FTC DRM comments

Comments 405-505
downloaded from http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/drmtechnologies/
Comment Number: 539814-00405
Received: 1/10/2009 2:29:57 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Francis Turner
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 have done research (documented at my blog - http://www.di2.nu/200808/03.htm - and follow up - http://www.di2.nu/200808/04a.htm ) that shows that DRM is utterly ineffective when it comes to preventing internet users from locating a "pirated" version of popular books. I am not a computer gamer but a cursory search has shown me that unlocked versions popular games which are known to be "DRM-locked" are also easily downloadable, much the same applies to other DRM protected content. One reason why otherwise law-abiding people may search out unlocked versions of content that they wish to read (play etc.), or tools to unlock content that they have purchased, is that DRM schemes frequently end up orphaning purchasers as the provider of the DRMed content ends support for that DRM mechanism or download site or the consumer upgrades to a new computer. The dilemma is summed up neatly in this cartoon: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/steal_this_comic.png A recent example of this problem is the ending of the contract between Fictionwise and Overdrive which means that purchasers of eBooks from Fictionwise which were supplied there by Overdrive will no longer be able to reobtain them after Jan 31, 2009 in the original format, if at all. A second reason why consumers may wish to avoid DRMed products is that the DRM mechanism may break other software, not work in their environment or open up a security risk. One good example of this was the Rootkit which was distributed for a short time by Sony until pressure forced them to stop. Considering these issues I believe it would be wise for the FTC to mandate a "health warning" on DRMed products requiring that the DRM scheme (and potential side-effects) be clearly set out and to require that providers of DRMed products refund users who are unable to use the product.
Comment Number: 539814-00406
Received: 1/10/2009 3:58:53 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Jeremy Barnard
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 of today is easily manipulated by those who wish to do so, whether with malicious intent or not. The only person who truly suffers from restrictive and unnecessary copy protection is the legitimate end user who is forced to jump through hoops just to prove that he/she actually purchased the game so they can install it. DRM is getting out of control and with manufacturers using more and more advanced versions, it damages the consumer all the more. There should be a limited use of DRM and better systems in place to control overly obtrusive use of it. Thank you.
Comment Number: 539814-00407
Received: 1/10/2009 4:12:08 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Hickam
State: NC
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I have had a terrible time with forms of DRM such as SecuROM. SecuROM once disabled my virus protection and opened my computer to attack. I would love to see this technology banned, or forced to become less intrusive. I can tolerate the less intrusive DRM protection such as Tages, SafeDisc, and Steam, but please, no SecuROM or StarForce ever again.
Comment Number: 539814-00408
Received: 1/10/2009 5:11:49 PM
Organization:
Commenter: mathew murphy
State: TX
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

As you are doubtless aware, the Copyright Act of 1976 codifies the First-Sale Doctrine. This states that a purchaser of a copyright work has the legal right to sell or give away the copy, once it has been obtained--so long as no additional copies have been made. One major issue I have with DRM technologies is that they deny the customer his legal right to resell the product on the second hand market. Also, in many cases purchased products may evaporate if the DRM provider goes out of business, yet still these products are described as being sold to the customer, with words like "buy", "purchase" and "on sale" being used. Netflix will let me keep a movie indefinitely, but I can't sell the disc, and they reserve the right to demand it back. Similarly, iTunes digital movies can be kept indefinitely, but I can't sell the movie, and Apple can turn off my access to it, analogous to demanding the disc back. Netflix describe their service honestly, as rental. Apple describe their service as purchase, with the button saying "Buy now". This seems to me to be confusing. Physical video stores like Blockbuster would not be allowed to say "Buy this movie for $3.89!" when the terms were actually rental with no due date for return, so I don't understand why digital movie rentals are treated differently. I have a simple proposal. It should be illegal to describe something as being "sold" or "for sale" unless the corresponding right of resale is available to the purchaser. Instead, a phrase such as "indefinite rental" should be used, as that's what is really being offered. In other words, when I "buy" a movie from the PS3 online store, I'm not really buying it, because I can't resell it second hand when I'm done with it. So Sony should not be able to pretend I'm buying it; they should be legally required to describe the offering accurately, as an "indefinite rental". I think this would go a long way towards making it clear to the average consumer that their DRM-protected purchased content comes with metaphorical strings attached, and that it might go away one day.
Comment Number: 539814-00409
Received: 1/10/2009 5:15:50 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Nicholas Werner
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: 539814-00409.pdf
Comments:

Attached is an essay I wrote at Stanford University, entitled Consumer Rights Management: Balancing the Rights of Consumers and Creators in the Digital Age. It is a look at the balance of consumer rights and manufacturer rights, and how DRM has unbalanced them. It concludes with recommendations for how to rebalance the equation.
Comment Number: 539814-00410
Received: 1/10/2009 5:32:08 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Joseph Sangster
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:

Alright, this is coming from a 24 four year old student who current has a bachelors degree in Animation. I can only speak as far as DRM for music goes(This is the only type of DRM that I have dealt with that I know of.), specifically, with iTunes. I simply don't understand how it(DRM) protects companies from losing or money for songs that people have bought. There are much many other methods of obtaining music, including filesharing and such. So how is it fair to lock up songs that I have technically bought, and should technically own? And really, the only thing I'd like to do is put more music on my XBox 360, yet due to the DRM locks placed on the thousands of songs on my ipod, I can't actually listen to the music IVE bought any where but on my iPod and Laptop. Does that seem right to you?
Comment Number: 539814-00411
Received: 1/10/2009 5:45:03 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Alfred
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 itself is a good idea in terms of preventing piracy. This though makes keeping games such as Spore, Mass Effect, Halo 2 Vista, and other related games that have DRM hard especially if a user has to legitimately reinstall a game on a PC that was completely reformatted or gets a new PC altogether and that can prove to be very annoying in the long run, thus shortening the playability and the value greatly.
Comment Number: 539814-00412
Received: 1/10/2009 5:49:39 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Brian Haas
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 excellent idea in theory and companies need to be able to protect their IP (intellectual properties). But not at the expense of legal consumers. Book publishers would not take readers' books away if they read the books in more than 3 or 4 locations. Yet software companies are limiting the amount of software installations on legal users' computers, removing legal consumers' access to the software or DRM-protected items due to hardware changes. When a consumer purchases a piece of software, they are not renting the IP. They are, in essence, purchasing a license to use that software. If a user violates the law in any way with that software, the license should be revoked and there must be penalties. But a legally purchased, legally used license should never be revoked, under any circumstance. Unfortunately, the majority of the DRM problems documented in the media thus far have affected legal owners. The other point I would like to make would be that DRM efforts thus far have been wholly unsuccessful at preventing piracy. In fact, piracy groups seem to have no problem cracking DRM protections and releasing software, music and movies before the products' launch dates. The amount of piracy through torrents and "warez" groups seems to have increased exponentially, despite these efforts to reign it in. Even the gaming industry is realizing this (see http://www.socrossblog.com/2008/12/valve-and-drm.html). If DRM were a successful, proven method of preventing piracy, I would be much more likely to accept some restrictions on the legal use of software and other IPs. So far, the only think DRM has succeeded in is alienating legal users, restricting the legal use of purchased goods and made it harder for US commerce to move into the 21st century. Thank you very much for your time
Comment Number: 539814-00413
Received: 1/10/2009 5:57:25 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Turner
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:

The DRM implemented on games like spore limit the installation to 3 times. I have 3 computers in my home and plan on getting a new one soon. Lets say I want to install this on everyone in my family's computer, then one crashes. Either I have to argue with customer service and be treated like a criminal pulling a scam, or buy a new copy of the game. If I buy access to a software product, and its not subscription based, then I deserve to be able to install the product as many times as I please. The companies worry about money lost due to piracy. Well, they have lost more business due to the hassle of DRM than they would have lost from piracy. I personally will not buy any game that has DRM implementations that are unfair to the consumer.
Comment Number: 539814-00414
Received: 1/10/2009 5:58:14 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Christopher Neal
State: CT
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

While the need for managing rights for digital copy is important, it's also far more important that developers and publishers not assume that everyone purchasing their product does so with malicious intent. Imposing limits of installation, installing intrusive and harmful programs into user systems without consumer knowledge or consent, and other such practices are akin to scanning people with a metal detector and patting them down before they're allowed entry into a movie theater to watch a film they had already purchased tickets for. There have been far more reasonable and smarter solutions to the problem of digital piracy, such as the distribution model set forth by Valve and its "Steam" service--to assume that other publishers are blind to the existence of these methods is hubris at best, and idiotic at worst. Controls are, of course, necessary in a world rife with digital piracy. It's up to publishers to recognize, through the arena of public gamer opinion, where the line in the sand is. The initiation of this town hall, as well as the recent events propagated by Electronic Arts with the DRM controls included in the game "Spore", should hopefully go a long way towards recognition of that line. For the sake of the hard-working men and women in the game development and design industry, and for the continued growth and success of a hobby and game platform that I personally hold dear, I hope that a consensus can be made.
Comment Number: 539814-00415
Received: 1/10/2009 5:58:37 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Michael Steil
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 personally believe that DRM takes the right to own the product away from the consumer and gives that authority solely to the seller, which is in all respects wrong.
Comment Number: 539814-00416
Received: 1/10/2009 5:59:00 PM
Organization: Apt-T Productions
Commenter: David T Getsfrid
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:

DRM takes many forms, all of which hurt legitimate customers. Some aren't so bad (such as requiring a disc to play the game or music that's on the disc, rather than just installing), others are ridiculous (installing without notification software into a computer's kernel). My main issue is that companies using DRM (at least in most of its forms) are killing the secondary market. If I buy a CD and then get tired of it, I can sell it to someone else in order to recoup some of the money I spent on it. If I buy an XBOX video game, I can sell it to a friend once I've beaten it. If I buy a computer game that limits itself to 3 installs all of which have to be on the same computer it was originally installed on, then it becomes such that there is no secondary market. It's as if you were to go to a supermarket, buy a couple steaks, and then be told that only YOU can eat those steaks because they were bought with your credit card. You can't even give one away to someone else. Granted it's a very smart business plan. With no secondary market, the business can continue to collect money on every single copy of their product that anyone ever gets, but at the same time it's a practice that hurts the consumer. The other oft brought up issue is that most forms of DRM due very little to stop piracy. They simply hurt and inconvenience the customer that acquired the product legitimately. I'm very glad the FTC has decided to look into these longstanding and unfair business practices, and hope they find what we, the consumers already know: Most forms of DRM unfairly hurt the consumer, and do next to nothing to stop the people they were intended to protect against.
Comment Number: 539814-00417
Received: 1/10/2009 6:04:44 PM
Organization: what is delicious
Commenter: Thomas Ella
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:

Some form DRM is necessary, but the way they're doing isn't really helping. Rather than making people who legitimately bought the game go through hoops and have DRM permanently installed on their computer, it should merely be working to prevent people who have not bought the game legitimately to play. Dealing with piracy is an extremely delicate issue, and the kind of DRM that is out now is not helping; if anything, it is encouraging pirates because they feel like now they have some righteous excuse. As I said, DRM is necessary, but the way it is implemented today is not the way to go. For instance, they shouldn't be linking games to people's computers, but instead, should be linking them to accounts. Then players can switch computers if they need to without it being a huge hassle. Another example is the removal of DRM. Most of the DRM out today stays on your computer even after you've uninstalled the game. This should not be allowed. There are just issues like that that the FTC really just needs to talk to game developers (not publishers) and journalists about to find the proper compromise.
Comment Number: 539814-00418
Received: 1/10/2009 6:05:16 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Lee
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 am displeased with the entertainment industry's insistence on employing Digital Rights Management technologies. It inconveniences me and others who legitimately purchase their products, while doing little to hinder "pirates"--who are (arguably) encouraged by the industry's efforts. I feel that, should the entertainment industry continue this practice, consumers have a right to know all the specifics/limitations of DRM; anything less is deceptive marketing.
Comment Number: 539814-00419
Received: 1/10/2009 6:15:39 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Robbert Van den Doorn
State: Outside the United States
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

In my opinion DRM is the worst copy protection ever. Nowadays it's being used in a lot of games. DRM doesn't stop pirates from copying those games. Those who're affected by DRM are the people who buy their games in a legally way. One of the downsides of DRM (such as used by Electonic Arts) is the required internet connection. After installing the game, you'll need to activate the game before you're able to play this game. This activation is done using an internet connection. So, if you don't have an internet connection, you'll never be able to play the game you just bought. For many people this isn't a problem, but there are still a lot of people without an internet connection. For all of those people living in the Eastern Bloc it isn't obvious to have an internet connection, so these people'll never be able to play those games in a legally way. Except the Eastern Bloc there are more places on Earth where it isn't obvious to have an internet connection. I live in The Netherlands which is a rich country with fast internet connections, but even in my country there are still gamers without an internet connection. My best friend doesn't have an internet connection at his home. He's a great fan of the Red Alert games which are published by Electronic Arts. He doesn't pirate games and he has the original versions of the Red Alert games and their expansion packs. A few months ago Electronic Arts released Red Alert 3. My friend'd like to buy and play this game, but he'll never buy it, because he'll never be able to play the game. He just won't be able to activate the game. How about the pirates? Well, DRM just doesn't work. The games which are protected by DRM can be downloaded and installed by everyone who wants to. Most of the time the cracked version of these protected games are already available before the game'll be released in my country. Those pirates just download and install this cracked version and DRM just doesn't matter for them. They don't have to activate the game, they don't need an internet connection (except for downloading the game, which can be done from another computer) and there are no install limits on these cracked versions. They can just install the game as many times as they want on as many PCs as they want. DRM doesn't stop pirates. In fact the most downloaded games of 2008 are games which are protected by DRM. DRM isn't able to stop pirates and no copy protection'll ever be able to stop pirates. Every copy protection'll be cracked and pirates'll always be able to play illegal games. In my opinion it's completely useless to put any money in copy protections. They cost a lot of money and they just don't work. Publishers have to pay licencing fees in order to use a copy protection like SecuROM. Those copy protections interfere with the users hardware and software (many times I wanted to start my game and I got the error "Please insert the original CD/DVD" while the original disc was inside my optical drive), so many users'll be calling the support staff, because of these problems. In my opinion the solution is to drop all of these copy protections: - No licensing fees. - No interference with the installed hardware and software, meaning less people calling support staff (and because customers don't have problems to run the games they'll be satisfied customers and they're willing to buy any future games). - No activations servers are needed (also count the maintenance and power consumption of these servers). Customers'll be happy and publishers save a lot of money they can use to develop better games. Better games means more people willing to buy the game. How about the pirates? Publishers just can't stop them. The government has to stop those pirates from stealing games. Track down those pirates and let them pay high fines. Take down illegal websites and put the maker of the website in jail. The government has to do a lot more work to fight against piracy and control the internet. Greets, Robbert.
Comment Number: 539814-00420
Received: 1/10/2009 6:21:21 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Marshall
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:

DRM is a terrifying beast. The sooner the world is rid, the better.
Comment Number: 539814-00421
Received: 1/10/2009 6:22:56 PM
Organization:
Commenter: T Krasovac
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 think that as a longtime PC gamer who actually pays for his games, it's sad that i am treated worse than the pirates who take games for free. Pirates crack games and have no problems playing them. With games i have purchased, because of protection like DRM, i have either had hardware issues, or have had my privacy invaded. I have heard horror stories from other people who have had dvd-rom drives stop working or spyware like programs installed by DRM that could create a huge security risk on their system. I fully believe in trying to protect one's IP's, but i think when it starts to infringe on the ability to enjoy the products i actually pay for, something is wrong.
Comment Number: 539814-00422
Received: 1/10/2009 6:31:44 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Trent Boeschen
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 has on countless occasions prevented me from using software goods I purchased legitimately and was attempting to use legitimately (within the scope of the EULA's). The DRM methods used most frequently by Windows PC game manufacturers have caused noticeable and irrevocable loss of performance on at least two of my computers. From what I can tell, DRM treats lawful consumers like criminals. It hasn't stopped me from purchasing PC games, but it does have some influence on my purchasing habits. DRM in the form of HDCP is another issue altogether. This technology has been known to render expensive hardware unusable. Meanwhile, circumventing it via unlawful means produces a better consumer-end experience. Pirating of software goods is not going to stop. "Hackers" and pirates will always remain one step ahead in this battle, just as they have from the beginning. DRM hurts consumer confidence, confuses the less technically inclined, and too frequently revokes the lawful use of a legally purchased product. From this consumer's perspective DRM in most forms appears illegally intrusive. While I would like to see the vast majority of DRM methods abolished, I understand that this is not likely. At the very least products employing any form of DRM should be required to be clearly labeled as such - much like explicit content warnings on audio CDs are.
Comment Number: 539814-00423
Received: 1/10/2009 6:34:08 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Rasmussen
State: NY
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM is a bit backwards, honestly. It places restrictions on people who choose to pay for their software, effectively punishing them for being honest, while people who choose to pirate get a hacked version of the same thing with all the restrictions removed. This essentially means that by pirating software, you're not only getting it free, but you're receiving a more usable and better quality product than users who pay for a license. Implementing DRM doesn't even make piracy any more difficult, because once the particular method of DRM is cracked (which frequently happens withing a few days thanks to individuals and teams who dedicate themselves to such hacking), illegally downloading a DRM protected piece of software is just as easy as one with no protection. In fact, this hacked software might actually be easier to obtain and use than legitimate copies, being as there are many examples of DRM implementations unjustly locking a paying customer out of their software due to a software bug or a license technicality. Removing DRM from software certainly won't stop piracy, but it will at least allow honest consumers to enjoy the software they paid for free of complications, thereby not rewarding people for downloading illegal copies.
Comment Number: 539814-00424
Received: 1/10/2009 7:00:55 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Casey Miller
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 necessary. Allowing blatant piracy of software and digital entertainment is obviously harmful to the industry, and needs to be kept in check. However, the way that 99% of companies choose to go about DRM is at best pointless and at worst a blatant infringement on the rights of the consumer. Good DRM (such as Valve software's Steam service) should be seamless and convenient for the consumer without automatically treating each of its users like a criminal and essentially selling a broken product. Stuff like the recent controversy with EA's game Spore, where the software only allows you to install it a limited number of times, should be considered nothing less than fraud on the part of the company for selling a product that they KNOW will punish legitimate consumers for no reason.
Comment Number: 539814-00425
Received: 1/10/2009 7:27:46 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Steven Holt
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:

I think it is safe to say that at this point not a single instance of a usable DRM protection scheme has been found that has not been "cracked" by pirates within days if not hours. Therefore the only effect that DRM has is to limit the access and use of a product by the customers who pay for that product. For this reason I am wholeheartedly against the very concept of Digital Rights Management. Thank You
Comment Number: 539814-00426
Received: 1/10/2009 7:27:50 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Armand Minotti
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:

Current DRM standards treat legitimate consumers as criminals. The most famous DRM fiasco of this year was EA's Spore. It's DRM limited installs and users on a game certain to be played by families and perhaps on more than one household PC. As it is, if a family has three children, and each child wants their own unique profile, three separate copies of the game must be purchased. Meanwhile, DRM does nothing to slow down those who would illegally obtain the game. Spore was the most pirated game of 2008 by a large margin despite its draconian DRM. As it is, DRM is something there to assure the investors that the company distributing a product is doing something to stave off piracy. However, DRM has been proven time and again to harm legitimate customers and do nothing to stop pirates. It is pointless, harmful (I haven't even gotten into some of the unremoveable software many DRM solutions leave on your PC), and a general blight on the new age of digital distribution.
Comment Number: 539814-00427
Received: 1/10/2009 7:32:41 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Perez
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:

Anything that is a paid downloaded should be able to be downloaded as many times as the consumer sees fit. Including disk based media that have downloadable additions or alterations.
Comment Number: 539814-00428
Received: 1/10/2009 7:45:35 PM
Organization:
Commenter: William Jones
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 have no issues with DRM unless it does one of the following: installs a rootkit or other similar software; inhibits me using media on all of my computers, mp3 players, etc.; or causes installation (such as the number of installations allowed), compatability, or performance issues. An example of DRM done well is STEAM for PC Games. An example od DRM done poorly is SecuROM.
Comment Number: 539814-00429
Received: 1/10/2009 7:49:56 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Swim
State: TX
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I was never truly bothered by DRM related issues, maybe because I had never needed to install something more than once or twice. I do see where people are coming from when they say they don't want DRM in their video games. I had an incident one time where I turned on my computer and my computer power supply had popped and caused it to fail. Luckily my hard drive was unharmed, but if it was, that means I would need to reinstall games that could have possibly had DRM attached to them. That would mean I would have used up 2 of the 3 allowed installs. What if I wanted to also put one of my games on my laptop too so I could play it on the go? That means all 3 would be used up and I would have to hope I never have a problem with my computer or laptop again, because I wouldn't be able to install those games again due to DRM. Either way, I am not extremely bothered by it, only because I haven't been a victim of DRM yet, and hopefully I won't have to worry about it. I do support companies that are trying to cut down on piracy, because I think it's terrible that people download games and don't pay the companies their hard deserved money for the product they have created. But I also think that in putting DRM in video games that it can be annoying when you pay the money and you only have a set amount of times you can install. If DRM is kept, maybe there should just be a raise on the number of installations. Maybe double the DRM to 6 rather than 3 installs. In the end though, I would not be scathed by whichever decision is decided upon. -Mr. Swim
Comment Number: 539814-00430
Received: 1/10/2009 7:50:28 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Dale Chalfont
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 that DRM is invasive and unnecessary as many games now include online activation in which you input your cd-key and receive an activation key in turn to input in order to activate you game to play, which prevents someone else using the same cd key and preventing piracy. Also giving the user the ability to manually activate it on the internet if their computer is not directly connected to the internet eg. you can go to an activation web page and input as said above and when home you can then use that key to activate it. With DRM you need a direct connection to the internet which at times due to technical difficulties has not been the case for me. Many games also include a revoke tool which when you uninstall a game you deactivate the cd-key allowing you to reinstall your game as many times as you wish. Whereas the DRM limits the amount of times you can install a game which in my mind should be illegal as all the shops 'selling' these games are advertising them as that and not to 'rent'. To pay au$99 for a pc game and have to buy it again months later is insane. I have gone through 2 power supplies (on my third), 2 motherboards ( also on my third), and have upgraded my video card once in the past 12 months all of which would have rendered my games useless, except for the fact that i hadn't purchased any DRM games until recently. The DRM is an invasion of privacy, an inconvenience to the consumer and gives the product a much shorter life span, essentially making games rentals only, and rentals don't cost $99.
Comment Number: 539814-00431
Received: 1/10/2009 7:54:29 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Douglas Adams
State: RI
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 an avid music listener and game player, I get much more direct contact with DRM and its inherently broken system. DRM restricts one thing: the theoretical profits of those who use them. Let me give you a hypothetical, I want to buy a song and I download it from the iTunes store. I do not own an iPod, and so I cannot put the song on my MP3 player. Now, I know that Apple just got rid of DRM, and I applaud them for it. However, in that case, I would not buy the music from Apple. Instead, I would get it from a different source: the non-DRMed Amazon. Prior to the existence of Amazon (and the non-DRMed Apple music store), I would have had to download the song via a P2P network if I wanted to enjoy it on my MP3 player, and that is, simply put, ridiculous. When it comes to PC games. When I buy a game, I have expectations. One of those expectations, and the most important one, is that the game will always work as it is intended. With recent DRM issues, some games not only stop working after you install them five or so times (as someone who upgrades and formats my computer frequently, I would run out of installs very quickly), but others simply don't function at all, even if I have the disc inside, it will claim to be a fake copy. In this case, I would have to download a crack to the game to make it function, all because the DRM misunderstood my intentions. Taking away the rights of consumers does one thing: makes them angry. When I can't play a song that my friend wants me to hear because there is DRM on it, I become unhappy. When I am unable to play a game I have paid for, I become irate, and I'm not alone. Whenever I can get something via legal means, I do so, because I want these industries to grow. However, the companies make it harder and harder by acting as though I, a paying customer, am a criminal. If I had pirated the music, or the game, both of which are incredibly easy to do nowadays, I would not have any limitations, and I would end up with a superior experience. The fact that a customer who does not pay gets a superior experience to one who does is illogical, and it is one of the main causes of piracy. There will always be pirates, DRM or no. However, getting rid of DRM will stop certain people (like me), those who feel like they're getting the short end of the stick by obtaining these things by legal means, from engaging in filesharing and piracy. As it is, I simply don't buy things with DRM, and instead give my money to those who have made the decision to forego it, and that is the way it shall stay.
Comment Number: 539814-00432
Received: 1/10/2009 8:08:07 PM
Organization: self
Commenter: charles tetrick
State: MD
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I understand the need of game developers, music artists to protect their assets. However DRM Does not circumvent Piracy . Many games, Cds are still leaked to the internet before their release date regardless of DRM. The only thing DRM does , is take away the Right of customers who actually purchase their products. there must be a better way to prevent piracy and still allow a customer who purchases a PC game or Song to not have limits imposed on game installs and limits on Cd burns
Comment Number: 539814-00433
Received: 1/10/2009 8:08:13 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Joseph Riesenbeck
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:

After purchasing one EA Game containing Securom, in this case Apartment Life for the Sims, it played havoc with my CD Burner and it became non functional immediately after playing that game. Yet, there was nothing on the game package or in the game description telling me that I was loading up an outside third party program on my PC which could interfere with normal function. But it's worse than that. If the gaming companies had nothing to hide, then why continue to try and hide exactly what these products do? They not only leave the information off the packaging, in which case you know nothing about it until after you've bought it and opened it making a return impossible, they never ever tell you in the description on places like Amazon or EB games what exactly you are getting whether it's Securom, or IGA's program to track your internet movements to feed you ads. They don't tell you this because that given an informed choice many people who would purchase these products would opt out. Furthermore, these schemes do nothing to stop piracy as CEO Ricitello of EA claims. In fact, their game spore was pirated and the copy protection broken before it was even available to purchasing customers. It is simply a scheme by game companies to try and control the second hand gaming market, and limiting what customers can do with a product that they purchased with their hard earned dollars, forcing them to spend even more money by creating what amounts to a rent-a-game system without calling it that by name. This does not punish Pirates. This stuff is a joke to them, obviously. The only people being punished are those honest consumers who spend their money only to find out that they are limited in what they can do with the product. Frankly, they can put all the DRM on it they want as long as they are totally upfront as to what the DRM does (limited installs, spyware), including that you will need an internet connection (despite the fact that many of these games are single player and shouldn't need one such as The Sims) not just on the packaging but as a warning in all ads and all game descriptions where the product is being marketed such as on Amazon or EB games.
Comment Number: 539814-00434
Received: 1/10/2009 8:34:19 PM
Organization: N/A
Commenter: Shawn Bailey
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 basically means that I need to buy the same media multiple times to use it on hardware from multiple brands. I understand the desire for copyright holders to want to be paid for their product, but I feel treated like a criminal when I purchase something with DRM on it. For example, if I purchase a song from Apple's iTunes Music Store with DRM on it, I can only use it on Apple products and up to 5 authorized Mac or PC computers. Even though I paid for it, I cannot use it on Microsoft's Zune or XBox, Sony's PSP or Playstation, or many other media playing devices. Things w/o DRM like CDs, some purchasable music files, and bootleg music files from the internet do not have these restrictions. While this allows for illegal copying, it also allows for fair use on all of the devices a user owns that can play back the media file. It allows for conversion of the media files to formats that their hardware can play back. Essentially it allows the end user to obtain one copy and use it anywhere instead of locking a user into one brand of hardware (which is uncompetitive by nature) or forcing the user to buy things repeatedly. The repeated buying may not be so bad, but since DRMed digital copies often cost nearly as much or more than CDs and DVDs, the cost of purchasing repeatedly is very high and thus prohibitive. I think it's important to also take into account that the encryption and region encoding used on DVDs and Blu Ray Discs is also a form of DRM which attempts to prohibit the end purchaser from using their media fully. It is well know that region encoding of DVDs and Blu Ray Discs are used for the purposes of selling media at different price points in different countries and to allow movies to be sold on DVD and Blu Ray in one country while the movie is still being played in the theatre in another country, thus avoiding cannibalizing theatre revenues. The theatre revenues can be maintained by companies releasing earlier in foreign theatres and/or delaying the DVD and Blu Ray releases until it is out of foreign theatres if it is such a big concern. This isn't the biggest problem of region encoding however. The biggest problem is that many movies and videos are not released in all countries. It is fully legal for me to purchase movies in other countries, but region encoding prevents me from playing it back in all DVD and Blu Ray players. This means some regions get priced gouged and many people are unable to purchase copies of foreign movies that are watchable in their own country. This restricts trade and makes little sense. For example, Welcome to Paradox is a Sci Fi Channel series that was not successful here in the USA. I would like to buy it, but Sci Fi did not release it in any format in the USA. It is available in Australia, but only on region 4 DVDs. Since the USA is region 1, I can buy it, but I can't actually watch it. Thus no one gets my money, and I can't get my show. Don't we want people to buy things they want? Why restrict them for videos of shows that are legal to watch? Finally, the encryption on the DVDs and Blu Ray Discs prevents my making backups for when my kids scratch a disc or making a copy I can watch on my iPod, Zune, XBox 360, PC, etc. This isn't about getting free stuff or giving away what people have made. This is about not having to buy the same thing repeatedly, worry about the DRM servers being taken offline and rendering my purchase unuseable, being able to buy things from any region if it's not sold here, and being able to fully use the media I paid for. I probably buy more CDs than anyone I know. I buy music from the USA, South Korea, and Japan on a regular basis. If it was easier for me to buy music and video in a digital format from any region, I would likely buy more, but instead the digital copies treat me like a criminal in most cases.
Comment Number: 539814-00435
Received: 1/10/2009 8:35:06 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Jeffrey Carman
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 believe that when I purchase a game, it should be mine to keep. If I want to install it on multiple computers, if I want to play it while not connected to the internet, if I want to make backups of the CD, I should be free to do it. I believe, when I by a game, I just bought it. I didn't buy a license to play one installed copy of it.
Comment Number: 539814-00436
Received: 1/10/2009 8:36:08 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Buck
State: AK
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

Digital Rights Management is poor method of protection. The only products I purchase that use DRM invasively are video games (On the PC). Many of these allow limited numbers of installations, and the online authentication required means you essentially are renting the game and not actually owning it, because when the publisher or developer decides to call it an end of life for that game, you are out of luck. There are workarounds however, created by the very people it (DRM) is designed to stop - those who crack and distribute the game online. This brings me to the point of in the end DRM on computer games helps nobody, and much like security companies are trying to stop hackers, and virus writers, their efforts are somewhat in vein, because DRM has never stopped someone with a little bit of computer know how to put any game on the web.
Comment Number: 539814-00437
Received: 1/10/2009 9:01:12 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Randy Alderson
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:

Excellent DRM: see Steam. The Steam pc game platform is so well done that most people who use it, don't even realize that it is a form of DRM. Study what makes Steam so appealing to both consumers and the industry and you will find what works.
Comment Number: 539814-00438
Received: 1/10/2009 9:23:14 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Zachary Boody
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 think the main problem with DRM is mostly in the way it's implemented. Limited activations do little but annoy the customer, and incite them to try to circumvent the DRM to be able to use their purchase fairly. Especially if the activation limit is not stated on the box. You can't return most DRM-locked software, and you never know that there's an activation limit until you open the shrinkwrap. Also, there's always the problem with the eventuality of the DRM server going offline, or the company that you purchased the media from folding up. What happens to your purchase then? Most consumers don't really believe it's fair that they pay more than they would normally (with prices increasing) to merely rent the content for a few years. That isn't to say all DRM is bad, or it needs to be outlawed. I just believe that a lot of implementations leave something to be desired. For example, I believe that limited activations are completely missing the point. The idea of DRM isn't to limit the law abiding consumers, but to prevent unlawful copying. The software side of DRM is what I'm most familiar with, and there is a good example of software DRM done right. Steam, by Valve software. It provides added value, in the form of a community, support, and an integrated store. It doesn't address the "what-if" of the company going under, but it really gets it right on all other counts. Personally, I believe the what-if is something that the FTC could fix. Mandate that if a company takes down the DRM servers, that they would need to release something removing the DRM protection from their files, or make available DRM-free copies.
Comment Number: 539814-00439
Received: 1/10/2009 9:25:22 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Dustin Azlin
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 believe all DRM info should be given to every customer.
Comment Number: 539814-00440
Received: 1/10/2009 9:34:43 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Josh Barnett
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:

I think that DRM is perfectly acceptable to be used during any sort of downloading/updating process (such as game patching.) I'm also completely fine with serial numbers used upon installation. I draw the line at limiting the number of computers/devices software is installed on, and requiring the product to be re-authorized every set period of time (like what was originally part of secuROM.) Pretty much, I'm fine with software checking validity whenever you connect to their servers, but that should be optional for people who don't have internet access.
Comment Number: 539814-00441
Received: 1/10/2009 9:35:57 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Shaun Giddings
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 feel that DRM is extremely unnecessary and unfair to the consumer. It bogs down people who legitimately buy software and puts unnecessary restrictions on it. I am a firm believer that when you purchase something it is yours. You paid the money and therefore you should own it. I understand that piracy is illegal but DRM does NOT stop piracy, it promotes it. DRM does not stop piracy and often, pirated copies run better and are more hassle free than legitimate copies of software. Especially when it comes to video games. I think companies should take a look at Stardock and follow their PC gamer's bill of rights.
Comment Number: 539814-00442
Received: 1/10/2009 9:38:59 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Edward Haney
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 initially sounding like a good idea, only hurts consumers and encourages pirates. A consumer who finds himself without internet access will be unable to use the product, while pirates allready have found a way around it, causing Spore to be the most pirated game of the year
Comment Number: 539814-00443
Received: 1/10/2009 9:46:36 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Sean Parker
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 feel that the concept of having DRM is quite reasonable, but the execution is, more often than not, terribly flawed. Most importantly, it fails to do what it sets out for -- to prevent piracy. What it often ends up doing instead (in SecuROM's case, for example) is causing customers to have computer problems for having perfectly legitimate CD burning software, failing to install properly, and functioning as malware. Meanwhile, the software pirates are able to bypass DRM with the greatest of ease and share it on torrent sites in what could be considered a superior form, as it is stripped of its DRM and is no longer a hassle or privacy breach to the customer to have on their computer... not to mention the illegality of not explaining to customers what the included DRM actually will do to your computer. The problem with DRM is that it cannot serve its purpose in its current form. Legitimate customers who care enough to purchase software end up being treated like scum, based on some downright atrocious DRM design. DRM will always, always be cracked, and made available to those unwilling to deal with it (which are many). I'd be willing to bet that in many cases, bad DRM has caused a lack of sales and an increase in piracy! The game Spore is a prime example of DRM causing bad word-of-mouth -- despite mostly favorable reviews, it has received a 1.5 / 5 star rating on Amazon, mostly due to very strong complaints about the included DRM. Very few cases of DRM succeed. The best example is Steam, as it is very difficult to pirate games on, and contains no hidden malicious programs. However, with its online-only activation system, it places restrictions on customers without internet access and probably shouldn't become the standard DRM model based on that alone. I'm not sure if DRM can ever become truly successful, but a good start would be removing the malware and hidden functionality from it, so that people who pay for a game will be guaranteed to be able to make it work, so that they don't go pirate it instead. I do not condone game piracy, and find it very unfortunate that so many have turned to it over the past few years. However, I can understand why people do it. If the videogame industry is to regain some footing during these economically unstable times, DRM should either step up its game or remove itself from the picture.
Comment Number: 539814-00444
Received: 1/10/2009 10:18:14 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Alan Velasco
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:

Is it really wrong to want to back-up a DVD movie or music CD to have in case you lose the original, or have it saved on your computer so you can take it on the road with you? DRM is just flat out unfair. It restricts what consumers can do with the content they paid for. Meanwhile, the pirates, the ones this is supposed to be hurting, aren't being affected at all. It's incredibly easy to go on to the Internet and find something digital pirated. In the end, it punishes those who are rewarding content creators for their work, while the pirates still get everything for free, and usually a better version of the product.
Comment Number: 539814-00445
Received: 1/10/2009 10:20:13 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Bradford Williams
State: VT
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

Honestly, I understand why developers want a form of DRM involved in their games, movies, and other media. The problem I have is that every form of DRM is in some way either detrimental to the rights of the consumer, or actually obtrusive. DRM schemes cause the item in question to no longer be copyable, meaning the consumers' right to make a backup is infringed upon. Further, because of the DMCA, the consumer is not allowed to bypass the copy protection, essentially making something that is legal (as defined by law) illegal. There are a couple of other problems, as well. Items with a limited number of activations cause a serious problem, as with the proliferation of spyware, viruses, and other issues, computers may need to be formatted and reloaded often. Each time this is done, an "activation" is used up, eventually causing the consumer to no longer be able to use the product they have paid for. Additionally, because of these activations (and other issues with DRM), consumers are often denied their right of first sale - used software is oven completely non-transferrable. When everything is said and done, DRM is a hassle for the honest customer. The irony is that most of the DRM in software is very easy to remove by way of hacks, so the supposed targets of DRM software (pirates) aren't effected in the slightest.
Comment Number: 539814-00446
Received: 1/10/2009 10:29:48 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Olson
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:

As evidenced by recent events, specifically several major PC videogame releases over the course of the years 2007 and 2008, current Digital Rights Management (DRM) technologies have not only been proven inneffective, but also detrimental to the rights of the average consumer across the United States. While DRM may seem well intentioned on the surface, the effects can be anything but. In one of its most recent and controversial forms, the DRM included with the PC version of EA's "Spore" ended up completely failing to protect the developer/publisher from the threat of software piracy, while punishing those who legally purchased a copy of the game by limiting installs and generally making it more difficult to access their legal copy for use. It's slightly ironic that a software pirate benifits even more over the legal consumer with the afformentioned DRM software as once the DRM is cracked (which will inevitably happen no matter how secure the software is), the pirate has a restriction free version of the software (a videogame in this case). In fact, Spore reportedly became the most pirated game in history due in large part to its publisher's frivilous use of ethically questionable DRM software. Another troubling trend of DRM, and also some of the digital software distribution business models through what could arguably be called DRM, is the systematic destruction of the secondhand market. By limiting installs and placing restrictions on the number of unique users able to make use of a particular copy of software, the publisher effectively destroys the resale value for the consumer. This is unprecedented in other, similar types of consumer goods, and it takes away rights from legal consumers. As a legal consumer of many products that could possibly implement various types of DRM software, I strongly urge the Federal Trade Commission to scrutinize the methods by which software developers and publishers are attempting to "protect" themselves from software piracy, and implement regulations to protect the average consumer's rights. Please prevent the destruction of our rights, please stop these corporations from taking advantage of us, the consumers.
Comment Number: 539814-00447
Received: 1/10/2009 11:16:10 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Schoenfeld
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:

DRM kills the ability to use paid for content any way we like. By purchasing content people should also be purchasing use rights to that content. In other words, DRM restricts usage to certain devices and mediums, thereby creating a controlled and partially monopolized market.
Comment Number: 539814-00448
Received: 1/10/2009 11:19:24 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Andrew Friedrich
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:

Copyright holders to attempt to control how consumers access and use media and entertainment content through the use of DRM has largely influenced my buying decisions. As a married professional with a family, I have less time to deal with these kinds of measures and instead base my entertainment choices based on the kind of DRM. Companies such as Stardock have decided to increase value to the consumer (me) and not have DRM- this influences my purchasing decisions. At the same time, I have decided to forgo other purchases and technology since it limits my freedom. People have limited amounts of money, they decide to purchase different things. Prior to NAPSTER and file sharing, music companies were complaining that Video Games were eating into their market share. Now its electronic games, DVD's and other forms of entertainment are eating into their market. Software piracy is serious, and software, music companies and artists do need to be compensated- there are forms of DRM which consumers are happy with because they are invisible- Microsoft's Xbox Live Arcade service, Valve Software's Steam, and Stardock's Impulse are good examples of services with DRM that is invisible, and consumers are willing to partake and vote with their money. Services such as ITUNES are successful, though there are people like myself that chose to purchase music though conventional means because of the added value provided via the CD. People should be able to purchase software and music, and back it up for personal use. Does this pose a risk for piracy? Yes it does, but laws are currently completely out of balance to favor the content producers in a way to severely limit the freedoms of the content user. Content users should not be able just buy one copy of something and then give it to others, but at the same time they should be able to use it as often and wherever and on as many devices as they want as long as they own it.
Comment Number: 539814-00449
Received: 1/10/2009 11:23:13 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Kyle Snape
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 think DRM is a good idea, but companies have not used it to what it should be. Electronic Arts for example, place 3 to 5 limit on installation on their new PC software. What happens if you have computer issues, or upgrade your computer and you use your limit? Then you have to call the company, who can refuse to allow new installations, and force you to buy another one of their products. What also happens with online authenticating? What if the company goes under in a year or two, and your product is no longer useable then. Also some DRM takes private computer information and sends it into the company, and in some cases, installs spyware onto the PC without telling the user. These issues alone are enough to warrent DRM trouble for PC users.
Comment Number: 539814-00450
Received: 1/10/2009 11:28:52 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Brian Furlong
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 once a person buys a disc, they show own some rights to that disc. If the disc comes with a registration code, that registration code should be good for the life of the disc. Once a person owns the disc, if they choose to download it to multiple computers, they should have that option for the life of the disc. I do believe that discs should not be allowed to be copied. I also think it is reasonable to require the disc to be in the drive to play the game. This would mean that if multiple people in the same household wanted to play at the same time from different machines, they would have to own two copies of the disc. I think a person should also have the right to sell the disc whenever they want. I understand that this creates the possibility of having multiple households receiving the benefits of the disc at the same time, but we should try to stop these efforts by improving the copy-protection methods. I also think the current online methods for finding people using duplicate registration codes and deleting the code is an excellent method.
Comment Number: 539814-00451
Received: 1/10/2009 11:36:39 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Johnson
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 don't think any consumer will ever have an issue with DRM as long as it is seamless, but that is almost never the case. Pirates and those that are going to break the law and obtain content illegally are not effected by most of the protection schemes out there now. It is the paying customer that is often left with a product that doesn't work as intended, and they suffer because of these schemes. Most PC gaming developers for instance uses a method called secure rom. It installs software to prevent piracy of video games that can never be uninstalled. This has no effect what so ever on the pirates and the same titles are available for download without this software. Often times faster than you can buy them legally. It all boils down to the fact that any company that thinks they can encrypt a product to prevent copying it is sorely mistaken. PC's are basically machines that encrypt and decrypt code. Every DRM scheme ever introduced has been cracked in days or weeks. To think you can prevent this is frivolous at best, and I believe it pushes paying customers to obtain content, be it software, and games, or movies and mp3s to piracy.
Comment Number: 539814-00452
Received: 1/10/2009 11:38:53 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Jake Zerbe
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:

Research has revealed that in several cases, DRM software, "SecuRom" in this case, does not make the user aware that it is being installed to their system, and in some instances, disables CD and DVD burners. I consider this 'overkill'. By considering that everyone pirates their software, DRM programs can potentially do more harm than good to what is most likely an innocent consumer's machine. It has been compared to malware in several cases.
Comment Number: 539814-00453
Received: 1/10/2009 11:39:39 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Timothy Shrimpton
State: SD
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 purpose of DRM is to protect copyright owners, and yet often it punishes the people who legitimately purchase the product. In order to avoid this, I believe the method employed by something like iTunes would be advised: 1. Allow the purchaser to authorize their content on several machines. Many people have several systems that they play movies, listen to music, and play games on in their home. "Fair use" should come into play that people ought to be able to use the content that they've purchased when and where they choose. 2. Assuming #1 has a limit to the number of devices a product is allowed to play on, allow the end user to disable certain machines. That way, in the event of a computer crash or hardware failure, content is not tied to a piece of hardware that no longer functions or operates. 3. In the realm of digital content, all content should be "future proofed" enabling purchases to be usable far into the future. Thus, if a service is planning to take authentication servers offline, they should be required to release a software update that allows the content to be freed from the DRM restrictions so that it is usable even though authentication will not be able to take place. I think it is important to understand that those who want to steal content will steal it regardless of what methods of DRM or other copy protection are employed. It's sad, but is a reality that ought to be recognized. In light of that, there needs to be a compromise between protecting a company's products and not punishing those who actually paid for the content. Thank you.
Comment Number: 539814-00454
Received: 1/10/2009 11:53:25 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Jones
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:

Once you purchase a product, it belong to you. DRM is comparable to a police officer arresting you because you let a friend borrow a CD or a book. DRM simply denies the consumer freedom to do what they want with their own property.
Comment Number: 539814-00455
Received: 1/10/2009 11:58:54 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Michael James
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:

It is only fair that DRM protect against piracy. Some levels of DRM need to exist. Online requirements, passcode authentication, and/or intermittant re-reregistration all result in different layers of frustration. The type of DRM should be clear when the consumer makes a purchase. However, DRM that limits the amount of installations is a dangerous practice. The consumer purchases the right to use the software that is protected by DRM. If the software has nothing to do with the Operating System (OS) (i.e. games, business applications, etc), why should the stability of that OS relate to the durability of the license?
Comment Number: 539814-00456
Received: 1/11/2009 12:10:03 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Wittry
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:

As a consumer, I find DRM objectionable because DRM-restricted media suffer compatibility problems, inconsistent and unintuitive licensing, and limited longevity. All of these problems can be demonstrated in the digital music market, and it would be a shame to needlessly extend these same problems to other markets. The compatibility problems DRM can introduce have been readily apparent in the digital music market. People have been buying digital music players they call "MP3 players" because the MP3 format popularized digital music. However, when they went to download digital music, they were almost invariably restricted to one of two formats: WMA and iTunes. No one device supported both formats, so some users who hadn't followed the market bought music they couldn't play. My father was one such consumer. He received a digital media player for his birthday, so he went and downloaded a track from the largest music sites--iTunes. However, his music player only supported WMA, so his money was wasted. While, the digital media market seems to be moving toward a less restricted format, it would be silly to repeat this same mistake in other media markets. Music markets also demonstrated another problem with DRM, licensing that was inconsistent and unintuitive to the user. If we are completely honest, the idea of "licensing" media is alien to most users. Most users think they "own" the media they buy; in fact, the users are buying a perpetual license to peruse the media they "buy" for their own use. While this notion is alien to many consumers consumer, it cannot reasonably be discarded without damaging the copyright that gives content creators the ability to profit from their works. However, even consumers unfamiliar with the notion of licensing have understood what constituted fair use of their licenses and what amounted to theft. However, the digital music market could be rather unkind to the many of customers who were unfamiliar with the idea of licensing. At one point, the digital media market offered customers accustomed to perpetual licenses and rather fuzzy with the notion of licensing limited licenses. Such licenses typically expired when the media was used on a second, third, or fourth computer. As a result, some customers who used multiple computers to maintain the collections on the digital media players. This happened to a woman I dated. She lacked a computer of her own, so she would update the iTunes collection on her iPod on friends' and relatives' computers as the opportunity arose. However, eventually, iTunes started deleting the songs from her iPod, and she didn't understand why until she mentioned it to me and I explained. While this woman ran into the problem sooner than most users would, it is a problem that will face those users who don't upgrade their DRM-restricted tracks to unrestricted formats. Even worse, it could be very tough for a user to keep track of when expiration terms might be triggered. Different tracks have often had different expiration terms (often on the same music service), so a user with a 100 tracks (8 to 10 CD's worth) would many different licenses to track. Even worse, a customer whose computer was being repaired would have to hasten his collection's demise to maintain it until his computer was returned. Even if we set customer confusion about licensing terms and the difficulty of tracking varying one aside, longevity remains an issue. Traditionally, consumers have been able to archive their media, and while many have already learned that DRM-restricted media has a built-in life span, still more will find this a nasty surprise. This disincentive alone is enough to steer me clear of DRM-restricted media in most cases. On the whole, I think the restrictions of DRM devalue media for the consumer, and I don't think consumers will be the only ones hurt. Less valuable media may command lower volumes and prices, which hurt producers as well.
Comment Number: 539814-00457
Received: 1/11/2009 12:10:50 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Bruso
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:

DRM is intended to suppress software piracy, but in my experience it has only served to restrict the rights of users who purchased their software in a legal manner. I've personally had issues with the loss of "CD keys" and problems with online registration, which served to prevent me from using my legally obtained product. Ironically, if I resorted to illegal "cracks" and "key generators" I would be allowed to use this software fully, so not only is my right to use the product I purchased infringed upon, but the anti-piracy methods obviously did not stop the true pirates--only the common user.
Comment Number: 539814-00458
Received: 1/11/2009 12:29:13 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Matthew Flaschen
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 is at heart an attempt to reshape the copyright landscape in favor of large media companies, such as Time Warner and Viacom. These corporations are attempting to neuter fair use and first sale so they no longer serve as key consumer protections. Almost every aspect of consumer rights is threatened by one or another DRM scheme. A simple example is DVD video. Most commercial DVDs use a DRM technology known as CSS (Content-Scrambling System). As the name implies, CSS is a technology meant to make media harder to enjoy. It works by encrypting the entire video, and then attempting to allow decryption only by "authorized players". There are two main practical results. First, consumers on underserved platforms on free software platforms, such as GNU/Linux are left out. Free software developers have independently created technically excellent solutions for playing commercial DVDs on GNU/Linux. However, they are prohibited by the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) from distributing this code. This means GNU/Linux users have no options except proprietary, buggy players from corporations such as RealPlayer. The second consequence is that it is infeasible to legally exercise fair use rights, such as quotation. For example, students in film classes can not legally extract even a single frame from a commercial DVD. Doing so violates the DMCA. Media companies have responded with several counter-intuitive solutions. The first approach was simply planned obsolescence. It is technically possible to convert DVDs to work on new platforms (such as the iPod). Rather than allow consumers to take advantage of this, media companies instead asked them to pay again for the same thing. Thus, many people are forced to purchase videos once on DVD and again in the latest format (such as iPod video). Another approach, known as DigitalCopy, is now coming into prominence. DVDs equipped with DigitalCopy contain or link to an extra copy of the video. This extra copy differs from the DVD only in being designed for a different platform. The problem is, such DVDs come at a markup, and consumers aren't getting anything worthwhile for the extra fee. Many DRM schemes also erode the right of first sale. Everyone knows that if you buy a new book, you can sell it to your friend or a used book store. But the same is not possible when DRM enters the picture. If you buy a song from Apple's music store and tire of it, it is illegal to sell, or even transfer it, to your friend. The lesson to learn is that large corporations are not bringing new technologies to the masses. Instead, they are repressing useful innovations (like DVD-iPod converters) and taking away rights that have always belonged to consumers. I believe one of the FTC's natural roles is to protect the consumer from predatory transactions. In this case, that means protecting fair use and first sale from corporate attacks.
Comment Number: 539814-00459
Received: 1/11/2009 12:45:17 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Spyrou
State: Outside the United States
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I believe that limited activations should be abolished completely as a form of copyrights protection. I should be able to install my games as many times I want and not worry about running out of installations. If they want to make the game like Steam where an intenet connection is almost always required, fine. Just don't limit or mess with how many times I can install the game... Thanks, Tony.
Comment Number: 539814-00460
Received: 1/11/2009 12:48:43 AM
Organization: Student at Jacksonville State University
Commenter: Brennan Young
State: AL
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I've purchased several games in the last year that have come with DRM restrictions. I see the need for this technology as piracy is more rampant than it ever has been before. However, the current implementation of this technology does very little to prevent piracy, and in essence, it "punishes" the consumer by limiting the number of times they can install a given program. While I applaud the ideal thinking of software companies, the execution is usually poor at best. As an avid gamer, I am always trying to keep my PC up-to-date with new hardware and software (i.e. drivers) that supposedly upgrade my PC when installed. However, some DRM methods use hardware as a means of verifying a computer. This means that if the hardware is physically changed, a copy of that game/key is lost if DRM is embedded. In essence, I get punished each time I upgrade my computer. This is not only unfair to me as a consumer, but it also makes me want to move to a platform that doesn't have DRM, i.e. consoles. The problem with consoles is that you can't customize them, which is why I use my PC as a gaming system. This is a "no win" situation. The other area that I see DRM intruding on is privacy. While I believe that software companies have the right to "license" a copy of their software to the consumer, they should not have the right to limit what the consumer does with that software. Provided that the software is not resold, shouldn't the consumer be free to install and use it as they see fit? $50 for a game is a lot of money, and for someone to be told how they must "use" the software simply negates the purchase of the rights to use that software. There should always be terms of service, but when a software company limits the usability of that software even though you purchased a full license of the given software, that means the consumer is only purchasing "partial rights" to the software, even though they are paying full price. DRM in it's current state is a joke. Not only does it not cut down on piracy, but it punishes the consumers who do pay for legitimate copies of the software. There is a solution to this problem, and I use it a lot. It's called "Steam." Valve software company has created a system where you purchase games on an account and download them to as many computers as you please. As long as you are online and the game is installed, you may access it. This is the perfect DRM. No limited downloads, no CD's, no activation keys, etc. Buy a game, download the game, and play. That's my synopsis of the industry in its current state. From what I've seen, Electronic Arts is the main culprit with DRM exploits. Not surprisingly, they are also the largest 3rd party game developer in the world, and I believe their implementation of DRM is a response to their declining sales during the last several years. Fortunately, most people only buy "good" games, so perhaps if EA listened to their fan base, they might make more money. Also, the Crysis games contain DRM code as well. You can also download those games from "Steam." The only problem is that if you purchase them from Steam, you're still bound to EA's DRM as well as the Steam-based DRM. I wouldn't complain if they dropped EA's DRM in favor of the Steam-based DRM, but they don't. This is a horrible move by EA. DRM is good. However, there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. Valve has done it correctly. EA has not. Please examine both parties to see what needs to be done to correct this issue as a whole. I think legitimate consumers and publishers/developers will benefit from DRM greatly if it's done correctly.
Comment Number: 539814-00461
Received: 1/11/2009 12:55:13 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Ben Middleton
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 designed to prevent people from playing copies of games that they have obtained illegally. Unfortunately, DRM doesn't work. This is a fact. Every major game that I have ever heard of has had its copy-protection scheme cracked in a matter of days after the game's release. In some cases, the scheme is cracked even before the release date. Once the copy-protection is cracked, playing illegally obtained games is no more complicated than downloading the game from any number of wildly popular torrent sites. In most cases, the most complicated action the user will have to perform to bypass the copy protection is to simply copy some files over from a conveniently-named "crack" folder to the game's main installation folder. Another fact of DRM is that it can cause issues for people attempting to play a legitimate copy of a game. This is, in fact, one of the main reasons this "Town Hall" meeting is taking place. So in essence, what you have in DRM is a system where freeloaders are simply delayed from obtaining a "cracked" copy of the game for a matter of hours after release, while a small percentage of normal, legal users will have extreme difficulty playing the game at all, and for a much longer time than a matter of hours. There are several alternative methods of DRM that have enjoyed success. One in particular is Steam, from the company Valve. Games can be purchased and activated over the internet, and because of the way the system can always check if your copy is legitimate, it makes it much more difficult for people to play illegal copies of Steam games. However, one of the criticisms of Steam is that if Valve ever goes bankrupt or some other bad event happens to the company, people who have paid for their games could "lose" them, by losing the activation information approved by Valve's servers. Perhaps if a government entity were to handle this sort of activation, people would be more comfortable with the lower level of risk, similar to how people can choose to buy treasury bills instead of stock.
Comment Number: 539814-00462
Received: 1/11/2009 12:59:07 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Sean Velasco
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 devalues the prodcuts to which it is applied. if companies wish to have DRM on their products, it needs to be made abundantly clear on the packaging and reflected in pricing. for instance, if i am buying the right to install a game 3 times, and not the game itself, I want to know about this on the cover of the game. that way, myself and other consumers will know to pay a rental price for this game and not full price. much like a surgeon general's warning, there needs to be a warning implemented for DRM that lets customers know about the restrictions on what they think they have purchased.
Comment Number: 539814-00463
Received: 1/11/2009 1:21:34 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Mac
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 on video games has turned many of my friends from purchasing the game.
Comment Number: 539814-00464
Received: 1/11/2009 1:39:53 AM
Organization:
Commenter: MeTaL TrAnCe
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 horrible and makes it as if your only renting what you paid for. DEATH TO DRM
Comment Number: 539814-00465
Received: 1/11/2009 1:45:37 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Manmohan Singh
State: TX
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I believe DRM should be removed. I purchase many many many digital media files (games, movies, music, etc...). I am also a hardware enthusiast and therefore change hardware frequently. It is irritating to have to reinstall software that I have purchased and/or have it not work just because of DRM. DRM should be illegal and it entirely ruins the digital transition of our age. The Digital Age should not be the DRM age, but one of freedom. Thank you for your time.
Comment Number: 539814-00466
Received: 1/11/2009 2:02:19 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Sean Wilson
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:

I believe that what one pays for with there money should be theres entirely.
Comment Number: 539814-00467
Received: 1/11/2009 2:12:34 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Mason Wiley
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 only bothers people who legitimately own the game/music/video/etc. The DRM just gets cracked and pirated versions don't have the DRM, but people who buy it get limits. DRM is supposed to bother people who download it, not people who pay.
Comment Number: 539814-00468
Received: 1/11/2009 2:29:17 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Christopher Bandy
State: TX
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I am certain that you will receive many comments as to how DRM treats the consumer like a criminal, and how ineffective it is against the very people it is designed to stop, but I would like to point out a couple of longer term issues with DRM. First, there is the possibility of a publisher going under, financially. One would hope that after the time of plausible profitability has passed, a patch would be released to remove the DRM from a game, but there is currently no requirement for a publisher to do so. This means that if a publisher goes under, there is a possibility that they will leave games unplayable without an individual taking actions currently illegal under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This applies primarily to modern sophisticated DRM such as SecuROM which requires a connection to a remote server which would no longer exist in the event of a publisher bankruptcy. Another example of this sort of DRM would be the hardware dongles required by certain software to decrypt the software. A company bankruptcy coupled with a hardware failure would render the remarkably expensive software that employs this sort of DRM unusable. The second issue that I would take up with modern DRM is longer term. The primary function of DRM is to prevent people from stealing software, and I see nothing wrong with this goal. The actual effect that modern DRM has, however, is to prevent people from making a copy of the software. This means that the customer has no way of making a backup of software for use upon the eventual failure of the original disk. This can be a major issue because, aside from the possibility of physical damage to a disk due to improper handling, optical media can deteriorate through no fault of the user. Both environmental and manufacturing conditions can negatively affect the lifespan of a disk, and with no legal means of archiving the data held on the media a customer can be left with no alternative to purchasing software that has already been purchased, assuming that the software is even available at that time. I believe that publishers have a right to protect their intellectual property. Unfortunately, the current means employed by major software manufacturers are neither effective, nor fair to the consumer. I thank you for the opportunity to make my opinion on this matter heard.
Comment Number: 539814-00469
Received: 1/11/2009 3:02:42 AM
Organization: N/a
Commenter: Ashley Burch
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 support a game developer's right to protect the content of their games. However, I have issue with the manner in which these rights have been implemented recently. For instance, one of my favorite games in the past couple of years is space rangers 2, however it uses the Starforce digital protection software. This software causes a number of problems on my computer ranging from memory leaks to extremely sluggish performance. This happens even when not running the game and even uninstalling the game does not remove this software. Only a format will remove the protection software from my computer. More recently Spore was guilty of similar practices. The game runs slower than it should on my system but not as poorly when the game is not running, my issue with EA is that they did not notify the consumer in any way on their packaging that installs would be limited and protection software was bundled with their product. DRM software should only affect the product that it is bundled with, and it's presence and affect on your system should be required information on the product box, clearly viewable before purchase. When software is purchased digitally you should also be warned. The presence of DRM software in games affects my purchasing decisions and yet I have never known about it's presence in products that I have purchased until it was too late, or as a result of bloggers. The publishers and developers have been able to attach this to their product, free of any regulations or requirements to notify the public and this must change.
Comment Number: 539814-00470
Received: 1/11/2009 3:20:07 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Antonio Madrid
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:

Hello. I am writing this as a 27-year-old "gamer" with an opinion on the recent DRM controversy. Let me start out with saying I have no qualms about companies taking an interest in protecting their individual IPs (intellectual properties). What I do have an issue with is the way they choose to do it. As the result of DRM's implementation in many of today's popular PC games it has directly had a negative impact on my decision in buying those products. I am considering buying a new PC in the recent future because my current one is going on six years old (a complete dinosaur in technology terms), and it cannot play many of the more current PC games. However, since many games now also support DRM my purchasing power shifts to those products that do not support it, and in doing so takes potential sales away from those companies which implement DRM in their games. I do not feel the way to combat piracy is by punishing those honest consumers out there (and yes, we do exist!) that go to a store and legitimately buy a game. As it stands now DRM proves to be more of a hassle for honest consumers than for pirates for two reasons: 1. Restricting users to a predetermined amount of installs, and 2. Restricting installation on systems that have some sort of copying software already installed. 1. Restricting users to a predetermined amount of installs and, if exceeded, requiring that user to call the company directly to obtain "permission" (after proving they legitimately bought the game in the first place) is an extreme hassle. How is it a hassle? Here's an example: I have PC games from ten years ago that I still enjoy and play. But I'll tell you this: Those games do NOT reside on my hard drive indefinitely. I install them when I get the "itch" to play them and, once done, I uninstall them. That's the beauty of it. I don't have to call the company to ask permission or explain WHY I have to install a game they developed ten years prior. For a company to treat every customer who buys their games as a potential thief is downright insulting. And that is precisely what DRM succeeds in doing. Limiting the amount of installs I am allowed to make on my computer is nonsensical because people have many reasons for installing/uninstalling programs multiple times on their PCs. Here's another counter-point to that tactic: What happens if a company goes out of business? Who is the consumer supposed to call then (and no, Ghostbusters won't help in this situation)? Not only that but the second point addresses DRM's ability to restrict installing at all if it detects copy software on a user's PC. Computers are used for multiple tasks and not just playing games. People copy music CDs, DVDs, home movies, etc. for back ups. To assume that anyone with copying software installed on their PC is using it to pirate games is an obscene insult toward your customers. If DRM is continued to be used I will NOT be buying any games that support it for my future PC. I will continue to stick with console game systems and leave the hassle of DRM to the wayside. Sure I'm a realist; what's one less sale when there are millions out there to take my place? As futile and insignificant as it may seem that is my stance. I'd hate to be that way since I feel PC gaming is vastly superior to consoles, but that's a small price to pay for not having to deal with the hassle of DRM and hand-holding that some companies seem to be advocating. Thank you for your time and consideration. -Antonio
Comment Number: 539814-00471
Received: 1/11/2009 3:28:23 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Shannon Reddy
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 is now far less of an issue than copyright law and its legal enforcement. While the majority of competing digitally distributed music services are now leading their sales pitches with their newly DRM free format, consumers are still being harassed by aggressive litigation and enforcement against any action that could possibly be seen as infringing on copyright or intellectual property. We're entering an age of user created content, as evidenced by the popularity of Youtube, consumer level creative software like garage band, and user content becoming a major part of popular video games like Guitar Hero and Little Big Planet. We're seeing the beginnings of something new - the consumer becoming the participator, the collaborator. But the promise and excitement of these early creative platforms has been overshadowed by legal fundamentalism. That our current copyright law and legal system make works of homage, collage, remix and reference into criminal acts is a far greater issue than that of DRM. DRM simply reflects our flawed legal framework for addressing intellectual property. We need to readdress that system before we discuss its side effects.
Comment Number: 539814-00472
Received: 1/11/2009 4:04:11 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Andrew Norris
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:

I've recently gotten into the computer-based gaming scene, and honestly I've become quite appalled by DRM. Some DRM is ok, such as simple disk checks when you boot a game, but things like SecuROM that are installed in the kernal of an operating system are just ridiculous. I run on 64 bit Windows Vista, which is unstable enough as it is, and don't need programs being installed in it to make it worse. Also, having to validate that you own the game every few days by connecting to the internet is just ridiculous (especially for myself since I have a laptop for games and can sometimes go days without an internet connection which than then make it so I can't play the game). I do understand that some level of DRM may be beneficial for the sales of the game due to piracy (Devil May Cry 4 had no DRM, and even a representative from Capcom said it was "pirated to hell"), but it also prevents a lot of people from buying games. I personally have not purchased any PC games with DRM on them other than games on Steam (a download service that doubles as a light version of DRM). Also, if there is DRM on games, it is often not labeled very well on the game box. A example that comes to mind is Mass Effect which requires constant online validation, but the box only tells you "requires internet connection to play". I've also never been able to find on a box whether a game has programs like SecuROM. I'm buying a game. I want to know whether it's going to install a program which has behavior similar to some spyware. Activation limits, sketchy kernal installations, DRM checks taking up system resources, and constant online validation are ridiculous. Honestly, they've caused more piracy than anything else. There was a list released last month of the top 10 most pirated games of 2008. Of those 10 games, over half of them were from EA, which are infamous for their strict DRM. In total I believe only one game on the list did not have strict DRM. Things were fine when there were just CD keys and disk checks. That's all there should be. On an aside, I also feel DVD DRM is pretty unfair as well. When I buy a DVD, I should be able to make a digital copy to my computer for any DVD I should purchase. Digital copy should not be some bonus, but just an expected feature when you buy any movie without download limits. I bought it, so I should be able to at least move it to my computer to take it with me. I can burn CDs to my computer, why not a movie?
Comment Number: 539814-00473
Received: 1/11/2009 6:27:53 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Prior
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:

Fair DRM should let the user install and play the game on any number of their own computers. For example, Steam does this. Software design shortcuts that invade the user's privacy of data outside the game, enforce arbitrary install limits, or cause the user's computer to malfunction like in some EA titles should not be considered fair DRM.
Comment Number: 539814-00474
Received: 1/11/2009 6:34:44 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Michael Williams
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:

It is my opinion that DRM only affects the honest consumers in the industry. Hackers and pirates will often crack the DRM within days (or even hours) of the software being released and it is the honest consumer that is left holding the proverbial bag. A good example would be a game called "The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion" for the PC. That game used no DRM whatsoever and still sold as good or better than most games with DRM.
Comment Number: 539814-00475
Received: 1/11/2009 6:40:50 AM
Organization: None
Commenter: Gonzales
State: ND
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 do understand the desire by manufacturers to use DRM to protect their intellectual properties but I personally think it as being highly flawed. I understand that if I (for example) purchase a game digitaly on the Internet through a company, i'm not so much paying for the software as i'm paying for the right to USE it. There is the old argument of, "Well I payed for it, I deserve the right to use it as I see fit." They are correct to an extent. I believe that DRM should be lifted as it has caused more headaches than good. I've heard of cases where people have legally purchased a computer game in the stores (a physical copy, mind you), but after having to reinstall their operating system due to system errors, after 3-4 installs the game is unable to be installed again. DRM was instituted in order to try and combat piracy but it's only a pipedream. In this technological day and age, it's virtually impossible to make anything 100% safe from pirating. There are people out there who dedicate (in my opinion) too much of their time trying to break any kind of encryption or DRM on properties just so they can say that it's not 'un-hackable'. I am not advocating that we should remove the DRM to make it easier to pirate as it'll be pirated anyway; but i've heard of more cases of DRM hurting legitimate consumers than stopping many illegal downloads. While we're at it, we should get rid of international region coding on DVDs and video games. You can play it in your own native country if you import them anyway. You just have to buy the foreign players or play it legit on your PC. Region coding does nothing for anything. I can't think of one positive and dozens of negatives at once. I'm positive that DVD/video game region coding is against the international trade fairness outline.
Comment Number: 539814-00476
Received: 1/11/2009 8:18:38 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Ronnie Perez
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 would have left more contact info but I do not know how it will be used or how accessible it will be to others) The DRM used in many video games today via securom and its limited installing / use is unfair to consumers in that it will only allow you to install a product you have purchased anywhere from 1 to 3 times. In some cases during the install process you will lose all 3 due to ether design (by error or intentional) or any number of errors. There are a few of these video games that I had purchased and after changing faulty hardware in my computer, the product will no longer work. Trying to contact the publisher / Developer of the game software will give ether 1 of 4 results. A.) They will tell you that you have to purchase another copy. B.) No response at all as they will ether keep you on hold (by phone) for numbers of hours until you hangup or are disconnected. C.) Email them and have auto matted responses or in some cases a response from tech support saying that you need to contact Securom of which also the same responses are given. D.) They will grant you 1 extra install of which hardly ever happens. think of this as when you buy a car and having it services or an oil change and the car manufacturer tells you, sorry but you need to buy a new car now as you no longer have the rights to use what you purchased from us. The video game industry uses this DRM to strangle hold the consumer into repeat buying of the same video game over and over again. There have even been some cases where EA Games has taken to disabling a product on any customer that talks about DRM or there products and DRM on there discussion forums (this news is well documented all over the web) which will in turn disable all games from EA that use the DRM and there login service. The various game developers who use this DRM By Securom (Sony / Securom / Root kit) claim it is to offset piracy of which they know it has no effect as software pirates are using there software DRM free from the day it released to the general public. So if I wanted to use one of the products I had purchased from them that no longer functions I can ether do one of two things A.) Buy it from them again which was by original design the reason they did this. or B.) Download a small executable that will bypass the DRM so that I can use the product I purchased from them. The intentions of this DRM are only partly designed to stop the common theft of the product. The main design of this DRM thus far has only been to cause paying customers to buy the same product over again. In most cases they do not even tell you on the packaging that you will only be able to install (if the install works properly of which in most cases it does not) this product only 1 or 3 times. The use of this DRM is criminal at its best and at its worst is Down right theft to paying customers.
Comment Number: 539814-00476
Received: 1/11/2009 8:18:38 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Ronnie Perez
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 would have left more contact info but I do not know how it will be used or how accessible it will be to others) The DRM used in many video games today via securom and its limited installing / use is unfair to consumers in that it will only allow you to install a product you have purchased anywhere from 1 to 3 times. In some cases during the install process you will lose all 3 due to ether design (by error or intentional) or any number of errors. There are a few of these video games that I had purchased and after changing faulty hardware in my computer, the product will no longer work. Trying to contact the publisher / Developer of the game software will give ether 1 of 4 results. A.) They will tell you that you have to purchase another copy. B.) No response at all as they will ether keep you on hold (by phone) for numbers of hours until you hangup or are disconnected. C.) Email them and have auto matted responses or in some cases a response from tech support saying that you need to contact Securom of which also the same responses are given. D.) They will grant you 1 extra install of which hardly ever happens. think of this as when you buy a car and having it services or an oil change and the car manufacturer tells you, sorry but you need to buy a new car now as you no longer have the rights to use what you purchased from us. The video game industry uses this DRM to strangle hold the consumer into repeat buying of the same video game over and over again. There have even been some cases where EA Games has taken to disabling a product on any customer that talks about DRM or there products and DRM on there discussion forums (this news is well documented all over the web) which will in turn disable all games from EA that use the DRM and there login service. The various game developers who use this DRM By Securom (Sony / Securom / Root kit) claim it is to offset piracy of which they know it has no effect as software pirates are using there software DRM free from the day it released to the general public. So if I wanted to use one of the products I had purchased from them that no longer functions I can ether do one of two things A.) Buy it from them again which was by original design the reason they did this. or B.) Download a small executable that will bypass the DRM so that I can use the product I purchased from them. The intentions of this DRM are only partly designed to stop the common theft of the product. The main design of this DRM thus far has only been to cause paying customers to buy the same product over again. In most cases they do not even tell you on the packaging that you will only be able to install (if the install works properly of which in most cases it does not) this product only 1 or 3 times. The use of this DRM is criminal at its best and at its worst is Down right theft to paying customers.
Comment Number: 539814-00478
Received: 1/11/2009 9:17:31 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Chuck Wendig
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 equals a high cost without a high return on investment. It prevents the average customer from using the product properly and/or fully while doing little to prevent pirates from doing what they do best, i.e. pirating the game. (SPORE being a stellar example of that.) I try not to buy items with strict DRM. I do use Valve's STEAM to purchase PC software, as the software tends to be vetted, and the "DRM" is simply that I have to use it through Steam. Which is perfectly doable and not at all restrictive to me, the consumer.
Comment Number: 539814-00479
Received: 1/11/2009 9:47:32 AM
Organization: None
Commenter: Nathaniel Cooper
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 (Digital Rights Media) is designed to protect the Company but NOT the consumer. Many laws and such pass with more company protection than the consumer and in these days of recession there needs to be more consumer protection to increase buyers confidence that they won't get screwed. Many disagree with DRM including myself because it empowers the company to not just find ways to fight piracy but ensure that consumers are buying and ONLY buying from them even after all money is invested. DRM encourages bad distribution of media. Some digital media can only be accessed on a single device (ex:Ipod products). This means that I can't buy the song "Buy you a Drink" from T-Pain on ipod music store and play that same song on another MP3 player when people who buy the whole CD with other songs can play THAT CD on any device that has a music CD player. It sounds fesable when the media owned and CREATED by Apple Ipods but if the product belongs to the artist, then if I legally buy that song I should be able to play it anywhere. I am not saying piracy should not be dealt with, I just feel it should be delt with directly and harsher. The restrictions they put on bought media should not punish consumers who honestly bought a song or other media only to be limited on how they should access it. It may be digital but it's still owned to that person. Other comapnies are using taticts such as putting a time limit on media, specifically current PC games that are downloaded and if the consumer should decided to erase that file for any reason, if they don't redownload the software by a certain time, they need to repurchase the media or pay a fee. But why should consumers repay for something already bought? The cost advantage is at their convenience, not ours. It was said that when we wanted to protect our hard copies of software, all we had to do was make a copy. But DRM has allowed software companies to make it difficult to make a copy. Law allows us to make copies so as long as it's for our own use and computer but we are losing that right because of DRM which lets companies put a restriction to copying media, this includes digital which is unfair. The United States should be aware of the industries continues to push for all things digital, this goes for movies, games, music etc. It's a big deal since companies won't have to pay for packaging and cost to develop the hard product, but if they are allowed to control their media like they do today with DRM, Consumers will never truly feel like they "own" the product just like a CD or Movie. DRM should be abolished or at least revised to empower the consumer instead of the Company who sells the product to give consumers a sense of ownership with their products and that no company under any circumstance should restrict, reframe or holdbank a consumer from using that media on any other similar device or service of similar/exact design. Once that person buys that media, he/she owns it for LIFE. This is the way it should be. Oh you don't have to hold this stuff confidential, just my name an address I want protected. Thank you.
Comment Number: 539814-00480
Received: 1/11/2009 10:02:42 AM
Organization:
Commenter: D. Hill
State: NC
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I have been on both sides of this issue for a few years because I certainly agree that people should not be allowed to take what is not rightfully theirs, but I have not agreed with any of the methods used thus far. Over the years I have spent thousands of dollars on music from stores such as iTunes, but I've since lost most of it due to some hardware failures and PC upgrades. If I had just stolen the files then I could have kept backing the files up all that I needed to. There's also the example of Sony's rootkit fiasco and, hopefully soon, the horrid DRM program known as SecuRom will meet the same fate. It is almost impossible to remove SecuRom from your OS and not only do the companies that use it know this, it's one of the main reasons that it's used. So again, I could have saved myself many headaches and thousands of dollars and just downloaded the games but I chose not to. Why? Because I thought it was just plain wrong to take what wasn't mine and I wouldn't steal a physical copy of these items off of the shelf at a retailer. But there is another side to all of this. The CDs that I buy at the store are my physical copy to own and they don't punish me over and over again just in case I stole it. I would never buy another CD again if I could only play it on five devices because that would be asinine. EA recently released a game that you could only install a certain amount of times before you essentially don't own it anymore, and that is when I realized that the companies were going to far. Since then I have not bought any media that uses DRM, instead opting to download it all. I will continue to support companies such as Stardock and artists such as Nine Inch Nails because they do not punish the honest people who want to pay them for their work. It's sad to me that I'm now one of those despicable "pirates" that you hear about. From what I read there are more people like me everyday that realize that the pirates aren't even touched by the taint of DRM and are free to use their files like they should be able to, but the honest people are still being punished. I hope that these DRM talks will start a change in the course of how DRM is used.
Comment Number: 539814-00481
Received: 1/11/2009 10:16:36 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Russell Pickup
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:

DRM is harmful technology. It punishes valid consumers, while not deterring thieves at all. DRM will often create a scenario where it is painful for a consumer to use the product multiple times, or after reloading or buying a new computer. This is not right. The consumer has purchased the item and its theirs. I do agree that the copyright holders have every right to their profits, but strict DRM does not help. It is sad when it is easier to pirate a piece of software and use it than to buy it off the shelves.
Comment Number: 539814-00482
Received: 1/11/2009 10:33:31 AM
Organization:
Commenter: John Roy
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:

Imagine purchasing a movie ticket. But when you go inside, they strip search you and place a tracking collar around your neck. Once inside, they then reserve the right to throw you out of the movie for any reason. That is how many DRM schemes feel at times. If I am to drop upwards of 50 or 60 dollars on a product, I expect to be able to use it relatively easily. DRM's on the other hand often times give you a limited amount of installs for the product, giving you a phone number to call to receive more. Many also put monitoring software on your computer to make sure you aren't trying to steal the product. There are many, many more methods in use that hamper proper use of the product as well. In very few (if any) other entertainment industries where such treatment would be considered fair and equal. I understand that companies want to protect their product from theft, but that doesn't mean they get to run rampant with safeguards. They have no right to treat all of their consumers as if they are common thieves. Besides all that, I don't think there has been a really successful DRM scheme that HASN'T been cracked by delinquents. If they haven't (and in all likeliness cant) come up with a DRM solution that is invulnerable to one of those cracking rings out there (RAZOR-1911, deviance, etc), then why bother with a DRM scheme? What is the point of a DRM if it does nothing to prevent theft in the first place? Intrusive and restrictive DRM's do NOTHING but hassle the consumer. They don't work, they hinder use of software, and some times (Starforce) can even damage home computers.
Comment Number: 539814-00483
Received: 1/11/2009 10:33:53 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Daniel Nugent
State: NY
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

The biggest issue with software DRM is that many issues can drastically limit the right of resale. Software publishers typically state that this is fine since they actually sold a non-transferrable license to the software, but in many cases, if the physical media is lost or destroyed, the publisher refuses to provide replacement. The only option then, to recover the use of your licenses, as it were, is piracy and, depending on the DRM scheme, a necessity to violate the DMCA. The best DRM efforts I have seen exploit the Internet to deliver the bytes of the software and manage a user's profile remotely. Still, these services suffer from the fact that they typically disallow license transfer (A right I personally believe all consumers should have) and that they are vulnerable if the company running the DRM service were to go out of business or decide that the service was no longer profitable (as has occurred with several media DRM services already). In that case, the consumer is still forced to resort to piracy and almost assuredly the violation of the DMCA. The worst DRM efforts are simply offensive and probably already illegal under current laws. Some DRM packages have installed software that provided the publisher with facilities to access and investigate the computer systems of the user. Presumably, this was done with the intent to stop unauthorized access, but it is no far stretch to imagine an unscrupulous employee using this access to steal information or capture control of the computer system. DRM, as it has largely been implemented, is an attempt to provide a blanket answer to a difficult question with several factors. Publishers have also attempted to leverage their position as supplier to change the balance of producer/consumer power by restricting previously assumed rights. Because software is not a commodity, consumers need protections against abuse. Here are the consumer rights that I feel need to be legally enumerated for any long lasting situation involving DRM to be successful: 1) The right of resale must be accounted for. 2) The consumer must always be allowed to access what they have purchased, even if the technological mechanism providing access has ceased functioning. 3) The software that a consumer purchases must be the software that the consumer intended to purchase, and not include software that is intended to allow the publisher or another 3rd party to access the consumer's system without explicit permission. At that, the DRM facilities must be limited to only providing or preventing access to the software. Stiff penalties for violation would be necessary. Publisher's should have a right to sell their wares in the manner that they want, with the attempts to prevent piracy that they want to use, but the consumer's rights should not be trampled on to protect the publisher. I do not think that those two goals are mutually exclusive, and I hope the FTC finds the same.
Comment Number: 539814-00484
Received: 1/11/2009 10:39:38 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Anthony Tollis
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:

My opinion of DRM measures is this, they are operationaly similar to firearms laws. Criminals intrinsically ignore them. Ultimately they only tie the hands of law abiding citizens. DRM has all too often prevented legal useage of purchased software. The most infamous example being STARFORCE, which has even rendered many DVDroms inoperational (it happened to one of mine). Starforce also causes numerous system instabilities which I have experienced first hand. I have never pirated anything in my life, I consider it moraly reprehensible theft. DRM measures make no sense, it only takes 1 person anywhere in the entire world to make 1 single copy and place it on the internet, and DRM becomes a footnote that only effects legal users.
Comment Number: 539814-00485
Received: 1/11/2009 10:47:18 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Jarmak
State: NH
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, Regarding the implementation of DRM in software products or media, from the perspective of the FTC I would personally like to see a high level of concern for maintaining the rights of users. Today the DRM scenario is such that consumers who purchase genuine software may have restrictions on it that consumers who purchase counterfeit software would not. While this should be permitted in my opinion, manufacturers should be required to provide pre sale documentation of exactly what DRM is used to secure a particular piece of software and how that will affect the user. This way consumers can make an informed decision about whether to purchase the software. An example of what I mean is that some software available for Windows will not run in conjunction with CD drive emulation tools. In the current state a consumer who chooses to use a CD drive emulator has no way of knowing that their newly purchased software will refuse to run. Retailers will generally not permit returns of opened software so this consumer has no recourse except to obtain a "cracked" version illegally over the internet in order to get the software to run. People who buy the software shouldn't need to do that in order to use the product they purchased. My second concern is regarding the continued availability of products using DRM. Some DRM implementations are such that they require the software to be able to authenticate itself over the internet with a license server or some other remote machine maintained by the developer of the software. If this developer were to cease operations, or to simply stop maintaining the license server, users who purchased a license to the software would not be able to use their product. The FTC should consider mandating some sort of an escrow requirement for this type of service so that if the developer does cease operations the escrow provider can and would be required to release a tool provided by the developer that would allow the software to continue to function via some mechanism.
Comment Number: 539814-00486
Received: 1/11/2009 10:56:47 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Apple
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:

Intrusive DRM that is to say DRM that installs software on a users computer should not be permitted by law. There are many reasons for this but I will focus on two. 1) Computer systems are diverse - it is simply not possible for companies making DRM to anticipate every single software and hardware configuration. Intrusive DRM frequently must install some software object at a fairly low level in the target computer that prevents methods of copying. This can be anything from a driver that stops target programs that run virtual drives, to a rootkit device that locks down a computers functions when target software is run. 2) Intrusive DRM does not stop copying of software - any software technology that runs on the end users computer can be fooled. This includes DRM that checks back with online services. If the software is interesting enough (ie any popular piece of software) then someone will take the time to break the DRM. Often these individuals are not in the United States thus there is little this commission can do to stop them. Thus there is little point in using intrusive methods of DRM except to placate the feelings of uninformed software investors. A solution: There are ways DRM can be used to limit pirating of software that is not intrusive. The main way is an account system. Software is installed or at least decoded via the internet. Each software license is stored online. One method of this idea is embodied in Valve Software's Steam service (www.steampowered.com). This video game service keeps track of a persons account and allows the install of games based on whether an account key was purchased either from online or from stores. Other embodiments of this system are not hard to imagine. A system could be created that kept track via an online account of the number of times a given piece of software was installed on different computers. The software could allow the dissociation of a computer by simply logging in which would allow that same item of software to then be installed on a new computer. These non-intrusive DRM systems could still be fooled and pirated, but to do so is typically harder then the systems that rely on installation of some driver or rootkit. Meanwhile they also have the advantage of not destroying a persons computer that has an abnormal hardware and software configuration as intrusive DRM systems are known to do.
Comment Number: 539814-00487
Received: 1/11/2009 11:44:45 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Lloyd Cualoping
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:

Digital Rights Management is a disservice to legitimate-paying consumers everywhere. Instead of rewarding consumers for buying the original product, where it be on physical media or through a direct download, DRM actually hobbles the Fair Use of any product. It by nature treats a consumer like a potential pirate and heavily restricts what they can do with the product. Software or music that is pirated and sold in its pirated form without the DRM and is purchased by people who would never buy the original product in the first place. DRM is only meant to prevent the casual piracy of software and music, stopping the consumer from making a few copies of software (probably for uses that can be defined as Fair Use) while businesses dedicated to software piracy churn out thousands of copies, DRM-free, and sell them for a profit. In the end, it is the legitimately-paying consumer that suffers from all the restrictions, and these restrictions will affect their future purchases.
Comment Number: 539814-00488
Received: 1/11/2009 11:55:26 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Weiss
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:

DRM significantly impedes an owner's fair use of their own product. When DRM servers are shut-down, that user's owned product is rendered unusable. If I buy a digital version of a movie or a CD, I should be able to readily use it on any of my devices just like I can watch _my_ DVD's on any of my DVD players and listen to _my_ CD's on any of my CD players. Those discs still work even if the production or distribution company goes out of business. This is good because I paid good hard earned cash to purchase that product and I expect to be able to use it for a long time.
Comment Number: 539814-00489
Received: 1/11/2009 12:10:22 PM
Organization: Global Honors Language Academy
Commenter: Elliott Walters
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:

While i understand the need for DRM there are some styles which are excellent and some which are harmful. If you look at the Itunes and steam styles you can see very successful DRM that does not offend consumers. However if you look at some of the schemes done by other companies such as EA's spore DRM or the Sony root kit from a couple of years ago you can see a very offensive and misleading kind of DRM which hurts consumers trust and may lead to more piracy. I do not advocate no DRM but I would like to see more DRM styles that do not hurt legitimate consumers and are ignored by pirates.
Comment Number: 539814-00490
Received: 1/11/2009 12:18:25 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Brad Johnson
State: NJ
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I would like to voice my concerns regarding the value of "content" protected by DRM. In particular, the resale value, of which there is none. On current generation video game systems (Microsoft's Xbox360, Sony's PS3, and Nintendo's Wii) the consumer can shop in a virtual marketplace and purchase new, original games priced between $5 to $20. On all three systems, back-catalogs of older games from the mid-80's thru th late 90's are available for purchase. These games are also priced between $5 to $20, although when they were originally released to "brick and mortar" stores, they almost all were priced at $49.99. That price difference between then and now might appear to be a tremendous value to the consumer, although most of these older games rarely "stand the test of time" and pale in comparison to their modern day counterparts. Most are purchased out of curiosity and nostalgia. Regardless, once purchased, whether for $5 or $20, the consumer never has the option to resell the item, not in a "brick and mortar" backyard garage sale, nor on the modern day version called Ebay. I realize that when downloadng a game that there is no physical item, but the consumer is not allowed to resale the DRM. In many cases, such as the Nintendo Wii and Xbox360, the consumer can NOT even take their DRM content to a firend's house and play the content on their friend's system, even though it is possible to store the downloaded content to a mobile, removable storage device. Imagine if you purchased a movie online, burned the film to a DVD, but then couldn't play the film at your mother's house on her DVD player. You would be able to if you had purchased a retail version of the same film from, for example, Best Buy. In many cases purchasing "content" via download does NOT give the consumer the right to ownership of that content, but merely the "rights" to operate the content. So, you pay $10 to "purchase" a game via Microsoft's Xbox Live service and you can play the game unlimited times in your own home on your OWN system, but had you gone to a "brick and mortar" store and bought the same game for the same price, then you could resale the game to whomever you wanted and you could loan the game to your firends anytime you wanted. I can't think of any other time in American history when a consumer "bought"something but didn't actually but it.The worse part of all this, is that these game companies have stated that they would like to implement the same types of DRM on retail copies of games bought in stores. Many of these game companies have stated that the "used" or "preplayed" game market is the worse thing that can happen to a game developer. Imagine if you bought a car and you couldn't sell it. Imagine Ford Motor Company making the statement that used car sales were the worse thing that could happen to their industry. I realize that there is a tremendous difference between the price of a new car and a new video game, but imagine the total cost of buying games over a ten year period and not having the opportunity to resale those games and recoup some of your "investment." What's next? Not being allowed to resell your textbooks? Not being allowed to sell your old jeans to a vintage clothes shop? Not being able to sell an old laptop in a garage sale? I also think of it the way I think of a postage stamp. You can save 42 CENTS and pay your utility bills or credit card bills online for free, although in some cases companies do charge a fee for online payment (PSEG is one examle). But, if there was no US Postal Service how much do you think that these companies would charge you to pay your bill? When you have no other option, I guess you wouldn't have a choice in paying the $5 surcharge or whatever ridiulous amount they wanted to charge. The same apples to the game industry. If the consumer never has any option but to buy the game new, how much would these companies charge for a game? $70, $80? Either pay it, or don't play it would be there motto.
Comment Number: 539814-00491
Received: 1/11/2009 12:39:50 PM
Organization: None
Commenter: Steve Lockett
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:

To put it quite simply.... I bought one game back in late 2000 which had the Starforce DRM system installed on it. The whole experience was a disaster. Since then, I quite simply refuse to purchase anything with this supposed industry saving copyright protection; and I am not the only one. Just go read through gaming forums - there's a pretty harsh backlash agains DRM out there. Thank god for Valve's Steam system - means I can happily buy DRM free games whenever I feel like it.
Comment Number: 539814-00492
Received: 1/11/2009 1:00:08 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Collin Bunker
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:

The current state of DRM does not protect my interests as a consumer. They make it very difficult to use the product. I also believe that as a purchaser of a product I have the right to transfer my right to that product to another individual. With physical products I have that ability but with digital ones that right is being stripped from me. That adversly affects the value of the product and in my opinion should be against my rights as a comsumer. The distribution medium should not affect my rights as a comsumer. I don't violate the law and don't believe that those that do would buy the product if they can't copy it. DRM only hurts those that are trying to do things legally. Don't punish the law abiding citizens especially when no DRM is going to keep out the pirates.
Comment Number: 539814-00493
Received: 1/11/2009 1:10:05 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Flemming
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:

My thoughts on the current DRM practices are simply that any method currently thought of as "reasonable" by the public are no obstacle for anyone considering to "pirate" the media therefore the original purposes and intentions of the DRM are rendered moot. Anything more secure is seen as an infringement on the rights of the consumer as well as a hindrance to anyone who wishes to use their purchased media in the way that it was intended. As far as I can see, every effort towards media protection has failed. Even when it succeeds at doing what it's supposed to do it renders the protected media nearly unusable. Should all forms of DRM be abolished? I don't know. All I know is this: the methods that have been exercised to this day have all failed in one way or another.
Comment Number: 539814-00494
Received: 1/11/2009 1:19:37 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Richard Barron
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 a woefully awful response to an inaccurately perceived threat. DRM does not stop piracy and only affects legitimate purchasers. DRM on a piece of software or media means I will NOT buy it. As far as I am concerned the practice of preventing legitimate users doing what they want to do - and what they should be legally entitled to do - with their own property i.e. something they have bought is more "wrong" than what they supposedly protect against. Which they don't protect against. All forms of DRM existing can be and have been cracked to remove these stupid restrictions. People who want to pay for software and media are led into cracking them in order to use them, which means next time they know where to get them without paying for them. DRM causes piracy, customer dissatisfaction and should be avoided at all costs.
Comment Number: 539814-00495
Received: 1/11/2009 1:22:17 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Jeffrey Sandlin
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:

It is my personal opinion that, while DRM in concept is a valid way for companies to control the use of their intellectual property, in practice it usually ends up causing problems for the consumer and rarely deters the piracy of the content.
Comment Number: 539814-00496
Received: 1/11/2009 1:28:11 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Sven Harings
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 fine to control playback for online movie rent stores. In purchase products DRM is a hassle which only affects paying fair acting customers, while the pirates don't have to hassle with this and can have fun with an higher quality product without limitations for no money... DRM "never" will fight ANY software pirates. DRM "only" disturbs customers who think the industry thinks all are "able pirates"... Only fair customers who don't hack workarounds for DRM get affected with DRM and so threated unfair. DRM inside a pay product is limiting the owning and fair use rights of a customer who was fair and bought the product. It's not fair to virtually limit the usage for fair paying customers. Fighting pirates never will work! Pirates ever existed and copied and shared. This ever happened in past and now. They ever shared and still share now while they hack DRM and laugh about. Still with pirates the industry earned money from happy and proud original product owning customers. The time the industry wastes in fighting pirates only wastes their money and hassles paying customers which will force more and more paying customers who turn angry because of they get threatened like a pirate with DRM to download for free. With DRM you only will scare more and more customers away and in the end your fight against pirates will turn out to be against the customers who fed you years before and now don't buy any more thing from you... Pirates still will laugh about this and won't care for you but paying customers who cared are angry cause you act unfair against them and then they won't pay anymore too!
Comment Number: 539814-00497
Received: 1/11/2009 1:39:14 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Christopher Renke
State: TX
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I view DRM restrictions in software as obscenely unfair to me, the purchaser of my software. I purchased a game, Mass Effect, for my PC from publisher EA. However, I no longer am able to play this game without a long and protracted set of writings and emails with the developer BioWare. This is due completely to unfair DRM. Being an avid computer building, I go through hardware upgrades and whole new computers in relatively short times, meaning I often have to reinstall software. Such products as Mass Effect utilize an unfair, unadvertised, unethical form of DRM that limits the ammount of times that the software can be installed - five in this case. Needless to say I've installed it only five times, on my sixth try it subsequently told me I was not allowed as I had passed my limit. This is absurd. Me, the paying customer, disallowed to use my own product while a person who illegally downloads it will have no such limitations. Its no wonder developers complain of piracy and the decline of the industry, they are strangling their customers while pirates who obtain the software for free circumvent any such arbitrary limits. DRM does not work. Oh yes, it does what it is programmed to: that is to say that it harasses honest buyers. It does not however do what it is intended for, it does not stop piracy. In fact I believe it promotes it - who wants to pay $50+ dollars for software they may no even be able to use if their computer crashes and they have to reinstall? DRM is a failed experiment and its time to stop fudging the completely fabricated "positive results." DRM does nothing buy hamper honest buyers while motivating illegal acquisition of software.
Comment Number: 539814-00498
Received: 1/11/2009 2:18:07 PM
Organization:
Commenter: John Bray
State: MS
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:

Although I do respect that digital media would like to have their products protected, I believe that DRM is not the proper way to go. I would think a system that requires one to give an email address and a password when you would like to engage in a session of use of media, like Steam, the online distributor of downloadable PC games, and also Telltale Games use of requiring an email and password.
Comment Number: 539814-00499
Received: 1/11/2009 2:36:58 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Lawrence Loiacono
State: PA
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I have stopped buying music recordings because of DRM. The principle place I listen to music is on my computer. Some organizations that publish music CDs have seen fit to use DRM schemes that place the security of the other information on my PC at risk. They do this without informing me of the personal risk they are forcing me to take. The only defense I have against their hacking of my system is to stop buying their product. How that helps owners of musical intelectual propoerty is beyond me. I know it doesn't help me. I now own an Amazon Kindle ebook reader. When I purchase a traditional book I can loan it to someone, give it to someone or even donate it to a library. When I purchase an ebook with DRM, such as those for sale for the Kindle, I can do none of those things. In fact if I chose, or am forced to buy a non Amazon ebook reader to replace my kindle my investment in kindle ebooks would become worthless. I sugest two things, first when a DRM scheme is found to have resulted in damage to an innocent buyer of the protected material that loss should be paid by the owner of the protected materiel. Second that a purchaser of DRM protected materiel should be able to transfer the protected materiel to another platform, without cost. I understand that the owners of intelecual property have the right to defend that property. I am however tired of being treated as if by purchasing DRM protected materiel I have agreed to an open season on my property and my wallet.
Comment Number: 539814-00500
Received: 1/11/2009 3:04:34 PM
Organization: N/A
Commenter: Dane MacMahon
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:

I understand the need for some kind of DRM and I support companies in their attempts to maintain their rights over profitable IP, but there should be a limit to how much it directly impacts the consumer. In this new world of digital products and Internet commerce, I have seen many of my purchases become playable/listenable/viewable only when the IP owner allows me to do so, or grants me the rights to do so. Limiting installs or uses on something advertised as a full purchase, not a rental, seems like a trick on the consumer. Back when we had Divx, or when renting online, the limited options and/or limited timeframe was clearly know, and the product was advertised as a temporary purchase, a rental. Now an item advertised and priced as a "permanent purchase" can be restricted and my ability to use it end. Another aspect to how they present these things is not including all information on the product box. I have seen products not list the activation number, not list the requirement of 3rd party software to enforce the limit, or what-have-you. My largest interest with DRM is that is does not turn a purchase into a rental, which some DRM seems to try and do. In an age where ownership is no longer about holding something in your hand, which I believe IP owners understand given what IP itself is, it is important to clearly define what I own and what I am renting, and price the item accordingly.
Comment Number: 539814-00501
Received: 1/11/2009 3:14:21 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Brian McConnell
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:

It's shameful that there are some (pirates) who would take advantage of the intangible nature of software. However, it's also shameful that companies could have the brashness to limit consumers' accessibility to a product that they purchased. It's been shown that the DRM programs placed on these products don't stop piracy, so why is it there? My guess is that it's there for the sake of the companies and their shareholders. It's a false safety blanket that they can cling to and try to reassure themselves that they are doing "everything" they can to stop their product from being stolen. What they are really doing is stealing the money of the honest consumers who choose to support the companies by buying the product, only to have there faces spit in when they are told how much they can use their newly purchased product. It would be interesting to know how many consumers are driven to piracy because they are insulted by these companies who would presume to tell them how to use a product.
Comment Number: 539814-00502
Received: 1/11/2009 3:26:35 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Thad Boyd
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:

Simply put, DRM does not prevent piracy, and only inconveniences legitimate users. An obvious example is last year's video game, Spore, which had draconian DRM protections and was widely available on pirate sites before it was available on store shelves. Legitimate purchasers were hit with restrictions on the ownership of the product they had purchased, and, allegedly, in some cases their computers were actually damaged -- there are several pending lawsuits claiming that the SecuROM DRM used by Spore disabled users' optical drives or otherwise prevented normal functioning of their computers. Meanwhile, anyone who wanted to pirate Spore merely had to punch up a popular BitTorrent site and could get it illegally in a matter of hours -- no installation limits, no disabled optical drives, a game that is actually more functional than the version that comes in a box and costs money. For these reasons alone, publishers should abandon DRM because it is so clearly bad business. But in the absence of publishers making that seemingly-obvious decision, the FTC should step in to protect consumers. First of all, any product that contains any sort of copy-protection mechanism should say so. It should be mentioned in the license agreement and on the box, and even if a user consents to install software such as SecuROM, the publisher should still be held liable for any damage that results from its use. Rules on ownership should be strengthened. If I purchase a piece of software, I should be entitled to all the laws of ownership that entails -- I should be allowed to make backup copies for my own use, I should be allowed to modify it to run on different hardware (many older video games, for example, will not run on modern computers), I should be allowed to use it fifty years from now if that's my desire -- and I should be allowed to resell it, so long as I uninstall it from my own system. Neither license agreement nor DRM should be allowed to restrict my basic ownership rights as a purchaser. Neither should software that does not naturally require any sort of network capability require repeated online authentication. I should be allowed to use my programs even if I have no Internet connection.
Comment Number: 539814-00503
Received: 1/11/2009 3:29:29 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Mietzner
State: SD
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 both good and bad. Good in that it helps creators keep there content from being pirated, but bad when these methods are used to covertly install drivers, spyware or some other such nonsense that will either damage windows or hardware. One such example would be starforce it was included in a game I bought called X3 Reunion and after installing it my winxp would no longer boot up, when I checked out the site others have even had there cdroms die because of that protection software. The game developer refered consumers to the starforce website they in turn refered people back to the developer and than no one got an answer because no one wanted to take the wrap for it. DRM also isn't limited to install they have also developed an online acitvation to prevent more than a certain amount of installs which is flawed in several ways 1: They do not include a way out of the box to deativate with the server take spore and bioshock for example they came out with that software 6months later, 2: This past christmas the authentication server went down for Tages which is used for quite a few games provided through steam and prevented people from ligitematly installing the games they bought and no compensation was given nor was it fixed over the holidays everyone had to wait until they got back from holiday break, 3: When you call in to get a game reactivated they treat you like a criminal cause they are assuming you are a using this for malicious purposes. Do I think they current implementations hurts consumers more that it does pirates? YES, there isn't an easy answer here but I do believe that online activation and disc protection that installs its drivers is the wrong way to do it. I have had several problems with DRM in the past and it isn't going to go away unless they are told what they can and cannot do and these methods need to be taken away because the consumer doesn't have a fall back position unless they are accused of being a criminal and if damages your os or hardware you are in even more hot water. These companies have a right to protect there content but there using ways that hurt even the ligetimant customer and it needs to stop.
Comment Number: 539814-00504
Received: 1/11/2009 3:38:09 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Andrew Spalding
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 only hurts those who actually buy software. Every form of DRM known to man has been cracked and will eventually leak onto the internet. Pirates get cracked, good copies of software that they can use however they like, legit consumers get robbed by DRM ridden software that prohibits them from doing what they want with it.
Comment Number: 539814-00505
Received: 1/11/2009 3:54:12 PM
Organization: US Navy
Commenter: Michael 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:
Comments:

As of right now DRM is just to intrusive for American citizens. Limited installations, and HDD Monitoring is rediculous in our society. We do not need big businesses monitoring us at home! The tech either needs to go, or it needs to be better regulated.