever it is they're trying to do, I tell them "That's because your friends didn't purchase their music. They illegally downloaded it and ironically have more freedom to use their product than you do."
You play by their rules. You try to be honest and it means you're restricted. That's why you should think of DRM as Digital Restriction Management.
Real examples of customers paying me to fix DRM problems.
1. I bought this DVD and it plays on my DVD player but won't play on my computer.
Answer: This disc is copyright protected and a patch needs to be downloaded from Dell.
Costs: $130
2. I never used to have problems with my Blu-Ray player, but now half of my library of movies won't play.
Answer: Blu-Ray uses DRM. You have to constantly upgrade the firmware of your Blu-Ray player or you won't be able to watch new movies. I understand that you don't have high-speed internet in your area, so this may cause a problem.
Costs: $100
3. I spent a lot of money on this media server to store all of my movies so I can watch them whenever I want without having to eject and insert a disc. Now you're telling me it can't be done?
Answer: Legally you are allowed to have one backup copy of a movie you purchased, for example, backing it up to your media server. However, thanks to the DMCA, it is illegal to break the encryption of the DVD even though you honestly paid for it. Sorry, but I can't help you.
Costs: $100
4. AT&T told me I have High Definition, but this doesn't look like Hi-Def.
Answer: Due to ongoing complications with HDCP (Hi-Def copyright protection), U-Verse boxes can't display HD content through all HDTV's. To make your service reliable, albeit degraded in quality, AT&T downgraded you to analog 480p. Technically, 1080p is being delivered to your box, but until AT&T can fix their DRM, you're picture is no better than standard cable. Don't expect support for this or reimbursement by AT&T. You were lied to and you just have to deal with it.
Costs: $130
DRM locks honest consumers out of their legally purchased products and does absolutely nothing to halt those that are determined to pirate. Pirates get their products for free. Monetarily free, DRM free and the freedom to use their product anyway they want. Meanwhile, the honest consumers pay double due to the "DRM tax". The tax that comes in the form of paying someone to educate them on the rules that come with their DRM product and the tax they pay for getting half the functionality.
The principles of the free market would assume that if DRM is really a problem to the consumer, then the consumer would simply opt to not purchase products containing DRM. However, 2 things are not being taken into account.
1. Consumers almost never find out that their product contains DRM until it's too late to return the product.
2. Consumers are sometimes willing to pay someone to help them with their product because they blame themselves for not knowing enough about technology.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00341 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 12:57:07 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
John Fiala |
| 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 is one of those things which seems like a good idea in theory, but never seems to quite work out in practice. There's two things that I'd like to point out:
1) The inconvenience only falls upon the paying customer, not on the pirate. The paying customer has to deal with the DRM every time they try to use the product they've paid for - whether it's light or heavy, the customer has to handle entering in a product key, or having his computer connect with a server on the internet to use or copy his content. Once the content has been pirated, however, the person who steals the content has no such inconvenience, as they have full access to the item. Penalizing the person who pays never seems to work. Some DRM, I will admit, has little or low problems most of the time, but even if it's invisible to the user, there's my second note.
2) DRM only works as long as the sponsoring company is around or wants to support it. Fictionwise is currently having to deal with people who have bought books online who are now going to possibly lose what they have already paid for because of Overdrive shutting down in a month. WalMart was going to just shut down their DRM service for electronic music, and only a loud outcry from their customers convinced them to continue - this DRM that they imposed is now an extra cost that they have to pay indefinately.
Many companies in the music realm seem to be realizing that using DRM is slowly killing their business - Apple is finally been given permission to sell music without it, for instance. Other businesses, such as games, movies, and ebooks, will have to learn the same harsh lessons over time, apparently not willing to see that it's already failed for one business.
DRM sounds like a good idea, as I stated, but it just doesn't work in the long run. People are not willing to pay money for something that they think they should own, but only own until someone pulls the plug on the servers.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00342 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 1:10:37 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Ian Smith |
| 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:
I think that greater amounts of disclosure to consumers about DRM would be a fine step, but it is really beside the point. The major point that the FTC should be considering is that DRM is not effective at controlling piracy (check the statistics on pirated music or the speed at which new video games are available for free on the internet) while, at the same time, it punishes consumers who have legitimately purchased a product.
I personally have purchased video games with DRM so onerous that I could not actually play my copy of the game. Not only that, but many newer iterations of DRM (such as SecuROM, found on many current video games) have install limits that are enforced by requiring the user to electronically submit a code over the Internet (and sometimes to submit personal information along with the code). What happens when these games are no longer current and the company no longer wishes to provide the bandwidth to run the server that checks the code? Is the game that I paid for simply unplayable? What, then, have I actually purchased?
Moreover, many companies that use DRM seem to think that any measures, no matter how intrusive, may be used in the name of protecting their intellectual property. Take, for instance, the SonyBMG rootkit that caused a minor scandal for the company in 2005. The DRM measures there surreptitiously installed themselves and caused major damage to many user's computers. The DRM was so difficult to eradicate from a computer that Sony had to issue a special tool so users could delete the DRM --- and then the tool caused a backdoor that hackers could use to exploit users systems. The kicker to that sad story is that Sony's DRM didn't prevent anyone from ripping music from Sony's music CDs. All you had to do was hold down the SHIFT key when inserting the music CD to prevent Windows' AutoRun function from installing the DRM.
I do not dispute that companies and individuals have the right to protect their intellectual property. But the consumer must have rights as well. The holder of intellectual property should not be given carte blanche to trample the rights of lawful consumers in the name of the protection of intellectual property. Currently, that is the only thing DRM accomplishes, because it certainly does not actually protect intellectual property. As such, I submit that perhaps the FTC should consider how best to protect the consumer and to leave those who wish to protect intellectual property to devise a method for doing so that is actually effective.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00343 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 1:12:32 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
J Macedo |
| 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 ineffective. Check out 2dboy's write up about using DRM in games...
via - http://2dboy.com/2008/11/13/90/
"in our case, we might have even converted more than 1 in a 1000 pirates into legit purchases. either way, ricochet shipped with DRM, world of goo shipped without it, and there seems to be no difference in the outcomes. "
| Comment Number: |
539814-00344 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 1:18:29 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Dark |
| 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:
Very simply put. DRM is an attempt to place control that was not originally there. Going back through the history of entertainment, the roots are as follows.
A person performs.
Audience enjoys.
Audience contributes.
Examples are... Nine Inch Nails earns a profit in the millions from a free distribution. Fans were encouraged to pay what they believe was the worth of the music.
In this day and age, there is no need for CD makers, producers and other middle men.
In terms of the movies, movies should find ways to cut costs and dont limit the customer. DVD's are sold and resold or given away for free as gifts after a person has bought them. This should be the same for digital versions.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00345 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 1:34:48 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Hernandez |
| 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:
DRM is an unnecessary and damaging form of technology. It does not deter pirates, who quickly find ways of bypassing it. Worse, it penalizes honest consumers by restricting the ways in which they can use their legally purchased content. One can even take the point of view that DRM encourages piracy. Since pirated content provides total freedom of use, consumers who know that their options for obtaining content (be it games, music, or movies) are to either purchase a crippled version from the rightful distributor or to retrieve it from extralegal sources for free without restrictions on use, the pirated material appears to be the obvious choice. DRM will not curb piracy, DRM'd content does not provide an enhanced consumer experience, and the costs of developing and applying DRM are unfairly passed on to consumers. This harmful technology must be abandoned altogether if media distribution as we know it is to remain viable.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00346 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 1:35:23 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Lucas Cantor |
| 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 only an annoying to legitimate customers, and doesn't stop the real criminal pirates from copying and distributing music! Please abolish DRM!
| Comment Number: |
539814-00347 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 1:41:12 PM |
| Organization: |
na |
| Commenter: |
Jay Turley |
| 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:
DRM is an attempt to impose artificial scarcity on a domain of abundance. I understand how critical this is to the business models of media producers like movie studios, music companies, and video game shops, but trying to restrict digital media has been poorly implemented, and currently all it does is frustrate consumers.
In 2008, we saw several large DRM providers go out of business, although due to consumer outcry, some chose to stay alive for a while. However, all the others essentially destroyed the media libraries of all those consumers who bought their media legally. While those who pirated their content had no such problem.
DRM only hurts the legal consumers. My friends have songs they bought on iTunes that they can't play on their phones, because of DRM restrictions. Companies have installed rootkits on the PCs of their legal customers in vain and illegal attempts to control how they use their purchases.
In addition, it simply isn't true that piracy and/or free availability (for which DRM is ostensibly the solution) damages sales. The most-pirated movie of 2008 - The Dark Knight Returns, was also the highest-selling movie of the year. The best-selling album of the year on Amazon, NIN's Ghosts, was given away for free on Trent Reznor's site.
By enshrining DRM in our legal foundation, all we will be doing is selling out our privacy rights to the media corporations. I don't believe that my government should be in the business of helping companies maintain antiquated business models. New models like hulu.com, emusic.com, and even iTunes (which just started selling DRM-free music) prove that there is an extensive market for non-DRM'd media, and that money can be made.
So I urge you to fight against the ridiculous notion that you should be helping content producers control how people use their products, and instead take a step into the future where the best content continues to make tons of money, without mistreating their customers. DRM is a bad solution looking for a problem, and the sooner we get rid of it, the sooner we can all move forward into newer and possibly even more profitable spaces.
Sincerely,
Jay Turley
| Comment Number: |
539814-00348 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 1:54:55 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Chris Anderson |
| 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 an abomination. Ban it entirely.
I have the right to use the product that I purchased in any method I choose. It's mine; EULA's and click-wraps and non-negotiable contracts that I'm forced to agree to aside. The moment I purchase something, it's mine. You relinquish control over it.
DRM tries to maintain the original ownership of the seller, even in the face of the sale. It's morally wrong.
DRM stops me from watching a show that I recorded on my Tivo on my PC at work. Why? I paid for the cable channel, I paid for my PC, I paid for my recording device... yet I can't watch a show that I recorded on another device.
DRM stops me from playing a game installed on my desktop computer at home and on my laptop while I travel. Why? I paid for the software, I should be able to run it where I want.
DRM stops me from listening to a song that I purchased on iTunes on a device other than my ipod. Why? I own the copy that I purchased! What right does some 3rd party have to tell me how I can use it?
The "lost revenue" numbers from the BSA, RIAA, and MPAA have been shown time and again to be entirely fictional. There is no known economic impact from removing DRM entirely from the landscape. In fact, recent events, such as artists selling their albums directly over the internet, giving away albums for free, and exploring new business models show that there's plenty of room to grow.... if the record industry, the game industry, and the movie industry chose to pursue it.
Yet, they cling to outmoded business models, and try to enforce their image of how the consumer and industry should purchase and use their products. Even though the economic and technological landscape has changed -- and their business models are outdated.
Consumer piracy is a reaction to business practices being shoved down consumers throats that make no sense. Let's bring business practices into line with what consumers want, and consumer piracy would vanish overnight.
Get RID of DRM ENTIRELY!
| Comment Number: |
539814-00349 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 1:59:09 PM |
| Organization: |
Not part of one |
| Commenter: |
L Gray |
| 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:
First off I would like to state that all media developers, video game, music, films, etc have the right to protect what they have created.
Digital Rights Management is only one such method of protecting their intellectual properties, though if you look in quite a few cases it is not a successful model. DRM software has problems that need to be rectified. These flaws include evasive and difficult to remove software and root kits, proven cases of false positives telling a consumer that he or she is a pirate and cannot install their legally purchased software. DRM also dose not seem to slow down or even stop pirates.
This concerns me as a Canadian citizen as we are the United States closest trading partner and 90% of the products I purchase be it film, music, and gaming are a US developed and sold product. Hell I bought a Zune in Idaho because I couldn't buy one at home.
Most of the flaws in DRM need to be looked at back at the drawing board and developmental stages.
Support of DRM under certain guide lines, like the examples I have listed below.:
1) DRM software must not create security flaws in my computers operating system.
2) The developer must in a very obvious manor tell me they are installing DRM software on my computer, Developer must also provide the tools to remove the software when I am no longer using their product.
3) DRM software must not collect any data from my computer, anonymous or other!
4) Companies who choose to use DRM and DRM producers should be held liable if said DRM cause undue stress to a consumer or causes damage to a users computer. See the Sony Root kit law suit in reference to their Sony/BMG Root kit DRM.
What I listed are some of the guide lines that could be considered. Think about it this way Cars have locks, but if you go out to the parking lot and one day the key to your legally purchased car no longer works due to a manufacturer flaw, that would be unacceptable. Or if the car manufacturer collected the data about all the trips you take how much you weight or how many people ride in you car on average and then sends it back to their company for undisclosed reasons, would that also not be acceptable?
Companies that produce and use DRM software need to be more concerned with customers that have the misfortune to be treated like criminals. I'm sure most are familiar with the terms innocent until proven guilty, DRM software doesn't see the world like that, which is dangerous.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00350 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 1:59:15 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Damien Quamme |
| 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 a bad idea. It takes away your rights to software that you legally own. It allows the chance for these large companies to take advantage of people. Wal-mart and Microsoft have already done this to us. They stop supporting the DRM making your purchased item no longer functional. Then they can start a new scheme which they could later down the line stop supporting. They take away what you bought without compensation or an explanation.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00351 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 2:05:34 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Anthony McDowell |
| 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 is completely useless. Piracy will still happen no matter what. As DRM evolves, so does piracy. So DRM only hurts the honest consumer. New DRM is usually broken in less than a day. The honest consumer is hurt by DRM because it usually is damaging to computer systems, or causes the paid for, and usually expensive program to become inoperable because the consumer is accused of wrong-doing, even if they did nothing wrong.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00352 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 2:06:00 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Warner Blake |
| 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:
I am an opponent of the entire DRM scheme. Throughout the years I have had to routinely backup my files and save them so I would be able to repair the damage caused by a majority of the DRM schemes out there. Namely SecuROM, which installs a rootkit on your computer that is nearly impossible to remove without a degree in technology(Luckily for me I happen to have about 18 years of experience in computer software repair and modification). I think it should be deemed unlawful to install these backdoor devices which run subroutines to "phone home" as it were, whenever the company feels like "checking in" with my computer software. I purchase my software legitimately and feel that having entrance to my computer, through an open port in my firewall has the potential to cause many dollars worth of damage to my computer, which I will then have to repair out of my own pocket. I think Congress needs to realize that the protection of American citizens is far and away more important than the protection of American Corporations. If 10% of the people who gain access to their product do so through nefarious means, then they are losing 10% of their product to pirates, 9% of whom would not have purchased it to begin with. So an overall loss of 1%, which is paltry in comparison to the amount of money an American citizen would lose if the channel they have to access his/her computer at any time should fall prey to hackers, and then those hackers would be able to gain access to his/her personal, financial, medical, and identity information. This could end up costing the average American citizen somewhere in the range $10,000-100,000, all because we made it legal for software giants to treat their developers like worthless garbage and install malware in our computers to protect 1% of their market.
So I must implore you to END this oppressive DRM scheme, as it is not worth millions of American citizens losing money to the threat of hackers, to the tune of a few billion dollars if their financial information is leaked, to save 1% of a corporations total sales.
Thank you very much for listening.
A concerned American citizen,
Warner H. Blake II
| Comment Number: |
539814-00353 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 2:09:16 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
David Bennett |
| 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 as it is envisioned and implemented is a failure and continuing to push it forward will impose and economic burden on distribution of electronic media that will handicap the US (in this area) moving forward.
On the envisioning side, to use analogy, DRM represents a castle or fortress wall, and the attackers must work to get inside. This works well when what what is inside stays inside. Unfortunately, the media that DRM is intended to protect doesn't stay neatly inside of the walls. It moves to different formats and standards over time, making it a moving target.
On the implementation side, methods to subvert DRM are readily available due to the nature of devices they are implemented on.
Legislation to stifle innovation and protect corporations eventually fails. It fails through either being bypassed by new technology, or being supplemented by a substitute technology if the physical issues with bypassing the technology are insurmountable.
I could go on, but in essence, existing scenarios envision a fortress that must be protected. The industry needs to change directions and develop flexible protection that is intertwined with the product and can be utilized to identify, capture, and penalize miss use, not stifle use in the first place.
The technology and capability to do it already exists. Hopefully the intelligence and will to actually implement it will emerge before more harm is done to innocents and the industry in general.
Regards,
David B. Bennett
| Comment Number: |
539814-00354 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 2:12:10 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Jacob Morrison |
| 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:
Hello! First, I'd like to apologize on behalf of gamers everywhere for the drek and insults you have likely had to wade through. A lot of us don't have the experience or capacity for social interactions. I also ask that you forgive me for saying what I am sure you have heard before; I am sure you are familiar with the situation, likely more so than I am, however, I feel I must speak my piece. That said, I feel that DRM is an immoral tool that corporations use to capitalize on the ignorance and goodwill of the public. Quite simply put, we as a species are now globally interconnected. We are moving into a new social paradigm; the rules and guidelines that we have lived with up until now are changing. The future of human civilization depends on us being more open, on sharing, on letting go of things like avarice and control. Information wants to be free. We need to let it go. Not only does DRM jeopardize the very freedom of humanity, but the corporations seeming desire to keep the population ignorant of their motives is even worse.
I, for one, am a very moral person. I am not religious in any sense of the word, I just firmly believe in a lawful and moral code. As such, I do not "pirate" music or software. But there are times I want to. Times when I can't afford to pay for music. Especially in this recession. So I find it a great shame that when I CAN pay for music; when I take my hard earned money and indulge myself in paying for what I believe should be free, that I am forced to purchase a version of it that is locked to my computer or iPod.
Example: iTunes forces you (until recently, but their solution to this is to make you pay $0.30 a song to strip the DRM, which is hardly ideal) to download songs in their proprietary .m4p format, which is DRM locked. I'd like to listen to a band, and then be able to send that music on to, say, my brother, recommending that he listen to it, and then purchase it on his own. Yes, I could purchase the .m4a version of that song, which is DRM unlocked; but then I have to spend an additional thirty cents per song. That doesn't sound like much, but it adds up quick. At this moment, to free all my iTunes music from DRM will cost me $148.79. Putting it, for the foreseeable future, out of my reach. In this example, the corporation involved forces DRM on the consumer, dictating the activities a legally purchased copy can be used for. Conversely, if one were to go out and buy a CD of the exact same music, they could easily share it amongst friends, broadening the reach of the band involved, and spreading joy and music to those less fortunate.
Example: There was a big kerfuffle in 2005, with Sony BMG at the center of it. Sony BMG saw fit to install a rootkit protection to roughly 102 different titles. This rootkit invisibly installed itself onto Windows-based computers, interfering with the way the computer ran CDs. By it's very nature, it opened up security vulnerabilities at the lowest level of the computer; vulnerabilities that would easily allow malicious hackers access to those systems. Not only did Sony BMG not take into account those possibilities, they downright scoffed at the fact people were upset about it. Famously, Thomas Hesse, who is Sony BMG's Global Digital Business President, told reporter Neda Ulaby; "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?" It is that kind of callous thinking that shows how dangerous DRM is. That statement shows that the intention was to keep the public ignorant, because if they were, they could get away with the murder of free speech.
Yeah, I went with the murder of free speech. Free speech is, first and foremost, about the expression of artistic ideals and opinions. The first amendment guarantees it, and DRM subverts it.
I thank you, dear reader, for taking the time to read my writing, and I urge you to take what I've said into consideration.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00355 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 2:27:09 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Josh Mikkelsen |
| 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:
DRM, in most of its current forms accomplishes nothing. Be it music, movies, or videogames, it never accomplishes its goal of preventing piracy. There simply is no solution to that problem.
Games are getting the worst of it. The more complicated DRM schemes that show up on PC games never do anything more than inconvenience a lot of people that actually bought the game. The pirates still download for free, usually before the game's even out at retail or available to download from an online store.
The best a DRM scheme can hope for is to stop only the most casual of piracy. The people who don't know how to download the ripped version, but simply try to put the disc in one drive and copy it to another disc. Those people are easy to stop with CD keys and a one time registration. That was seen as enough for a long time.
It's only over the last few years that DRM schemes have really gotten intrusive and sometimes destructive. Those schemes are the worst offenders because they never actually stop the pirates, but they do cause a number of problems for people that went the honest route and paid for the product.
The lighter kinds of DRM are generally accepted and seen as ok. The more intrusive ones like Starforce and Securerom do no more than invonvenience actual paying customers.
I had to reformat my PC's hard drive and reinstall windows after my last encounter with Starforce, and I bought the game. It was for my mother, and she never got to actually play it. Every time I install it the optical drive stops working, and nothing short of a wipe and reinstall of my Operating System ever manages to fix it.
I can say, for myself, that I've avoided purchasing quite a few PC games over the last couple years simply because of the DRM scheme involved. That's money I would have otherwise spent that stays in my bank account because I won't deal with these intrusive attempts at controlling a product. As long as the potential for problems remains, I'll be saving some extra money.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00356 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 2:44:48 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Aaron Campbell |
| 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:
Hello. I have experience as both a consumer and (formerly) a pirate of software. I have to say that the DRM measures used today do nothing to stop piracy, but do a lot to harm paying consumers.
Regardless of what DRM is used, most softwares will appear in cracked (DRM-free) form on every file share site within hours of first falling into the hands of the public.
On the other hand, people who purchase software that uses DRM often have their experience with it diminished. I've had applications refuse to run because the DRM no longer recognized my machine due to a piece of hardware I just installed. I've had games run poorly and crash because of DRM - because of this, I actually download cracked copies of every PC game I purchase, as ludicrous as that sounds. Finally, games with DRM often have no resale value because they cannot easily or reliably be installed and run on another person's computer.
Because DRM does not prevent piracy - which many game producers are well aware - but does prevent resale, one wonders if preventing paying customers from being able to re-sell their games when they're done with them is the intended effect.
So in conclusion, software DRM - in particular, computer games DRM - is a disservice to customers as well as accomplishing nothing to prevent actual piracy. It's a colossal waste of everyone's time and something should be done about it.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00357 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 2:47:21 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Brian Paulus |
| 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 that has been affected negatively by DRM technologies, specifically the "SecuROM" brand of DRM protection included in many recent computer games, I have some comments on this issue.
DRM programs such as SecuROM are fraught with peril for ordinary consumers. Such programs are usually installed in such a way that the program runs with special privileges that should be afforded to only the most trusted programs, such as the operating system or device drivers necessary to support system hardware. There is no legitimate reason that modern game software needs such elevated privileges in order to run properly.
In addition, these programs have been known to use behaviors often exploited by malicious programs (malware) in order to hide themselves on a consumer's computer system. Sony BMG's XCP (Extended Copy Protection) software, which was included on several of that company's audio CDs in 2005, is well-known example of a DRM program that exhibits this behavior.
Both issues I've pointed out pose very serious security concerns for consumer computer systems. Privileged code can be exploited in order for hackers to inject their own code, which in turn is run as privileged code. Malware-like behaviors can be piggybacked by hackers in order to hide their wrongdoings alongside the offending DRM technology. In many cases, owners of computers are unaware that such exploitable programs are being installed on their systems; often, there is no trace of such a program that is detectable by the lay computer user.
In addition to these already serious problems, these DRM technologies often hijack access to certain subsystems of the computer, most often hijacking access to the CD or DVD drives of the computer system. In these cases, all requests to access the CD or DVD drive are routed through the DRM technology, often for the purpose of determining whether the user has the original disk for the program in the drive. This hijacking of subsystems can often cause incompatibilities resulting in the failure of other legitimate programs on the computer, or in extreme cases, system crashes or operating system failure. Removal of the DRM technology to fix any problems caused is often difficult or impossible, as uninstall tools for various DRM technologies are not easily found, if they are available at all.
As for how DRM technologies have personally affected me negatively, I offer this anecdote:
Some time ago, I purchased the PC game "Star Wars: Empire At War", published by Lucas Arts. When I attempted to install the game on my computer, my antivirus software warned me that the installer was attempting to install a device driver. Finding it to be unacceptable that a game wanted to install privileged device driver code when the game included no hardware of its own, I canceled the installation. After some research, I found that the "device driver" to be installed was the SecuROM DRM technology. The game was unreturnable to the store, since it was clearly bought under a "no returns" policy, so I attempted to contact the publisher for a refund, since I considered the device driver issue to be a fatal design flaw of the product. Lucas Arts flatly refused to provide a refund, despite providing a warranty. The game still sits on a shelf, unplayable without compromising my personal computer security policy.
Since that incident, I have been careful not to purchase a single PC game that employs such DRM technologies. This means that I've missed out on many games that I would have otherwise looked forward to - many Star Wars PC games, Spore, and SimCity Societies, to name a few. Instead, I now hope for an age where companies acknowledge that I am the sole administrator of my own computer, that their programs exist on my computer solely by my grace, and that it is not OK to compromise my computer's security for their paranoid intellectial property protection regimes. I ask the FTC to help my hopes become reality.
Truly Yours,
Brian Paulus
| Comment Number: |
539814-00358 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 3:07:53 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Josh Fawcett |
| State: |
MT |
| 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 dislike DRM in it's current form, especially in spore. Install 3 times and that's it... What a waste of $50 if you format your computer frequently.
I like the type of DRM that MMORPGs use. Log in and you have full access. There should be a single company that takes care of a log-in drm type application that has a record of every game/movie/music you have ever bought and stores it in your profile. If at anytime you lose your original copy, you have the right to redownload it through that DRM application.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00359 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 3:10:15 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
tylor durden |
| 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:
When i buy digital music it will more likely than not stay digital and thus forever subject to corruption and deletion due to no cause of my own. a physical disk will always be available to me irregardless of format changes or devise failure. tying my music to a particular devise is in my mind little more than renting music, it WILL self destruct at some point in time. Just look at all the people that bought downloadable content for the X-box 360. one small failure and its all wiped out, the only recourse is to re-purchase something you are supposed to have already owned.
I no longer buy music digital or physical due 100% to the actions of the RIAA and the music industry as a whole.
their wholesale extortion tactics towards p2p downloaders in the courtroom is simply mafia tactics in my mind and i will have nothing to do with any industries that sue children and those unable to defend themselves in court. its extortion plain and simple.
the reassurances by the music industry are best described as ineffectual in practice or out right lies in regards to copy protection and digital rights management.
i could go on but they clearly resent their own customer base.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00360 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 3:21:28 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Enrico Silvestri |
| 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 last DRM protection copy on the videogames, like STARFORCE , SecuROM and tages, are orrible, and they still stand on my PC , after unistallation of the games is completed. This files , that have no chance to truly protect the game from Piracy (and you know what i mean) only cause ton of issues , problem , and some times broke DVD player or corrupt S.O. only for the peaple that buys the game.....causing all genre of problems, waste of moneys and times, and sometimes lower the performance of the game itself (like GTA4 PC version that goes well with a NODVD crack!!!)....how forget the illegal Attivation limits ?!??...this is a pain...if i must change Motherboard, HDD or something in my PC i loose an activation if i don't unistalll the game correctly....and after 3 times i can't play the game i bought!!
this is Illegal in my opinion.
and of course don't protect anything , ìpirated games are often released before sohp sell it.
savwe the money to develop finisched games and not beta games with many problem and issues that ruins experience and waste time of legal buyers.hope software house learn this asap!!
if not piracy increase and gamers wait buy games after they are fiexe d and completed with the many patches and fix released sometime the same day of the game.
Ridicoulus!!! anfd i hope illegal asap!
Sry for my bad ebnglish sir.
i appreciate this research! good work!
| Comment Number: |
539814-00361 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 3:30:42 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Adams |
| 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:
DRM is a waste of societies time and makes critisism difficult since the material cannot be copied for such a fair use purposes.
DRM is not a valid business model.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00362 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 3:39:51 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Long |
| 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 feel SecuROM should be removed from the market as it's a very damaging program that disables legitimate burning programs like Roxio/Sonic and classes these as illegitimate burning programs like Daemon Tools and Alcohol and yet the makers claim it's a perfectly safe piece of software and it doesn't damage your computer in anyway. However the amount of people who have had their comptuers severely harmed by this program has deterred me from purchasing anymore packs of my favourite game because I don't want to take the chance this program will destroy my computer. I feel EA and any other company who use it should be made to state on the packaging that SecuROM is included and that it can damage your computers software as well as hardware as numerous players have reported anti virus and internet security programs security lowered or even totally disabled, printers, iPod's flash drives, camera software as well as hard drives and CD/DVD drives being disabled by this supposedly harmless program and too many are complaining for it to be the odd computer that doesn't like this program. I don't see why I should pay 20 GB Pounds for an expansion pack and 10 GB Pounds for a stuff pack of Sims 2 that can cause hundreds of pounds worth of damage to my computer and I feel Sony should be made to admit that this program can damage your computer and that uninstalling the game doesn't remove every single file this invasive program installs on your computer and that you may need to reformat it to remove all traces of the program.
I also feel as EA has been proven to have lied that they should be forced to provide a tool to remove securom from games legally purchased and re-release the packs containing this damaging program with their previous copy protection program which didn't damage computers in anyway.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00363 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 3:47:46 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Adesanwo |
| 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 my opinion I believe DRM technology limits competition and innovation. The recent announcement by Apple of their iTunes store going DRM free is reason enough to believe that they know people were frustrated with their DRM content and were looking elsewhere for content providers.
With Apple using DRM on their content, they limited the purchased contents(music, videos, etc) use to only their products(iPod etc). This I believe gives them no incentive to improve upon their (Apple's) products because they knew if people wanted content they would have to buy it from them and people could only use the purchased items on their products.
With the frustration of having content you purchased only working on one sole device and not others of similar nature caused a lot of frustration with people, who eventually started looking else where for content providers. Apple saw this and has now succumbed the the inevitable truth about DRM: it just doesn't work. People want to be able to do whatever they want with the content they purchase and not be limited by DRM. If a content provider forces DRM on its users, majority of those users will eventually look elsewhere for DRM free content providers.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00364 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 3:58:05 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Clint Schlosser |
| State: |
KS |
| 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 locks creativity in the past and potentially loses it for future uses. The only member of society it benefits is corporations.
I also do not think it is any government's place to tell business's how to run themselves. Legal penalties should be removed and allow the companies to make their own choices on how they relate to their customers.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00365 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 4:04:10 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Erik Strawser |
| 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 personally think that DRM hurts the legitimate consumer of that product more than anything.
The pirate will crack any form of DRM within hours. Or sometimes if the game is leaked, will have the cracked version out before it even hits retail shelves.
While the people who purchased the game get to suffer with the DRM, the pirates will be on their merry little way playing the DRM free version of the game with no consequences.
If a gamer likes a game and the company making the game they will spend money to support that company, regardless of available pirate versions.
A pirate obviously doesn't care and wouldn't support the company anyway.
For these reasons I believe any DRM beyond a simple CD-Key is worthless, a waste of the game companies money, and has a negative impact on the consumers opinion of said company.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00366 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 4:16:55 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Michael Anderson |
| 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:
First, I must say that I support developers trying to make sure that they are payed for their work. As a "gamer" I enjoy the experiences that developers have brought me. This expands beyond games to even the operating systems that content needs to run on top of.
However, I am also a customer and when I buy a product I do not want to run into the many issues current DRM technology brings with it. The game may or may not work, will stay on your computer, and spy on you because you obtained a LEGAL copy of the software.
Software is a medium that is easily manipulated by millions of talented hackers. You want to play a game, but don't want to have to put your CD in every time? They have a hack for that. You have a problem? Some where out there a talented hacker has the same problem and is working a way around it.
DRM is not going to stop software piracy. The people it punishes are those who obtain legal copies. Once a single copy of a software is pirated, the fight is over. The distribution networks for pirated software will let it spread like wildfire. Those who obtained the software legally will be stuck with the DRM burden.
Why should the true and loyal customers be the ones who pay the price for other people's crimes?
| Comment Number: |
539814-00367 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 4:35:59 PM |
| Organization: |
Self |
| Commenter: |
Alan Hysinger |
| 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 have a library of music on my computer, in iTunes. I also have a TiVo device, which can play music stored on a computer. This is a handy way for me to listen to music on the TV in my bedroom, which is connected to the TiVo. Unfortunately, I am unable to listen to some of my music, this being tracks I have legitimately purchased from the iTunes music store, on said TV in my bedroom, because the Fairplay DRM imposed by iTunes is not available to TiVo. This seems pretty ridiculous to me.
Another point altogether, Trent Reznor released his most recent album for free on the internet, then had said album climb to the top of the Amazon Best Seller chart. It seems by this sample that a publishers choice to enable their audience to spaceshift their work has resulted in an increase in sales. This is quite contrary to "big content's" suggestion that DRM protects sales. Another band, Radiohead, did a "free"/pay what you think the album is worth also in 2008. I do not know the results of whether that was profitable for them, but it is worth consideration in any serious discussion of DRM.
In summary, from my perspective, DRM decreases consumer value, and decreases market value. I also believe it encourages piracy as some consumers will resort to piracy to circumvent the restrictions imposed by DRM. And the entire DRM concept has been proven time and again to be fundamentally flawed. Every DRM system of interest has been circumvented. As such, DRM ends up as an ineffective deterrent, serving only to deter legitimate paying customers.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00368 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 4:38:06 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Eric Vallone |
| 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 DRM is a necessary evil in helping prevent the spread of piracy. The goal of all DRM should be to give legal purchasers of software and media products the ability to use their content for any and all legal purposes, while preventing illegal users from accessing their content. Companies that sell media should fully and completely disclose the DRM system they are using, if any, and make explicitly clear to consumers what the limitations are. Companies also need to have policies and procedures in place to satisfy the concerns of customers, as well as provide support to those legal purchasers who are prevented from accessing their legally owned content because of the company's DRM system.
I purchase a lot of music from both iTunes and the Amazon.com MP3 store, both with and without DRM, as well as computer games from Steam, XBox Live, and PlayStation Network. I have had mostly good experiences with all of them, and have never been prevented from accessing my content for legal purposes. The best systems are those that manage the publisher's rights, while giving the user additional value to access their content when they want and how they want. Particularly, the ability of Steam customers to download their PC games onto an unlimited number of machines, essentially giving them the right to access their games wherever they are, without disks, adds tremendous value to my purchases on Steam
Thank you for your time.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00369 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 4:42:10 PM |
| Organization: |
Down WIth the FTC |
| Commenter: |
Noneof Yourbusiness |
| 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:
The FTC has no place in a matter between private enterprise and public consumption. You are a blight on free speech and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00370 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 4:45:24 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Timothy Grant |
| 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 JUST been bitten, only mildly, but still bitten by the effects of DRM. I bought the game Worldwide Soccer Manager (published by Sega) to play on my notebook computer. I'm enough of an addict that I keep it running on my computer most of the time. I decided to play a bit on my lunch hour at work, and the game crashed. I am now unable to play a game I bought and paid for because I do not carry the DVD in my briefcase.
I COULD have illegally downloaded a cracked copy of the game, and COULD be playing it right now instead of writing this comment to you, but because I chose to be a law-abiding citizen, I am being punished by a publisher who has chosen to use DRM in their product.
The only people DRM hurts are the people who play by the rules. It has no effect on anyone who chooses to not play by the rules. I would be curious to see how many video games released on the PC that included DRM were available on the file-sharing networks. I would hazard a guess that close to 100% of the A-List titles are available to pirates despite the game being shipped with DRM.
I'm tired of being penalized for playing by the rules.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00371 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 4:48:32 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Jonathan Hamm |
| 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, while in theory is a powerful tool to help companies maintain their products within intended use, simply fails to do so. A search online will provide you pirated goods for any software on the market, but that same DRM that the pirates circumvent provides a negative experience for actual owners of the software. I have talked to people who own software and install pirated versions simply because the pirated version works better. In addition, some companies install DRM so malicious that it can cause failure of the device it is installed on. I am therefore firmly against DRM that impedes the rights of those who own the software.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00372 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 5:07:51 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Ryan Gagnon |
| 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 release of the video game SPORE is a perfect example of why DRM has not and will never be a viable form of piracy control.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00373 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 5:17:00 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Michael Lerch |
| 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 provides protection to companies IP however some of their tactics to prevent copyright infringing is a bit abusive and sometimes intrusive. Whether it is limiting the amount of installs you can perform for your game to restricting your game from being able to play due to a minor scratch on the disc because their disc authentication check is too strict, I feel as though developers and publishers are going too far on preventing piracy. I understand that they are trying to prevent further financial loss but there has been numerous reports that their tactics can possibly damage an individuals computer.
The best bet for protecting ones IP is to use a digital content distribution service such as STEAM (Valve Software, www.steampowered.com). Because of the ease of use and the reliablity of STEAM.
STEAM allows an individual to buy or register their purchased game(s) to their "STEAM Account" which then enables them to play the games with zero restrictions. This means that after installing the game, the inividual does not need CDs/DVDs to play nor do they need to keep a copy of their product manual on hand so they have a record of their product key. STEAM keeps track of everything using a highly secure encrypted system that Valve Software has designed and has proven it to work.
STEAM checks for any unauthorized changes to certain games, which blocks illegal modification of games which may allow individuals to pirate the game. STEAM also keeps games up-to-date for the individual who owns it. If the individual ever decides to reinstall the game they can simply uninstall and redownload the entire game from the STEAM servers and be ready to go in no time.
My point on all this is is that DRM is not needed if you find the right method of distributing games. STEAM allows you to purchase hundreds of commercial games ranging from Wolfenstein 3D to Crysis, SPORE, and others. The reason that people pirate games is because they do not want to go to the store to buy a DVD that can be scratched or pay for someone to tell them how many times they can install the game.
I just say remove DRM and go digital, all games should be purchasable and downloadable on STEAM as well as in a retail store. The game bought from the retail store should be allowed to register to STEAM and that removes any need for DRM and discs even.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00374 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 5:17:50 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Jeremy Wahl |
| 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:
I feel that media producers (i.e. movie studios and record companies) and companies that provide downloads of commercial media are using digital rights management to lock users in to certain portable devices, software media players, and operating systems. One instance is where protected media files cannot be played on operating systems that a media provider doesn't support (most likely Linux and FreeBSD). Users with an unsupported operating system might have to resort to using a compatibility layer (has a high chance of not running the special player and/or result in reduced performance), virtualization (runs a supported operating system on emulated hardware, but requires large amounts of RAM), circumvention of the DRM (might work, but could violate the DMCA), or piracy (will work, but could violate copyright law). Even on a supported operating system (most likely Windows and Mac OS X), users might prefer other portable devices than those supported by the special player (i.e. iPod on iTunes) or would rather use a player with less resources and/or have a certain feature in a player than the special one. Because of this, people should be able to play their media on any device and any operating system, even if it requires converting to a different format.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00375 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 5:50:23 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
john dough |
| 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:
it is a waste of time to believe that anything can be protected the world as a whole will work to stop any efforts.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00376 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 5:50:27 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Thomas Orr |
| 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 feel that the inclusion of DRM in computer software is a harmful practice. Although I pay money for the software, ridiculous demands are then suddenly made of me, such as that my computer be connected to the internet beforehand, or that I install harmful (and arguably virus-like) software onto my computer, usually unwittingly. When I pay money for software, what then gives the software vendor the right to monitor my personal usage of it in my own home and on my own computer? Software companies, by claiming that we only own temporary rights to use their software (until such time as they deem us unworthy of them), are devaluing us as customers and subjecting us to a highly imperfect and furthermore unjust system of requirements, which is determined by the unregulated whims of corporate executives with only their own interests in mind.
Additionally, regardless of ethical implications, DRM tools demonstrably do not accomplish what they set out to do. Computer hackers are just as (if not more) capable of disassembling and reassembling software as its original creators are at assembling it in the first place. With enough effort, any software can be hacked to entirely remove the included DRM, enabling it to be as freely pirated as software that never had DRM in the first place. Even software companies surely are aware of this, yet they stand on the formality and continue to include DRM tools in many releases for the computer platform.
Ironically, this hurts only the legitimate consumer, who is the only one left to be subject to DRM. (Anyone who intends to pirate the software can easily find the DRM-free version online.) Legitimate customers are the ones made to feel foolish for paying money for software that inherently treats them as criminals. This, in turn, leads many would-be legitimate customers to either download and use the DRM-free product even though they have bought and paid for the software already, or to bypass buying the product entirely and simply download it DRM-free, or else to resign themselves to not obtaining the software at all. In fact, the only software copying prevented by DRM is that done by customers loyal enough to still use the original software through all of this, which is obviously negligible.
In general, DRM is constructed from software companies' false sense of superiority and assumes the consumers to be foolish at best, dire enemies at worst. It is an entirely uninviting premise that will surely continue to chase legitimate consumers away from the platform, if it is allowed to continue at all.
It is not that I wish for all computer software to be available online for free (indeed, as that is already the case), but that I should have the same rights when purchasing software as I do when purchasing any other object.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00377 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 6:13:05 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Matthew Varley |
| 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, Digital Rights Management, is a form of software attached to a retailed piece of software, such as a game, music, or program, that often restricts the usage of the retail software, especially when compared to forms of the software that are DRM-free.
The main crux of any argument against DRM is that it only hurts the consumer that buys the product without providing any benefit to the company that owns the software in question. It is relatively simple for a piece of software to be “cracked”, pirated without any DRM present, within 24 hours of release, while those who buy the software are often hurt by the DRM.
DRM hurts the consumer by not allowing full use of the software, or by placing unfair restrictions on the software. There are three examples often used to showcase the hurt done to a consumer by DRM.
The most recent is the DRM placed upon video games such as Spore by the SecuROM DRM software. The most obvious affect of the DRM is the restriction of the number of installs a user may make. Normally, this is not a problem because many people install the game to one computer and let the entire family play, but the game limits the number of different save files to one, so a family may not even use the software as it was intended. It was partially the fault of SecuROM DRM that Spore became the most pirated game of all-time. The reason for this was simple. A DRM-free pirated version of Spore was a much better product than the retail version.
Another widely known example of DRM hurting the consumer is the former use of XCP by Sony to protect music. This DRM downloaded a “Rootkit” without informing the consumer anywhere in the manual or the EULA to the computer that had the music CD in the drive. The program was then rendered invisible to the average user and deletion would render the computer's CD inoperable. This by definition is a Trojan and a "Rootkit", both forms of malicious code. Many anti-virus programs now recognize XCP as a virus. Not only did the XCP DRM hide itself from the user, but it also opened the path for malicious viruses and Trojans to "piggyback" into the operating system through the DRM.
The most general way DRM hurts consumers is through the DRM becoming obsolete and incompatibility. DRM requires constant validation with a DRM server. When the server goes down, any software connected to DRM becomes unusable. The best examples of this are in the music industry. Any music purchased through MSN Music, Yahoo Music, or Wal-Mart recently became inoperable because the DRM servers were shut down causing the DRM to lock the songs and making them unplayable. DRM songs are often incompatible with other services as well. iTunes for instant would not import music protected by the XCP DRM already mentioned.
Thus it can easily be seen that DRM hurts consumers while providing no benefits to the parent company.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00378 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 6:26:16 PM |
| Organization: |
N/A |
| Commenter: |
Thomas Doonan |
| 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 understand the need for owners of digital intellectual property to want to protect their investment and to be able to properly profit from their work and efforts. However these owners have no right to use a form of DRM that can potentially open an end user's computer up to harm from the outside or cause damage to a user's hardware. This was the case with E.A's recent release Spore that included SecuROM a form of DRM that is known to have these problems. If a manufacturer chooses to use a specific form of DRM it is their choice (Even though it has been proven time and again that most forms of DRM don't even slow the pirates down) but the public has the right to know this when making the decision to purchase a piece of software, DVD, etc. This information should be made very clear to the purchaser that the program they are buying will install additional software and name the form of DRM so that the purchaser can decide if they are willing to risk the security of their computer in order to play a game.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00379 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 6:39:17 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Cody McCaw |
| 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:
The below statements are geared toward DRM in the gaming industry.
Generally I do not have a problem with DRM. Inserting a cd-key to install a game usually does not generate any aggravation. What does cause aggravation though, is summed up into the following points:
1. Having to connect to the internet or stay connected to the internet to play/install a game. Sometime there are places I am in where there is no internet. I should be able to install/play a game without having to connect to the internet just to verify that what I am installing/playing.
2. Not being able to run a game unless I have the cd physically in the drive. I have a major problem with this, as I try to keep my cds in good condition. Playing different games meaning swapping out cds, thereby increasing risk of damage or descrution of disks.
3. Having to insert the same key for one game multiple times. This is very apparent in the Dawn of War series. When upgrading, I have to re-insert the original key(s) just to re-prove that i installed a legit copy. Its not to hard to check to see if the key was already verified by the install of that part of the game. One key-per game-per install.
4. Having an install limit. I find this very irritating. I can only install a game a certain amount of times before I have to physically call someone just to be able to play MY game that I PAID FOR. When I buy a game, I want to be able to install and uninstall at will as many times as I want with having to call anyone and without having to connect to the internet to submit a form to obtain more installs.
5. Installing sub or hidden programs onto my computer other than the game. I do not like it when installing a game it installs other programs with out my consent or knowledge.
These are some points that I feel that needs to be changed in order for a more healthy relationship between player and publisher. The current schemes make me as well as other people feel like the publisher/developer are treating us like criminals just because we are trying to support them.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00380 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 6:55:14 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Patrick Mahoney |
| State: |
NM |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
539814-00380.pdf |
Comments:
My primary complaint against DRM comes from the anti-circumvention clause of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) that makes it illegal to circumvent DRM.
Prior to the DMCA, compact discs became the audio format of choice. I purchased CDs and was able to copy the music to my computer for backup and the convenience of listening to my entire library without the hassle of physical discs. Later, I was able to copy this music to portable music players.
After the DMCA, DVD became the video format of choice. I knew DVDs included DRM and that I would not be able to make backups or create a video jukebox as I had done with my music. DVDs also include a region locking scheme that makes foreign DVDs largely unplayable on a US DVD player. I knew all this and largely avoided DVDs because I did not find such limited media very useful.
What I did not know but soon learned is that DVDs include an unskippable FBI warning, the same warning that everyone has seen thousands of times. Some DVDs even include unskippable advertising. That a device can dictate to me how I can use that device is incredibly insulting. And it all has legal weight thanks to the anti-circumvention clause.
To add further insult, those who choose to infringe copyright are rewarded with a superior product. The DRM-free download may be used in a computer jukebox, copied to a portable device, backed-up up to insure against damage, and freely fast-forwarded through including previously unskippable warnings and advertising.
To a law abiding citizen, DRM is a terrible inconvenience and annoyance. In exchange for this burden, presumably the recording and film industries will not suffer losses from copyright infringement. However, as everyone knows, copyright infringement is commonplace. Even if DRM has led to some reduction in copying, it has come at an unacceptable cost and burden.
The recording and film industries have condemned infringement with lawsuits, advertising, and lobbying. But always, copyright infringement is equated with lost sales. This simplistic analysis ignores two other groups of infringers who do not count toward lost sales: those who infringe but would otherwise not purchase, and those who infringe only to become more interested in an artist or actor and end up generating increased sales.
I am not going to claim that the last two groups are larger than the first, but that the industries assume all infringements are lost sales, combined with their continued use of ineffective DRM and lobbying for stricter copyright law suggests that they are not concerned with the lost sales but are simply seeking control over how the product is used. This is not something I support. I prefer the freedom to use a product as I see fit, save infringing copyright. I consider all the uses I've mentioned such as backing-up, creating a jukebox, copying to a portable device, to be fair use. All of these fair uses are rendered illegal because of the anti-circumvention clause.
The anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA is unjust and should be repealed immediately. By evidence of widespread copyright infringement, DRM has proven ineffective. The DRM given legal weight by the anti-circumvention clause serves only as a means for the recording and film industries to control distribution and use of the product by law abiding citizens.
Thank you,
Patrick Mahoney
| Comment Number: |
539814-00381 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 7:41:28 PM |
| Organization: |
MAF Policy |
| Commenter: |
Jesse Williams |
| 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:
NO DRM!
| Comment Number: |
539814-00382 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 8:03:39 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Daniel Myers |
| 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:
The exclusive right that creators maintain over their creations once they have shared them with the public is not a natural one. We grant copyright, and other similar protections, with the intent of promoting progress by encouraging and enabling the sharing of ideas.
When sharing of ideas required the creation of a tangible object, there was considerable risk associated with bringing unproven ideas to market. In a world without copyright, there could be printers that wait to see what authors sell well and print copies of these proven works. The publishers that take risks to bring unproven authors to print are unable to cover the costs of those risks.
These risks, though, are not incurred in the creation of the work, but in the reproduction of the work-- the costs of printing a thousand copies of a manuscript by an unknown author. If it's popular, copyright enables the risk-taking publisher to license the book to other publishers so public demand can be satisfied and the publisher compensated for taking risks on unknown authors.
With digital content, creation and reproduction are not close-coupled. Certainly there are digital products available on tangible media (CDs, DVDs, etc) but it is not necessary to expend sunk costs to publish digital content in this manner.
Global publishing of digital content is (or can be) effectively free. Since the existing reasoning for why We grant copyrights to creators is the cost/risk of reproduction of an unproven works, and there is little or no cost/risk to reproduce digital works... should digital works be granted copyright protection? Given the prevalence of casual copyright infringement of digital works, it seems We mostly answer that question "No."
We grant copyrights, but We also demonstrate a willingness to unilaterally revoke that temporary monopoly We have granted in the case of digital works. Enter "digital rights management".
"Digital rights", much like copyrights, must stem from the provision to grant, temporarily, exclusive rights to creators over their works for the purpose of promoting progress. Existing examples of DRM schemes often do not meet the necessary condition to be temporary. It would be natural to revoke the rights We have granted should a creator violate copyright in this manner.
Similar reasoning may be applied to the case where progress is being impeded by the assertion of these granted rights. We may only grant these rights to promote progress. If progress is being impeded, the grant is without authority and rendered illegitimate-- We may revoke the granted right.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00383 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 8:39:49 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Joseph Cortez |
| 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 believe that DRM is extremely limiting. I purchased the product so I own it. A company should not limit what I can do with my property.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00384 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 9:00:20 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Chris Mitchell |
| 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: |
539814-00384.pdf |
Comments:
Hi, I can't stand DRM because 1/10 times the stuff doesn't work for me, it sucks when you go out and buy a game and get it home install it and than it crashes your system. Or thinks you don't have the disk in the system (even though you do) or in the case of Spore (by Electronic Arts aka. EA) caused my system to BSOD (Blue Screen Of Death) giving the error .... Windows has encountered an unknown error ... it took me about a month before I could play it and the only way I could do that was to go to some website that had cracks and download one of them, it wasn't till the third or fourth one that I downloaded that didn't have a virus in it.
It shouldn't be that way. I went out to Future Shop and purchased the game, I gave EA my $50 and what do I the consumer get for it, I have to go to some website that McAfee SiteAdvisor gives a RED warning to, just to download some crack that will allow me to play MY game.
Meanwhile people who paid nothing to download the game from a download site are playing the game before me, somebody who purchased it. How is that fair. How is that just.
DRM is supposed to prevent piracy, well if you ask me, all it is doing is encouraging it. It clearly doesn't prevent piracy I mean look at SPORE people had that game working before me
I understand that people have to protect what they make, but this really is going too far.
Now I am not saying that there is no room for DRM, it has a place in rental products and trialware but beyond that there is no purpose for it.
And than there is the downloadable programs. Awhile back I downloaded the trial for Photoshop CS3 from Adobe's website. After it downloaded I tried to install it and it had a cd check on it (by that I mean, partway into the install of the program it checks to make sure that you have the official cd inserted into the cd-rom drive and if you don't it cancels the install). I couldn't get it to work but fortunately I was only trying the program. there where 100's of people on there forum who had purchased the software and couldn't get it to install. Apparently if you had any legacy software on your system from them you would have this problem. But if not it would usually work.
Now this isn't DRM in it's standard call-home, form but it works somewhat the same way.
Lastly, Digitally Distributed Music. (this example didn't affect me personally but is did affect a lot of people, because I will not download any DRM music) Recently online distributors of music MSN Music Store for example shut down there DRM servers after sending an email to all of it's customers who purchased (or rented as I prefer to call it) music from them stating that they will no longer be authorizing music any more and that means that next time you install windows (which in my case is every 1-2 years, but again I am not affected by this) that ALL the music that was "purchased" (read sarcastically) will not work.
Now who is this affecting, the LEGAL purchaser of the music, who is it not affecting, the people who download there music illegally online.
Yet another example of how DRM, a technology that's purpose is solely to prevent illegal distribution and copying.
In Closing. Who does DRM hurt, DRM hurts the guy who purchased BioShock and cant install it because he has 2 cd-rom drives in his pc, it hurts the grandmother who purchased a cd from iTunes and it won't play on here Zune her kids got her for Christmas, it hurts the kid who's parents bought a used copy of Spore for him on eBay for his birthday and when he goes to install it on his pc finds out that the serial key has been used the maximum amount of times and it won't let him play his new game. It hurts the father who can't make a backup copy of his 8 yo son's favorite movie so he doesn't have to purchase it a 3rd time. Online stores who get less business because customers don't want DRM. The Consumer.
Who does it not hurt, that's easy. It doesn't hurt the pirates because they crack it as soon as it comes out.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00385 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 9:17:40 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Hong |
| 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 believe that when a person purchases any type of software or hardware, he should have complete control of how he uses his item. I don't see how it is fair if I have to call EA to unlock my installation limitation to reinstall Spore--a PC game based on evolution. Things happen, viruses, trojans, worms, etc. There are many reasons why a person should have to reinstall their software. Also, if the servers managing the DRMs are shut down then we are all out of luck because we cannot activate our own software. I believe Yahoo's DRM on music caused many problems in the past because of that very same reason. I simply do not see the reason in punishing the consumers. Should our new DTV Converter boxes have set limitations on how many times we can hook it up to a different TV--or the same one? I sure don't think so.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00386 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 10:22:24 PM |
| Organization: |
Student of the Ohio State University |
| Commenter: |
Jason Frenz |
| 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:
The biggest issue with DRM is that it does not work, anyone with only limited knowledge of computers, and how they function, can bypass simple DRM and even the most complex ones can be bypassed in an hour or two by anyone who has taken college level Computer Science courses. the people who "crack" the software then release easy to use .exe files to allow majority of other PC users to also be able to bypass it.
Modern DRM does not accomplish it's intended goal and does not act in good faith in the assumption that something is bought is then owned by that person, which is blatantly apparent in the "end user agreement" that no rational person would read in its entirety.
DRM, especially the type that limit install totals, only hurt the people who bought the software legally as anyone who obtained it illegally has essentially no interaction with it. Also such "draconian DRM" (ex SecureROM) has cause people to protest certain software by specifically pirating that software (big example would be the recent game release by EA "Spore").
If DRM was almost totally eliminated, or complete changed from its current form, only the only people who would benefit are the legal consumer and make no difference to the people who pirate the software, since the inconvenience of 1 person for say 2 hours or so it take to crack a DRM scheme is so irrelevantly small of a hindrance to the some 1 million who then pirate the software after it is cracked.
DRM is not a deterrent and only hurts the legal purchasers.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00387 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 11:11:02 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Tim Oakes |
| 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:
Dear reader,
I believe DRM is an issue that has gone out of control. Companies jam-pack their products with it in order to prevent pirated copies from getting out and yet a great number of these copies still exist somewhere on the internet. Companies should consider the majority of users before punishing everyone for what a small population of pirates do.
DRM should be abolished UNTIL a better system can be implemented. Sure, people will begin to go on pirating-sprees but the majority of people who DON'T pirate products will be grateful. I myself own four computers and find it very difficult to install certain products that only allow installation on two machines. If I purchase software, I am purchasing the right to use it am I not? If this is the case, then I should theoretically be able to install it on however many computers I need to.
As for ideas of how to fix the DRM problem, there are a number of solutions that have gone either unnoticed or un-thought of. Perhaps the use of finger print readers could be more widely adopted, or maybe using some kind of special card similar to a driver's license but for computers/electronics in general. The card concept could work with products being registered to a user, and when installing the product, the user would be asked to "swipe" his or her card through some kind of slot during registration. This would allow people to install software on the number of machines they needed to while at the same time preventing pirates from simply programming a key-gen (key generator).
In any case, DRM seriously needs to be thought through and handled in a uniform manner. Many companies use their own form of DRM and it simply does NOT work. Please take this DRM issue seriously. Thank you.
Signed,
Tim Oakes
| Comment Number: |
539814-00388 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 11:13:16 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Charlton Moore |
| 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 understand why the developers are wanting to implement (a form of) DRM on their computer games, but if they must use DRM I would like to see it be less restrictive then it is currently.
The problem that I have is with the DRM that only allows a set number of installations (normally 5 or less) of the game and then there is NO WAY to get the game installed again. The reason I don't like this is when I have purchased a game, and let's say for example that it doesn't run very well, I'll set it aside untill I can get a newer computer then I'd like to try it again After I have played it, I may want to play it again, or perhaps a few years later I may want to play it again but by then I've used up all of my installations and the game is useless and hard if not impossible to purchase new again.
If they must have DRM, they need to have a method that will last for years ahead that allows the end user to "unactivated" the game when it is uninstalled, so that it can be activated at a later date.
Thank you for taking the time to look into this issue and for reading my comments.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00389 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 11:34:44 PM |
| Organization: |
N/A- private individual |
| Commenter: |
Sidney Gilbert |
| 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:
Digital Rights Management as it currently exists hampers the fair use of media purchased by individuals. The right to copy media I have purchased to my computer or a portable player for my personal use is often disabled. This sort of use is the most fundamental way that most individuals have of enjoying their purchased media in the 21st century. The short sighted use of DRM endangers the ability of a user to purchase music for use not just months, but years from the original purchase date.Techniques that use online services to verify the rights of an individual to use media are unfair when the service goes out of business as the Wal-mart online music store and others have done, leaving individuals unable to play music they have legally purchased. The use of root kits and software by Sony/BMG has shown that some corporations are willing to violate the privacy and damage the property of individuals in their efforts to treat even law abiding individuals as "pirates". They have proven they are not able to equitably protect their rights while respecting the rights of individuals.At every turn the use of Digital Rights Management has been done at the cost of the individuals who actually purchase their products and has done little to hamper those willing to steal media in the first place. For these reasons I feel that the use of DRM is not in the best interest of the public. Thank you.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00390 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 11:36:42 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Matthew Zacharuk |
| 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:
Before anything else, I think I should say that I support the right of a person, whether an artist, entertainer, or programmer, to benefit and profit from their work, and towards that end I support DRM. But I do not support DRM at the cost of the consumer. There has been an increasing trend over the last several decades of stricter, and more draconian DRM tools put to use to "protect" copyrighted works from infringement. Most notably in the video game industry. These tools DO NOT WORK. The people around the world who circumvent these tools, these pieces of software, often enjoy the challenge. They do it as much for the entertainment of "beating" the company's DRM software as they do for the entertainment to be gained from playing the game or sharing it online with others.
The only people hurt by DRM in its current incarnations, and the only people who WILL be hurt by DRM five years from now - assuming the trend continues - are and will be the legitimate consumers, who are presumed guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the software companies. Among the most notable scandals relating to this issue has been StarForce. A DRM tool used by certain software companies to protect their products from copyright infringement. But it didn't really protect anything, as the so-called "pirates" who distributed copies of StarForce-protected software were able to cut out the StarForce software, like the cancer it proved to be. Instead, it hurt legitimate consumers, who purchased a piece of software legally and rightly expected to be able to freely use the software. Not only did it tie up system resources, and make their computer less efficient, it invaded their privacy and damaged their property. It scanned their active processes (what programs were running on their PC) and examined the files on their hard drive, searching for anything on their blacklist. If any such program or driver was installed on their PC, or if there was any trace in the registry of the blacklisted software having been on the computer, the StarForce protected software would refuse to run. If there was certain pieces of hardware in the PC, particular brands and models of CD or DVD writer, for example, the StarForce protection would prevent the legally purchased software from running. Sometimes it would even break the hardware, or drastically reduce its performance, by "flashing" the bios (updating the software inside the device which tells it how to work) with a version designed to cripple its function and cause it to wear itself out sooner.
In no other industry are consumers, customers, treated this way. You do not walk into a store, and have a security guard frisk you every five minutes to see if you've stolen anything, or root through your belongings on your way out the door in search of stolen goods. You would not tolerate it. And yet there are industries and corporations that get away with it on a regular basis, because quite frankly there aren't many alternatives to their products. They treat ALL of their customers as thieves, invading their privacy and in some cases damaging their property, as mentioned above with StarForce. And for no apparent gain. Illegal copying and distribution of software continues unabated, as the recent release of the video game Spore has proven. (It received a form of DRM that required an online authentication, and allowed a limited number of installs, to prevent illegal copying. It is also billed as the single most illegally downloaded game of all time.)
I am not saying that DRM should be removed entirely, or banned or outlawed. All I am saying is that the companies and industries that use it should be restricted from overstepping their bounds, in the name of protecting the rights of the consumer. A programmer should be allowed to protect their investment, but in a way that does not infringe on the consumer's privacy, damage their property, or otherwise limit their ability to enjoy full use of the product they legally purchased.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00391 |
| Received: |
1/9/2009 11:37:38 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Wagnon |
| 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:
The main issue with DRM is that the only people harmed by it are legit consumers. There has not been a DRM system yet that is completely safe from piracy, and there has not been one that does not impede the use of properly acquired media. Instead of spending time and money researching new ways that will soon be exploited, vendors should focus on making the media more appealing to consumers, as one of the major reasons for piracy is lack of confidence in the quality of the product. While it is not likely that the proper thing will be done and DRM removed, at minimum, consumers should be informed of exactly what the DRM does in simple terms.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00392 |
| Received: |
1/10/2009 12:21:05 AM |
| Organization: |
None |
| Commenter: |
Bryan Berg |
| 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:
DRM frustrates people who do the right thing. While pirated media will work on nearly any device, DRM-restricted files can keep users from enjoying the media they purchase in a way that best suits them. It is, tactfully, a short-term solution to a long-term problem. Content distributors should find ways to suit the market, rather than expect the market to suit them.
Media producers should expect payment for their goods. This cannot be argued. But DRM takes freedom from the purchaser -- it is like a punishment for doing the right thing. It does nothing to curtail piracy.
Furthermore, media companies base much of their need for DRM on the belief that pirated data is a lost sale. This is misleading logic. Many people who pirate may never buy the things they download. At the same time, many who pirate still do purchase media through legitimate outlets.
How many people who have downloaded a season of The Office have gone on to purchase it on DVD? How many people who have downloaded a band's album went on to buy their next release on a CD or at iTunes? It is reasonable to say that media producers have lost money to piracy. But it is also important to note that they have gained business from file sharing.
Good people will continue to do the right thing, and bad people will continue to do as they please. Content creators and publishers should be providing reasons to purchase a product. Plenty of independent folks, like Jonathan Coulton and Leo Laporte, create DRM-free products and continue to thrive.
When I buy a book, I can read it wherever I want. When I buy a CD, I can listen to it on any player, with whatever speakers or headphones I choose. DRM circumvents consumer freedom. The best alternative I could propose would be "Watermarking" files by placing purchaser information (a customer ID or email address, for example), within a purchased file's meta tags. This type of feature is already part of existing media formats, and is entirely unobtrusive. It is the same as writing your name in a book you've purchased. It is only a privacy concern if the purchased files are then redistributed, which legally they should not be.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00393 |
| Received: |
1/10/2009 1:07:29 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Campbell |
| 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:
DRM strongly restricts customer choice. It is the only reason for which I pirate music. There are many individuals out there that strongly feel the same way. Getting rid of DRM would convert a massive amount of pirates into paying customers.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00394 |
| Received: |
1/10/2009 2:26:17 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Sean Riccio |
| 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:
I am a law-abiding American citizen, a tax payer, and a member of what is called the "gaming" culture.
I have never stolen a game in any form, and do not think that I should bear the weight for people who choose to steal games. These companies have a right to protect their profits and interests, of course. DRM does not do any such thing however, providing neither a substantial obstacle for thieves, nor providing any security or goodwill for me, the consumer, who drives their business.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00395 |
| Received: |
1/10/2009 6:07:32 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Ed Hardin |
| 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 a professional in the entertainment software industry (Disclaimer: I am speaking on my personal behalf and not on behalf of my employer. Opinions stated here are my personal beliefs and do not represent my employer in any way). My livelihood depends on my customers paying money for my product. Even so, I do not support DRM software and do not believe that the legal environment which surrounds it is entirely ethical.
- - -
The vast majority of DRM implementations offer nothing but additional costs and/or limitations to the legitimate consumer. Nearly all of them rely on installing hidden software on the consumer's computer, software which is never adequately explained and which rarely removes itself properly, if at all, if the user decides to uninstall the original software. Software of this type has been used in the past as a backdoor by virus and trojan makers (Sony's DRM 'rootkit' is the most famous of these), and offers a continuous method of exposure for its use in the future. Even legitimate DRM software often behaves in the same way a virus does - making every effort to be difficult to detect, disable, and remove by the end user. If it happens to prevent the use of other legitimate software owned by the user, there is no option for them -- no appeals. You are required to have the DRM software installed, or you are no longer able to use the software which you legally purchased.
- - -
Software pirate organizations are not hampered by DRM software, and many appear to view it as a welcome challenge. Every major PC entertainment release in 2008 was available online, stripped of its DRM, within 24 hours of its official release to the public. In this environment, legitimate users not only pay more than pirates, they are inconvenienced more by the DRM software which pirates (other than the initial crackers) do not have to deal with at all. In other words, because of DRM software, the person who obtains software illegally has a better experience than the person who obtains it legally.
- - -
My company and others do not use DRM software to protect our products. Instead, we offer additional features to our legitimate customers (generally online) that are not obtainable if you have not purchased our software. Our legitimate customers, in other words, have a better product experience than those who obtain our software illegally. This is a profitable and sustainable business model, and does not put our customers at risk.
- - -
If this message has any effect at all, my hope is that it offers a counterpoint to the fear-laced message that is advocated by DRM manufacturers. Companies like Stardock, Valve, and Blizzard have proved that it is possible to thrive in a DRM-free world. Continuing to criminalize customers who just want to use what they purchased is, I believe, a self-destructive path and does more harm to intellectual property holders than some believe.
- - -
Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion on this matter.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00396 |
| Received: |
1/10/2009 6:56:06 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Zwitser |
| 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 am a 17 year old gamer from the Netherlands and would like to give my opinion about this subject, particularly in the context of computer games.
DRM hurts normal costumers, while pirates crack it within days.
Also, some game protection systems will refuse to start the game if certain software is installed on your computer. This fact is (almost) never mentioned on the back of the disc, at the 'system requirements' section. Since you can only see the EULA once you try to install the game, and most shops don't take back opened games, you will have the choice of removing the, sometimes paid for, 'offending' software from your computer, or having waisted your money. An example of a program that often isn't allowed to be installed is deamontools, which is a piece of software for mounting cdrom /dvd images in so-called 'virtual drives', i.e. drives that don't physically exist but are detected and can't be worked with by the operating system.
DeamonTools is often used for piracy purposes, however, this is not what the programmers wrote it for, and in addition, a lot of people use the program only for legal purposes, for example, to watch a free fan made star trek or star wars movie that is downloadable as a DVD image without having to burn a disc, which not everyone can do with his/her pc, and is also expensive.
An example of such a movie is reign of the fallen, google it, I forgot the webpage.
Some DRM programs also install programs to the heart of the pc's OS (Operating System), the 'kernel'. The 'kernel' is the part of the OS that handles the communication between the hardware components of the computer, and the OS with the software running on it. EA has had a class-action lawsuit filed against it for the use of such techniques in their game spore, which did not mention anything about this to the end-user, not even in the terms as stated in the EULA, let alone on the box.
In conclusion, I have no problems with simple DRM, such as having to type in a cd-key, which reduces the amount of 'casual copying'. I do have a problem however with the type of DRM that
a) requires you to remove certain software from your computer before it allows you to play the game
or
b) installs software to the heart of your pc's os without telling the user it is doing so. I would like the FTC to take action against this kind of DRM on games. If america implements laws against it, then the EU might, hopfully, follow the example. (I live in the Netherlands, so I definitely hope so.)
| Comment Number: |
539814-00397 |
| Received: |
1/10/2009 8:27:27 AM |
| Organization: |
Mountain Man Online Games LLC |
| Commenter: |
James Mapes |
| 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:
Stealing is wrong, the right & ability of a business to make a profit on its wares is essential to
continuation. But how much do some encourage or even instigate their own problems? I am sure the record companies come to mind where artists got pennies on the sales of a $15+ album for many years – an album that cost no more than a couple dollars to make & distribute.
The analogy - I leave my car running to warm up outside the house because its 0 degrees out. Not an unrealistic action, it won't drive properly for a few minutes till the oil & fluid warms a bit to seal things in the motor & auto trans. The police come by and give me a ticket for "puffing." "Its polluting" - well no worse than trying to run at higher RPMs with the transmission slipping. "Its encouraging & facilitating thieves" - well they know damn well it isn't their car, stealing is wrong, do your job & put thieves in jail... However, the judge will want money to fatten the city coffers because I own property that someone might steal and I am using it in a manner most convenient to running my "business".
Now - Microsoft has their new activation scheme that barring hacking etc effectively limits you to one install per box. Back when NT 4.0 etc was out, there were 2 licensing schemes - per server & per seat. Maybe not quite accurate as its been 10 years, but per seat allowed you to say have 10 PCs, 5 employees and pay for 5 licenses to use. Effectively Sys Admins were on their honor to purchase the appropriate number of licenses. But the point is, like most software, it could be installed multiple points, but only users per as many instances as you had licenses.
I have 5 PCs - the laptop came with OEM XP installed. I had W2K & 98 installed/upgraded on most, and XP original on 2 machines from my brother's copy. To fulfill the "per seat" use that I put them to, I bought a XP Pro full install box (but hadn't had to use it to install) that cost $180 back before CompUSA vanished from the mall.
Well its been a few years and those legacy single core AMD, P2, P3, P4 machines are getting cluttered, but still functional so I am systematically backing up important stuff, and doing wipe & clean installs up to XP Pro. #1 goes fine, and I do the activation and notice that if/when I do #2 its going to time out in 30 days, but their scheme won't let me register it without calling in. Being proactive on that, I call in to find out exactly what process and any costs are. Well, after 5 HOURS of web chasing, phone ping-pong & mounting frustration I finally get an answer - $269.99 or ONE additional license.
That is 50% more than I PAID for the retail box. No box, no manual, not even another CD, just a 25 digit alphanumeric code or an enabling of my original on a SECOND PC. God forbid I do all 4 of the desktops that will be nearly 900 dollars. It's not worth that kind of money to fix my P2 let alone buy software to specifically to run it. Why? Well its good for browsing questionable sites because if it gets nuked I don't lose important info or a vital machine. I think the term is "goat machine" as it's a sacrificial.
Well, I'd pay $50, or perhaps $90 which is half the original to get additional licenses for a single user situation. That is reasonable. Paying more is not reasonable, and buying a retail box for each is a waste of resources and clutter. I may find some cheap OEM licenses as it is retired. Or get more familiar with Linux.
But as far as I am concerned, Microsoft and others that are pushing that type of robbery are in fact the pirates. Maybe its time they stopped "puffing" their product on the side of the road and some anti-trust policing came their way again. I've never been one to really vilify them for their success, but the above illustrates virtual racketeering.
My sympathy for software piracy woes is somewhat blunted in cases like Microsoft - they are baiting people.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00398 |
| Received: |
1/10/2009 8:39:48 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Paolo Bossi |
| 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:
DRM is one of the greatest mistakes ever done in the history of computer science because it is supposed to be a measure against software piracy, but it actually favors it , by installing unwanted ,invasive software on your computer.This software often conflicts with some of the components installed on the system ,causing many stability issues or even the entire corruption of the system. Because of this ,many people are encouraged to use pirated software or cracks, as they allow them to bypass DRM protection , and consequently the problems that arise from its use. I understand it's our duty as customers to support the developers' work by legitimately buying their software, but it's also our right to decide what's on our system without worrying about some unwanted program which may or may not ,according to the developer's choices, corrupt it.
The law-abiding user should always be rewarded for his choice to support your efforts.By supporting the use of DRM you ultimately penalize him and yourself ,because you attract him to the very same behavior you are trying to fight.Trust us, you are better off without it.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00399 |
| Received: |
1/10/2009 8:49:43 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Flaviano Boquet |
| 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:
DRM is very bad!
| Comment Number: |
539814-00400 |
| Received: |
1/10/2009 9:07:28 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Joyce DiGuglielmo |
| State: |
DE |
| 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 bundled into software should disclose the fact that download/installation will also dowload/install DRM. DRM MUST be able to be removed, otherwise it is an invasion of personal property. There SHOULD BE a written instruction on the manufacturer's website on how to uninstall DRM, and optimum alternative is to have an "uninstall" program download in the software bundle.
I believe the penalty for infringement of any software should be made tougher, as opposed to forcing a consumer to install program/s that impact functionality and resources on their personal computer - either with or without disclosure - that are irreversible. I paid for this computer (my personal property), and I pay for software ... but i want the choice to use or not use that software on my computer. Not even that i want the option to be reimbursed for said software, but just that i should have the right to change my mind about using it.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00401 |
| Received: |
1/10/2009 10:16:57 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Dvorachek |
| 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:
Levels of DRM that cripple games, music and software and make them more difficult to use for the consumer frustrate me. One example, Will Wright's Spore had a system that required the computer to have internet access at least once every 10 days, and had a very limited number of re-installations causing a few customers to lose the ability to use the software they had purchased.
Please form legislation giving the customer the right to use what they paid for within reason. All forms of DRM aren't inherently bad, but ones that cause loss of functionality are.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00402 |
| Received: |
1/10/2009 10:31:24 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Brickey |
| 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:
To me, the DRM is just a marketing joke. I'm a person that does a lot of hardware switching and ocing. But, do to doing that, in less then a day, My copy of Mass Effect was passed it's "hardware swap" stage. So, I've just spent $50 on a game that now, I can't play because EA has gone and put DRM into their stuff.. Musical DRM is fine because of the fact you still are allowed to have the music until your end service with the place, or buy it from it.. Which I find as being good for the people. Software DRM is just going to provide more and more headaches for the customer. Having to call in, to get everything fixed. And the call isn't going to be one, but 3 calls, that require you to talk to people from a foreign country to do it.
Should DRM be a right thing to do, yes if your using it on programs like Steam, iTunes, Zune, but to throw it into a game, and then say "haha" to the customers when they are "hardware Junkies" like myself... That makes me sick!
| Comment Number: |
539814-00403 |
| Received: |
1/10/2009 11:30:20 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
David Craig |
| 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 about piracy, it is about control. If DRM crippled software, music and film is clearly labeled, the market will reject it. Witness Divx's failure, and Apple's success.
As the cost of reproduction and distribution approaches 0, we should have vast libraries at our fingertips, but industry is fighting this great flourishing of culture in an attempt to retain an outdated business model. It is a losing battle, things have changed, industry has to adapt, and that doesn't mean persecuting people for file sharing, using software and hardware to spy on them, or using DRM to break things which are hard enough to keep working as it is. Witness the RIAA running away from the courts and the outcry when phone home software and games stops working as the servers are taken down.
DRM and these industries are holding back a cultural renaissance, which is a great loss to all of us.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00404 |
| Received: |
1/10/2009 1:49:03 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Robert Roy |
| State: |
NM |
| 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 this new world of digital media, it is important to understand the need to find the balance between a publisher's right to protect their media, and the consumer's right of ownership. It is a unique relationship between seller and buyer that exists nowhere else. In physical transactions, such as buying a television or toaster, once the item purchased transfers from seller to buyer, the seller relinquishes all claims of ownership. Such has been the case since the marketplaces of Sumer and Mesopotamia. Then along came the ability to record something of value; a book, a record, and the lines of ownership blurred. The ease at which high quality media can be recorded today has forced the hands of publisher's to seek a means to continue to provide a good, without facing the product life cycle problem of selling "the 100-year light bulb". Their current solution, Digital Rights Management, unfairly places power of ownership with the seller. Buyer's have exercised the only power they have left; the power of their wallets to say no, or to seek illegal means of ownership. The issue here is of ownership, and just as the publisher does not want more than one owner per sale, so too, does the consumer not wish to share ownership with the seller. Somewhere on this field lies a solution.