FTC DRM comments

Comments 506-606
downloaded from http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/drmtechnologies/

Comment Number:	539814-00506
Received:	1/11/2009 4:13:51 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Paul Lantow
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:

DRM was put out in response to piracy, but it is pretty much ineffective, as pirated copies still make their way out. All it really does is limit the people who actually paid money for the game.

Comment Number:	539814-00507
Received:	1/11/2009 4:15:48 PM
Organization:	Untitled Podcast: Collector's Edition
Commenter:	Blaine Atkinson
State:	MO
Agency:	Federal Trade Commission
Rule:	FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:

Comments:

Any DRM that limits the number of times I may install purchased software is just flat-out wrong. Any DRM that requires online approval after the first time I play it is bad, too. I work in IT and am constantly experimenting on my own computers all the time, so I am reinstalling my OS several times a year. If I had purchased any of these products that limit the number of installs you may do of software that you've purchased, I would be very upset. I have no one telling me how many times I'm allowed to use my faucet per day, how many miles I'm allowed to drive my car, or how many programs I'm allowed to record on my DVR, so I certainly do not welcome the seller controlling my experience in terms of their interactive software. The former owner of my house cannot exert any control over my house, just as Honda is not allowed to exert any control over the Civic they sold me. Once I'm kind enough to hand over $50 for a game, the publisher should not be allowed any kind of control over the game. We have laws that prohibit copyright violation, and that should be all we need.

Comment Number:	539814-00508
Received:	1/11/2009 4:55:26 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Karim Zietoun
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, while initially conceived with the purpose of protecting copyright holders, only serves to penalize consumers for acquiring a product through legitimate channels. DRM hampers developers and publishers alike by encouraging consumers to obtain the protected material by illegitimate means.

Comment Number:	539814-00509
Received:	1/11/2009 5:22:23 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Allen Dinsmore
State:	LA
Agency:	Federal Trade Commission
Rule:	FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:

Comments:

If I buy some form of digital media I should be able to play it anywhere, anytime, on any type of player. there should be no restricitons on what the media can be played on or how many times.

Comment Number:	539814-00510
Received:	1/11/2009 5:26:55 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Eric Gil
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:

On my other computer Securom has prevented me from using CD burning programs. Thus resulting in not being able to back up my music files. Securom also seemed to slow the computer down. The worst thing is that securom on Spore limits the amount of times one can install the game. This is like limiting the amount of times one can wash their hair with shampoo. When someone purchases something they should be allowed to do whatever they want with it. It is fine to limit the amount of computers it is on but the amount of times its installed on the same computer is ridiculous.

Comment Number:	539814-00511
Received:	1/11/2009 5:40:42 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Mark Marsula
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:

The main problem with current DRM technologies is that they interfere with fair use by legitimate customers, while providing an almost trivial barrier to criminals who pirate software and media files. The news reports of the appearance of Spore on illegal peer to peer file sharing sites before the game was released to the public proves that the current DRM technologies are no protection whatever from illegal activity while causing problems only for legitimate paying customers. Like VCRs, reel to reel and cassette tapes, photocopiers and other threats to intellectual property in the past, the solution is to provide a good product at a fair price to consumers, adherence to fair use and prosecution of illegal activity. DRM technology and hacking activity is an arms race and the consumer is the loser in that arms race.

Comment Number:	539814-00512
Received:	1/11/2009 5:59:44 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Nelson
State:	OH
Agency:	Federal Trade Commission
Rule:	FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:

Comments:

DRM is a technology that can be implemented effectively and not become a hinder to the consumer. The problem is that certain games DRM treats every consumer as a thief and therefore makes the consumers jump through hoops so to speak in order to get a game to work. I believe there is nothing wrong with authentification keys and for online games having them checked to make sure the key is authentic. Companies that I believe are good models for how to make sure games DRM are good for the consumers and the companies are Blizzard and Valve.

Comment Number:	539814-00513
Received:	1/11/2009 6:22:39 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Matthew Smith
State:	SC
Agency:	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 concept of DRM in general is a good one. However, often times its implementation can create more of a hassle as well as restricting the user. One such game, Spore, implemented a DRM mechanism called SecuROM. What it did was reduce the purchaser's ability to install the game to only 5 installations. Ironically enough, the game was cracked after a day and was placed on bit torrent sites for illegal downloading. While I understand why EA did this, I don't understand why the DRM implementation and restrictions weren't disclosed to the purchaser on the box, or anywhere else in the game. Eventually, EA relaxed the terms to being able to get a reactivation back by uninstalling the game. However, if you Windows runs into a problem where you have to reformat without backing up (such as a virus), you will lose an activation. Another DRM implementation is starforce. It basically attempts to make it impossible to edit any game files responsible for handling activation without causing the game to stop working. However, starforce has been accused of causing performance degradation. Also, it has been accused of causing hardware (CD/DVD drives) to stop functioning properly or altogether, something DRM should NOT do. Requiring a unique CD key is fine to me. Requiring it being activated, fine. But trying to limit how many times the end user can activate the product on the same computer is wrong. There are ways to implement DRM that doesn't impair the users ability to use the software. One such method is Steam. Steam is a method of distribution owned and operated by Valve. Many companies have put their games on Steam for purchasing, including EA recently. Steam operates by allowing you to purchase your games though it and it is then attached to your account permanently (you can't detach games and put them on another account). You download the game via steam, and in order to play the game, it needs to validate over the internet that the game is genuine. While you need an internet connection to play, you can also install the games on your account anywhere, but only one account can be logged on at a time. Steam doesn't jeopardize performance, and it's not constricting. Microsoft's activation method is also very non-intrusive, and if activation fails, it's very easy to call them up via a toll free number and activate over the phone. Online music is now having DRM removed. Apple's iTunes is continuing to remove DRM. Amazon.com offers DRM free music. Compare it to 3-4 years ago, it was nearly impossible to get music DRM free legally, unless you bought the more expensive CD. The problem with DRM for software developers is that it's always crached. It may take a while, but in the end, it always ends up cracked. DRM methods for music, and movies have so far ended up cracked. In the end, the questions are, who's rights does Digital Rights Management protect and who's rights should Digital Rights Management protect? Right now, DRM more often then not protects the developer's rights, while seemingly violating the end users rights. I'm not saying DRM should be gotten rid of. I'm saying that DRM should protect both the developer's rights and the end-user's rights. The reason for this is that for years, they have been allowed to violate the end-user's rights. Please, correct this.

Comment Number:	539814-00514
Received:	1/11/2009 6:48:34 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Landis
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 complex issue but primarily leads to problems for several reasons. One large issue, for many people, is that it indiscriminately targets every person who wishes to enjoy digital media, treating those who legitimately purchase products as potential criminals. DRM largely does more harm than good. DRM limits the usage of products that people pay for and because it is designed to discourage piracy it does so in a way that is extremely frustrating, by limiting the ability to install products (such as video games) on multiple computers and by limiting the usability of music on multiple platforms. The core problem with DRM is not its existence, it is the way it is managed by the companies that choose to utilise it. The usage of DRM is largely Draconian, with a clear "my way or the high way" attitude presented, and if you look at the statistics for stolen media such as video games it is clear that DRM simply does not work. It hampers the ability of those who purchase products to actually use what they have bought, and it is easily circumvented by those who steal. To make DRM most effective it needs to be either universally adopted but with increased options for the consumer or completely abandoned for a new form of anti-piracy.

Comment Number:	539814-00515
Received:	1/11/2009 6:54:29 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Paul Silva
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's biggest failing is simply that it punishes the legitimate customer the most; being stuck with limited installs, or worse, losing access to a product when you upgrade to a new machine is completely ridiculous when you have already paid for said product. I believe that DRM actually encourages piracy due to it's annoying and invasive components. I avoid DRM products as much as possible due to this. I do not want to support any companies that utilize this failing band-aid approach to piracy...people will always find a way around DRM. I'd like to see standardized limitations on what information DRM can access and also requirements to make it's presence/location known when installing a product that contains it, there shouldn't be any hidden surprises when installing something on a computer. Please support my rights as a consumer. Respectfully, -Paul

Comment Number:	539814-00516
Received:	1/11/2009 8:19:30 PM
Organization:	GUComics.Com
Commenter:	Woody Hearn
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:

As it stands, DRM is only punishing those of us who have purchased a legitimate copies of games. It's abundantly clear that those who are going to steal/hack a game are going to steal/hack them regardless. And, thus far, DRM measures have not even slowed pirates/hacker down let alone STOP them. Quite frankly, as a guy who makes his living in the gaming news/commentary industry, I'm tired of being treated like the criminal rather than a player. It should probably be noted that I actively advise my readers not to buy games that have DRM associated with them. Hopefully, slumping sales will be our message to the game industry.

Comment Number:	539814-00517
Received:	1/11/2009 8:22:14 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Jason Andrae
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 continues to be a problem for consumers. When I purchase a product, I should be able to use that product for what it was intended. DRM does not reduce piracy, as pirates are continually finding ways around this process. In the end, the consumer suffers unjustly. I have a right to privacy and information that is taken about me without my control is horrible. If I choose to purchase a product legitimately, I deserve to use that product without information being gathered about me. Thank you.

Comment Number:	539814-00518
Received:	1/11/2009 8:34:58 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	SHAWN CARPENTER
State:	WV
Agency:	Federal Trade Commission
Rule:	FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:

Comments:

Tryed to trade in the game SPORE back before Christmas becouse I just didn't like it. Game store won't take this game OR any other game becouse of this (DRM). So I guess I really don't owen this game then? I paid $50.00 and know this game is worth NOTHING. I thought when you bought a game it was yours.

Comment Number:	539814-00519
Received:	1/11/2009 8:45:22 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Feld
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:

I do not understand how DRM actually benefits me, other than some nebulous explanation by the industries that by keeping piracy down they can keep prices down or some such nonsense. Have you ever heard the argument, "if guns are illegal, only outlaws will have guns?" I feel the same way about DRM. The pirates get around it anyway, so the only people who really suffer from DRM are the legitimate users. I don't pirate personally, since those "corners" of the internet seem a bit too shady and virus-laden for my tastes and I wouldn't know how to do it on my own. But honestly, the more harsh and invasive DRM becomes, the more I'm tempted. All I want is the product I paid for, to work how I expect it to, until I choose to be rid of it. When I hear about a company using some sort of verification server for DRM checks so if they ever go out of business everything you bought from them becomes permanently locked, I can't understand how that's any more legal than selling someone an item with a string attached to it, then yanking it out of their hands arbitrarily. OK, I'm rambling now. Thanks for your time.

Comment Number:	539814-00520
Received:	1/11/2009 9:26:27 PM
Organization:	Oxford Media Works
Commenter:	Kirk Biglione
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:	539814-00520.pdf

Comments:

Comments attached as PDF file.

Comment Number:	539814-00521
Received:	1/11/2009 9:36:57 PM
Organization:	costco wholesale
Commenter:	trotter
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:

didn't you mother ever teach you to share????? whoops, not copyrighted material.....:) i don't purchase crap with drm and never will, and i don't pirate. just goto the closeout areas of my local stores. drop drm, or else. well, to late, ELSE is in the process idiots.....:) and if you need some wisdom, mr trotter at prescott costco!!!!!

Comment Number:	539814-00522
Received:	1/11/2009 9:53:06 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Byers
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:

|While I agree with the basic principle of DRM, to protect a companies intellectual property, I am opposed to the viral methods employed. Not allowing you to use something you payed full price for to not only support the company but to enjoy the product because of other software installed, is ridiculous. Just as it is to limit the amount of times you can install the software or require you to have online access to use it. Oft times the DRM software itself can invade your privacy and cripple your operating system as much as malware. I believe that, as a whole, DRM software should be done away with in its current form, and that companies as a whole should start listening to the consumers to see why piracy of their intellectual property is so rampant. In any case, DRM software doesn't even provide minimal protection, and in a growing number of cases, has already been hacked around before the software it's supposed to protect even reaches the market.

Comment Number:	539814-00523
Received:	1/11/2009 10:05:21 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Benjamin Kercheval
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'm sure you'll be getting many other comments to this effect, but it needs to be understood: DRM schemes treat the legitimate customers like criminals, while the actual criminals don't have to deal with them because they are routinely removed during "piracy". When the illegal option provides a (in some cases, much) better product something is horribly wrong.

Comment Number:	539814-00524
Received:	1/11/2009 11:14:33 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	James Park
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:	539814-00524.pdf

Comments:

Hate it. I can't see the point in locking already COPIED material. It's obvious these companies are profit whores. Shown in diagram attached., the sales of Digital Media does NOT MAKE SENSE. consumers can only purchase what is copied, so why not get the exact same copy for free? Big time corporates state that it's stealing and "illegal" however, what is there to steal? They're all just COPIES, none of the Original files or the idea was stolen. DRM is just a way for those already in control to remain in control. It's the Bible of the digital fraud market. Dan Glickman, chairman of MPAA gave an analogy to Steal This Film II. It went like this... Would a t-shirt company gives out free shirts? would a Grocery store give out free food? NO, because they would go out of business. However digital files are reproduced not by raw material, but processing power. There is no cost of coping it and distributing it. However those that want profit, they place tolls on everything possible, and if the tolls didn't work they added speed bumps then cutting the lanes for a more manageable traffic, just like how Comcast throttles bandwidth. "The VCR was to the American movie industry What the Boston Strangler was to a women alone"... The war on Digital Information is something much more fundamental... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw&feature=related I'm 17 and I find it very hard to find anyone that can comprehend what Digital Rights Management.

Comment Number:	539814-00525
Received:	1/12/2009 12:20:56 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Herbie Robinson
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:	539814-00525.pdf

Comments:

This is an old paper I wrote on UCITA, but most of it applies to copy protection/DRM. Sorry I don't have time to rewrite it.

Comment Number:	539814-00526
Received:	1/12/2009 12:33:47 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Ward
State:	KY
Agency:	Federal Trade Commission
Rule:	FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:

Comments:

DRM has been a long standing tradition in the computer software market, actually pre-dating the term itself. It started with the method of prompting the user for a certain letter or word listed on some page of the user manual and has evolved into even more arcane, annoying methods. One of the worst offenders is a company known as EA, their management has become paranoid, phobic even that there is some huge piracy movement that is just out to get them. They now employ a 3 authentication rule on a game called Spore that has caused a big controversy. The problem is that EA thinks that this will control piracy, but the truth of the matter is that it is a problem that has always exsisted and will never be stopped. What EA fails to realize is that their rediculously restrictive counter-piracy measures will only drive more paying customers toward illicit copies that don't have some draconian authentication measures. If EA and like companies would put half as much effort into making a game that works properly as they do into making new means of DRM, I think they would have a much more loyal, happy customer base. Instead of DRM, companies like EA need to focus on Quality Control, making sure that a product that someone buys off the retail shelf is going to work properly when they get home and install it. The consumer should NOT have to be subjected to games like Sims 2 installing hidden software like SecuROM, software that, aside from protecting EA's precious Digital Rights, usually ends up clogging up the customer's computer, eating up resources and slowing it down. After installing this corporate-sponsored clog-ware a customer should at least be able to enjoy his or her game, but instead the game will crash, because, though it wasn't stated anywhere on the box, the game has minor incompatibilities with the user's graphics card. So now, the customer goes online to find a patch at EA's site, only to find a promise that EA is working on the problem and will release a patch soon... dated 5 months ago, about the time they did release a patch, only to pull it again because the patch crashed computers as well. Instead, the customer has to turn to a patch made by a 3rd party developer, someone not even connected to EA, a fan of the game... But at least the DRM works, right? I don't beleive this scenario is fair to any customer of any business, but I guess, as long as video game companies are going to assume that all thier customers are criminals and treat them as such and as long as they are allowed to go on doing such, this will be the likely scenario repeated over and over.

Comment Number:	539814-00527
Received:	1/12/2009 12:33:59 AM
Organization:	None
Commenter:	Mike Ornellas
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:

The way this DRM is ending up working now to try to thwart piracy, is in effect punishing the legal buyer/user. In the end, it's going to end up being pirated anyway. DRM, in my opinion because of the inconviences and annoyances it causes the legal buyer, the result of which is to encourage more piracy. I've seen many people start out trying to be legal and end up getting mad and move toward piracy to "get back at" because of how invasive and ineffective DRM has become. An awful lot of people look at DRM the same way they look at the RIAA, with disdain because of what they see going on. I'm against piracy as much as the next legal guy, but there has to be a better way than what's going on now.

Comment Number:	539814-00528
Received:	1/12/2009 12:51:21 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Alvin Barnard
State:	Outside the United States
Agency:	Federal Trade Commission
Rule:	FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:

Comments:

It has only ever caused me issues. Ive had to relplace dvd drives as the model I had did not work with the original Disc. People who use pirate copies have a better experience than people who purchase the originals. i.e, install issues, disc has to stay in drive etc.

Comment Number:	539814-00529
Received:	1/12/2009 12:54:16 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Brian Agatonovic
State:	OH
Agency:	Federal Trade Commission
Rule:	FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:

Comments:

DRM with limited installs is unfair to the consumer. It could possibly force the consumer to pay for the same title twice. It also installs items on the computer that are not removed if the software is removed. DRM should protect the company while providing value to the consumer, like Valve's STEAM product. The SecuROM DRM by Sony used by EA is unfair to the consumer. There wasn't even a warning at the time of purchase that my installs would be limited.

Comment Number:	539814-00530
Received:	1/12/2009 1:38:23 AM
Organization:	none
Commenter:	Roman Lajciak
State:	OH
Agency:	Federal Trade Commission
Rule:	FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:

Comments:

Dear Madam or Sir, I would like to draw your attention to a feature of some new DRM techniques that is very onerous to software users in general and gamers in particular. The offending feature is online activation/authentication. The problem with online activation/authentication for offline programs such as Microsoft Office or single-player games is that it artificially limits the lifespan of the program/game to the time the publisher is willing to maintain the online activation/authentication servers. This means that the program/game will automatically expire and be impossible to install on new computers if the publisher goes out of business or if the publisher simply decides that the upkeep of the activation/authentication servers is no longer in accordance with their business plan or otherwise no longer worth the cost. This is not merely a hypothetical issue - publishers as large as Microsoft, Yahoo and Walmart have decided to shut down their DRM servers dealing with DRM protected music, thus hurting a plethora of customers. Although I recognize the need to protect content (and the evidence whether online activation helps significantly in this regard is lacking at best), DRM should not create an artificial dependence on the publisher to install and use the legitimately purchased offline product. Apart from the damage this can cause to customers, this also needlessly increases exposure to and dependence on the internet, thus increasing the general internet-based vulnerability of the economy. Online activation/authentication also denies the use of offline software products to those who do not have a connection to the internet, a dwindling number, but worthy of consideration nonetheless. Requiring online activation/authentication to obtain product support or extras, is of course, another matter, as these generally require the continued existence of the publisher, servers and access to the internet regardless of whether they need online activation/authentication. Given the above, I would like to beseech you to address the problems of online activation/authentication as a form of DRM and the serious problems this creates for the customers/consumers of software and games. At the same time, please take into consideration that online activation/authentication for offline software and games artificially and needlessly increases our dependence on the internet and publisher's server farms and thus enhances our vunerability. Thank you for your understanding. Best Regards, Roman Lajciak

Comment Number:	539814-00531
Received:	1/12/2009 1:46:49 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Jared Christian
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:

In this day and age, consumers want one thing above all else for the technology products that they buy and how they buy them: control. Consumers want the products that they buy to function as advertised and be able to use them how the people around them use the product as well. Consumers dont want to feel like they did not receive a quality product or a product that is lacking features or contains sub-standard features. Consumers want to be able to customize their product to their liking and use it for their specific purposes. Consumers want to be able to buy online, in person, over the phone, or whatever works best for them. DRM flys in the face of all this. Not only does it take away the control and standards that consumers demand, but it illicits a negative response by the software pirating/hacking scene. Companies need to focus on bringing higher quality products to market instead of wasting there time trying to remove control from the consumers. Because consumers will find a way, whether by obtaining pirated software or products illegally or by going with a different product.

Comment Number:	539814-00532
Received:	1/12/2009 2:10:35 AM
Organization:	Cru Digital
Commenter:	Dale Williams
State:	Outside the United States
Agency:	Federal Trade Commission
Rule:	FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:

Comments:

My experience with DRM is that it prohibits access to users willing to do the right thing without adding a sizable enough hurdle to those willing to infringe on copyright. The DRM of an entertainment product can, in cases, make me feel like I got a worse deal than those who are willing to pirate. I enjoy the feeling I get from owning a product. The fact that a server, a limited number of installations or other restriction dictates the methods in which I store, manage or access my product makes my purchase less tangible and, therefor, less worthwhile.

Comment Number:	539814-00533
Received:	1/12/2009 2:11:52 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Reyna Perucca
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:

I believe that DRM in all forms is wrong. No company has the right to put an invasive, spy-ware of malware on their product. I was a loyal costumer of The Sims 2 series made by Maxis and then Electronic Arts. In 2007 when they became using the DRM SecuRom, they did it to "stop piracy." Instead, they caused honest consumers like myself to lose all faith in their company. Instead of playing the four games I purchased and paid over $100.00 for, they now sit on a shelf gathering dust. SecuRom damaged the DVD drive on my $1500.00 PC because it considered it a "threat." I was unable to launch the very program this DRM was installed to protect. It also established itself as the administrator of my PC and I had to complete a full system restore to remove SecuRom, as it used hidden registry keys. DRM does not protect against piracy. The game SPORE by Electronic Arts included the the DRM SecuRom 7, and SPORE was the most pirated game of 2008, despite being released in September. SecuRom 7 requires a limited number of "access" keys to ensure the game is not installed illegally by non-consumers. It takes a "snapshot" of the computer the moment it installs itself. If a person adds memory, buys a new graphics card, or even buys a whole new computer, or does anything to change that "snapshot," SecuRom uses a key. Once all of the keys are used up, the consumer needs to purchase a new game. The idea that these DRMs are to protect against piracy is a joke. The truth is, these DRMs are to ensure that one person doesn't buy one game/music and keep/play it forever. Instead, it forces the consumer to buy multiples of the same product. Basically, it changes "purchasing" into "renting." Lastly, DRMs that require an internet connection for activation of the product ensure the company can break privacy laws. They know what type of computer every consumer has. The DRM acts as spyware and sends information about programs, personal information, and leaves the computer open to treats of viruses, hacking, and identity theft. Non-online games should not require online connection. Also, dynamic adds through DRM should not be allowed. Please, please make DRM illegal. There are much better ways to combat piracy that do not damage the consumer. DRM does not damage the pirates. They do not go to the store and buy a game or pay for music. They know how to hack and steal the product without ever purchasing a copy. The only people who are hurt by this are the honest people. We are not pirates, we pay our hard earned money for the things we enjoy. Please protect us from these corporations that want to turn the things we enjoy into the things we hate. Thank you for listening.

Comment Number:	539814-00534
Received:	1/12/2009 3:25:18 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Michael Luvar Barnes
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 have followed Digital Rights Management technologies, also known as DRM, with great interest for a few years. I as a consumer need to be aware of what products that contain software that may hinder my ability to enjoy a product I have paid for on my own terms. To that end I try not purchase software that contains DRM of the more invasive kind. It is one thing to require someone to have a software disk present within a disk drive of a system as a means to prove ownership. It is a whole other thing to install software on my system that is somehow supposed to prove I purchased my game legitimately after installation. How is this possible? How does DRM software prove I own a physical copy of software? All I know is that it takes up system resources in an attempt to constantly verify, or periodically verify, that my copy of a game is legitimate through use of my Internet connection. This is a hassle because what if I am without an Internet connection when the product needs to check against a database to prove I have a legitimate copy and or have not modified the software I have purchased? Once I was without an Internet connection for a period of months and was unable to enjoy software I paid for as a result of DRM that came with the software. I fear that at some point in the future I will not be able to enjoy the software I own. What if the company that created it ceases to exist? What will happen to the server or servers at the other end of the DRM they included with their product to prove I have left it unchanged and or purchased legally? I know that DRM is an attempt by companies to cut losses. To prevent third parties from obtaining a digital product illegitimately. But time and time again I find out that the methods employed to prevent people from stealing a piece of software often drive people away from a purchase of said software legitimately. I should know because there was software I learned of that would become available or was available for purchase that I will not purchase because of the DRM employed by it. Said DRM requires an Internet connection, and I would be unable to enjoy my purchases if my Internet connection was unavailable yet again. I do not wish to go through the hassle of trying to load a program. Only to be informed that it cannot detect an Internet connection and update so it will not start up. I can understand DRM software that needs an Internet connection if said software was utilized online. However products that do not involve networking should not use such DRM schemes. Products that have an online component but are capable of being enjoyed without an Internet connection should not have such a DRM scheme as well. Because at times the servers that support the online component end up going offline due to the company trying to save money and or due to a lack of users utilizing them. The need to check my purchase constantly, remotely, is like someone coming up to my apartment door and asking if they can see all the software on my computer. At any time of day. And then asking for me to produce installation disks for each and every program on my computer. Then informing me that for each program I am unable to produce a disk for. I cannot use until said disk is shown to them. Try imagining someone doing that once a week or every three days. It would become nerve wracking very quickly. Also imagine someone knocking on the door to your home after you arrive with a newly purchased piece of software and then informing you of the fact that you can only install that piece of software four times on your computer. And that even if you remove it, you cannot get back one of those installs without first speaking with them. It would be time consuming, wasteful, and make it seem as if you just rented the software as opposed to purchased it considering all the conditions attached to just having it in your home. We do not need invasive DRM, we as consumers just need a product worth purchasing. Those who want the product without purchasing it should not even be considered when the thought of inserting DRM into software comes up. Companies should think of those who will legitimately purchase software and how best to retain them as a customer. Not drive them away from an easy sell with useless conditions to their ownership of their software.

Comment Number:	539814-00535
Received:	1/12/2009 3:31:23 AM
Organization:	Digital Eel Games
Commenter:	Richard Carlson
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 can be used to collect user information secretly, undetectably and unethically. It can coerce people to buy certain specific hardware or software. It can be, and is, used to limit usage of software products by the very people who paid for them. Often in order to use DRM'd software the user is forced to 'register' the product possibly --probably-- subjecting himself or herself to advertising and spam, or worse. In conjunction with current copyright law DRM undermines the future public domain. It inconveniences common everyday users unduly, making them jump through hoops that savvy pirates simply ignore. And the bottom line: As for decreasing piracy, DRM doesn't even work.

Comment Number:	539814-00536
Received:	1/12/2009 4:16:47 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Michael Gallagher
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 had to trash 1/2 of my songs from iTunes because the old account that I purchased those songs under is now inaccessible for reason's Apple tech support cannot explain. Because my account has mysteriously disappeared I was unable to authorize my songs and therefore could not listen to the music I paid for. DRM punishes those willing to pay for intellectual property. It limits devices that can play or read the purchased files and inevitably will lead to the consumer having to repurchase the same IP when new devices cease to support the old DRM and old authorization services shut down.

Comment Number:	539814-00537
Received:	1/12/2009 4:44:41 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Eric Hammers
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:

Restrictive DRM punishes those who legally purchase a game, I know this from experience. I fail to see how any intelligent person could not see the backlash coming from this form of DRM, as all it does is persuade the core audience that they would be better off getting a pirated version (which all of these DRM restricted games eventually, if not immediately get cracked) Gaming companies should learn from PC gaming company Valve, who treat their customers right with PERSONAL customer support, FREE content updates, and NO RESTRICTIVE DRM RUNNING IN THE BACKGROUND. good day sirs

Comment Number:	539814-00538
Received:	1/12/2009 6:49:00 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Jeremiah Teague
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:

As companies, they should be able to put any kind of DRM they choose on their software. I do, however, feel that the boxes (of the software) need to be easily identifiable as to what the DRM consists of. I believe this needs to be clearly labeled on the front of the purchase material (much like the ERSB rating).

Comment Number:	539814-00539
Received:	1/12/2009 7:20:33 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Rolfe
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 no problem with people wanting to secure there IP but if i buy a piece of software i expect to be able to use it instantly without question or restrictions. Unless I specifically purchase a limited time license I expect it to work as long as i have the hardware to support it. I have had a few occasions where DRM has prevented me from playing a game for 2-3 days because it detected something the DRM designers hadn't thought of. I even rebuilt the PC to be sure there was nothing conflicting with the game but still i was expected to wait several days while securom sent me a fix. When a game is bought to be played on a weekend you don't expect to have to wait until Tuesday to play it. The other problem is so what if it does detect emulation software or hardware it doesn't recognize, they are perfectly legal. I work in the IT industry and the sort of things the DRM conflicts with are used for creating virtual machines and accessing MSDN images among many other uses. Its worth pointing out that there are cases where DRM systems have worked very well, a good example is the Steam client from Valve.

Comment Number:	539814-00540
Received:	1/12/2009 7:38:52 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	ethen van lieu
State:	DC
Agency:	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 theft. If I can resell a used car, why can't I resell a video game?

Comment Number:	539814-00541
Received:	1/12/2009 9:06:36 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Graf
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:

DRM technologies are fair to employ as long as they don't harm the user's system. Copyright holders have the right and the business requirement to protect their intellectual properties.

Comment Number:	539814-00542
Received:	1/12/2009 9:12:19 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Burns
State:	VA
Agency:	Federal Trade Commission
Rule:	FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:

Comments:

DRM is a weak attempt to stop piracy in the video gaming industry. The software installs on paying customers pc without any disclosure or informing of the customer. DRM can open internet portals to validate gaming rights and to ensure the game hasn't been installed past the number of allowable installs. There have been document cases in which paying customers have had serious pc issues after DRM had been unknowingly installed. After a customer has removed the game/software that had the DRM buried in the install, DRM remains on that persons pc with no easy way to remove it. The games that EA has used DRM to stop piracy has been a failure and the games have been leaked onto torrent sites and other p2p sharing vehicles thus only truly effecting paying customers that wish to abide by the law. When a customer purchases a gaming title that has the DRM software, and chooses to upgrade their pc, and the need to reinstall the software title arises, the customer may not be able to install the gaming title as some games limit the number of installs to 3. So if a person has a laptop, desktop pc and installs the gaming title on each, they have only 1 remaining install prior to the gaming title becoming locked and requiring a new copy. This limits the paying customer that wants to upgrade their pc, and ensure they can play the latest games with the proper requirements to ensure a good gaming experience. The limitation of the installs makes the software seem more like a rental since EA has decided on how many times you will be permitted to install the game by using DRM. If a company like the above mentioned EA wants to use DRM to stop piracy, they can use a less invasive version that simply checks to ensure the actual disk is in the dvd drive before allowing the game to be played. Being more educated on pcs and up to date with DRM I have refused to purchase titles with DRM since it acts like spyware/malware as it "secretly" installs without your knowledge and you can't uninstall it. Companies that decide to use DRM should be required by law to mention what the DRM does, how to remove it, and why it is being used as other software does. Any software regardless of use, should not be able to install on a personal computer without consent by the pc owner. Please consider my and the other comments from public as this is our voice and we are calling for change in the way DRM is installed and acts on personal computers. If anyone has ever had a virus that took up resources, sent information without your consent, and installed without your permission, then you understand the effects of DRM and how the public feels towards it. Thank You, Mr. Burns

Comment Number:	539814-00543
Received:	1/12/2009 10:04:22 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Ben Warhol
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:

As a law-abiding consumer, I find myself disgusted at most DRM schemes on several levels. Even the name is a ridiculous attempt at spin control, a contradiction-in-terms worthy of Newspeak in its backward meaning. After all, anything with 'Rights' in it must be a good thing, correct? That quibble aside, my other reservations are of a more practical nature, chief among them the fact that DRM doesn't actually work. No one needs technical knowhow to bypass it, they only need to be able to find the work of one person who does, and then that's that. The only people who it does interfere with are those cases where online activation fails, or those with a specific brand of optical drive that a popular DRM scheme refuses to accept, or other similar situations. In short, the only two real victims of an end-user-inflicted DRM scheme are the customers who obey the law and the EULA, and the companies that pay money to DRM firms in a misguided attempt to curb copying. On that same subject, of course, are the dishonest figures that the software industry uses to attempt to justify their crusade. I don't deny that piracy is a problem for the industry, but not every download is a lost sale, and that's a simple point of fact that the industry as a whole has attempted to reject for many years now. The fact is that a thief steals because he either cannot afford to buy something or because he is not willing to pay full price for something. I can certainly sympathize with the latter in many cases, given the truly amazing number of really, really terrible games and music on the market...who wants to pay inflated prices for substandard software that they'll tire of in half an hour? On top of even that is the reality that a downloaded disc image isn't a shoplifted boxed copy...it's got a chance (and not a large one) to be a lost sale, and that's it. It's not a stolen corporeal product, and no amount of 'would you shoplift?' commercials will change that. The one anti-copying scheme that does work reliably is free content downloads tied to a legit CD key. Sure, it's not foolproof, but if a game is well-made and well-supported with free content, there's incentive for people to actually buy it. Poorly-made games that attempt to gouge more money from the customer via microtransactions, conversely are more likely to produce dismal sales figures and higher piracy numbers, simply because there's very little to make people actually want to buy them. Oh, and there's a little company called Stardock that's been floating around for a while...they sell games and other non-entertainment software DRM-free, and make quite good money doing it. The reason is twofold...they make good games, and their actions win the respect of the community. If companies spent more resources on that and less on phony 'DRM' schemes, maybe they'd be better off? -Ben

Comment Number:	539814-00544
Received:	1/12/2009 10:18:32 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Michael Baggett
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:

The concept of digital rights management is this: You, the consumer, are not allowed to "own" anything. You are merely renting goods, in perpetuity, from a media provider. The media companies claim to implement DRM to protect themselves against piracy but it is actually a scheme to force consumers to buy the same media over and over. Music and video piracy is always going to exist; underground organizations that make wholesale copies of books, music, and film operate without regard to DRM. The only people impacted by DRM are legitimate, honest customers. Imagine if you had an entire library of books and one day when the store that sold them to you went out of business your books suddenly became illegible. Another scenario would be that you buy a CD and it can only be played on the first CD player you ever listened to it on. These scenarios are plausible. If Apple ever went out of business, millions of people would be left with music libraries they could never listen to again. Customers should have the freedom to play content they've purchased on any device they own so long as they respect existing copyright laws and common sense. Should a consumer infringe on a media holder's rights, the courts will decide that consumer's fate. DRM tries to be a technological answer to a legal problem and fails horribly. Media companies need to stop fearing legitimate customers.

Comment Number:	539814-00545
Received:	1/12/2009 10:37:32 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Wick
State:	IA
Agency:	Federal Trade Commission
Rule:	FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:

Comments:

If content providers choose to use DRM, consumers should know well in advance that they are purchasing content that has been crippled in some way. Furthermore this notice should not be allowed to state or imply that the _protection_ is for the benefit of the consumer. DRM is protection AGAINST the consumer FOR the benefit of the content provider. At a minimum, the notice should explain if the DRM in the content will make permanent modifications to a computer or device, whether these changes have been thoroughly tested to ensure they do not introduce security concerns, whether the content will be usable without a centralized verification service, and if a verification service is required how long the content provider guarantees the user access to the content via the verification service. If the provider does not guarantee that the content is accessible for a specified period of time, this should be made clear. Lastly, because the surrender of consumer rights is involved in the acceptance of such measures, a minimum age of accountability should be established, and the consumer should be required to read these notices, and answer several questions correctly before being allowed to purchase the content. This would create a considerable hindrance to the smooth operation of purchasing the content, however it is necessary to ensure the the consumer is not _tricked_ into making a bad purchase, and it is really no more disruptive than most DRM scemes are to the actual use of the content. If DRM is to be regulated, it should be treated like wiretapping or search and seizure. In a virtual sense, some DRM approaches those things in terms of invasion of privacy. The default assumption of DRM is that every consumer intends to infringe copyright. Because of this, content providers have taken liberties with consumers' computers and other hardware that would be considered unquestionably illegal, unethical, and immoral if it took place in a physical sense. Two examples I can offer are the Sony Rootkit debacle, and Apple Computer's practice of attempting to render unofficially modified iPhones inoperable for no reason other than the unofficial modification (meaning that the change that Apple computer made in its updates that disabled _unlocked_ iPhones was solely for the purpose of punishing those users, and not an incidental incompatibility with the unofficial modifications.). These examples are not anecdotal, they are indicative of a considerable amount of DRM. The government should stop spending resources and creating laws to protect large corporate concerns that have purchased copyrights from content creators. Those entities are perfectly capable of protecting themselves as is evidenced by some tens of thousands of lawsuits funded by them. The government should concern itself with protecting the consumers, who are not generally so well equipped to protect themselves against the vast resources of the corporate concerns that represent the entertainment industry.

Comment Number:	539814-00546
Received:	1/12/2009 11:02:47 AM
Organization:	None
Commenter:	James Lostlen
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:

In the immense clutter and saturation of our entertainment society, the perspective of a recording artist realistically should consist something along these lines: An artist's music is a commercial for their products. Their products are merchandise and concert tickets. In the event of someone "stealing" their music, this person has NOT wronged the artist, they have potentially helped them. This person has now been exposed to their commercial and may react to it by buying some product. In short, the artist should be so lucky as to have somebody "steal" their music. Its a great way to sell T-shirts and tickets. A worthwhile note: Artists make far more of a percentage on merchandise and touring income, so it is really not an issue of stealing from the artists as much as it is stealing from the labels, and that is an economic issue, not a issue of artists' rights.

Comment Number:	539814-00547
Received:	1/12/2009 11:06:06 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Fabio Bossi
State:	Outside the United States
Agency:	Federal Trade Commission
Rule:	FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:

Comments:

DRM Technology can restricts users’ legitimate access to movies, music, literature and software, indeed all forms of digital data. Unfree software implementing DRM technology is simply a prison in which users can be put to deprive them of the rights that the law would otherwise allow them. The motive for DRM schemes is to increase profits for those who impose them, but their profit is a side issue when millions of people’s freedom is at stake; desire for profit, though not wrong in itself, cannot justify denying the public control over its technology. Defending freedom means thwarting DRM.

Comment Number:	539814-00548
Received:	1/12/2009 11:47:05 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	So
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 the bane of modern society. DRM in most of it's incarnations do nothing to increase a product's value for the consumer, and often times allows companies unethical control to hold a consumer's right to use the product purchased hostage. Often these rights that the media companies give themselves and take away from the consumers are buried in one sided "End User License Agreements" (EULA) that can reach 15 pages of legal text that generally are not read due to length and legal illiteracy, but are always "agreed" to by consumers just to get their products installed and working. While the need for such technologies to exist is understandable, the implementation for most is significantly more obtrusive than a colonoscopy and this needs to be changed. The DRM can cause significant compatibility issues for the consumers and their devices. This is probably the main reason that all forms of DRM for music are being dropped. Consumers want to just buy their music and have it play without incident on their devices. DRM free music will play on any device available in the market today even older models from 10 years ago, while the ones containing DRM are limited to specific players all of which are incompatible with other forms of DRM. The following needs to be addressed: 1 - DRM needs to be transparent to the user so that they do not know it even exists. 2 - It also needs to be implemented in a way such that the security of the system it is installed on is not compromised in order for the DRM to operate. 3 - The purchaser owns the right to use digital media they bought unless it was rented. They should not under any circumstances be limited to where, when, or how they can use the product purchased. Nor should it be legal under any circumstances to deny the purchaser the right to use their digital media because they upgraded or changed their hardware. 4 - Informing the consumer about the rights taken away by the company in question, should not be buried in some lengthy legal document. A short (ie less than a page) summary should be available before the consumer's "agree" to the conditions given to them. 5 - Companies implementing DRM need to be obligated by law to remove DRM if at anytime they can no longer fulfill the requirements of the DRM implemented. If not obligated to do so, years down the line if the company goes out of business or the product they put out has been retired, the product you bought will be unusable even if the hardware you will run it on is compatible.

Comment Number:	539814-00549
Received:	1/12/2009 12:02:56 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Damien Martz
State:	MO
Agency:	Federal Trade Commission
Rule:	FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:

Comments:

DRM is good in theory, but in practice it is just a hassle for the paying customers. Pirates get the finished games early and hack the DRM out before they even ship to stores.

Comment Number:	539814-00550
Received:	1/12/2009 12:52:02 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Christian Owens
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 a consumer and a professional in electronic entertainment (console gaming more specifically) I believe that DRM technologies implemented by most publishers only succeeds in creating a less optimal user experience for valid users. I do not beleive that DRM measures currently implelmented actually hinder large scale piracy. To some degree I beleive it prevents casual piracy, but I don't believe casual piracy represents the bulk of revenue losses incured by publishers, developers, and creators of media. In my ideal world, DRM would be passive, providing 'tracking' capabilities to manufacturers and law enforcement, and law enforcement would concentrate on large scale pirates for all types of media and punishment for piracy at a large scale would become far harsher. I recognise that this is difficult to implement due to the fact that large scale piracy is typically international in nature, and thus largely beyond the realm of influence held by the FTC. Perhaps this issue should be covered by international policy makers.....and if it is deemed to insignificant an issue to get attention at that level....DRM as a whole should be abandoned until such time as it is recognized as a financial issue that affect the entire world.

Comment Number:	539814-00551
Received:	1/12/2009 12:55:26 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Markwardt
State:	NM
Agency:	Federal Trade Commission
Rule:	FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:

Comments:

DRM is a burden of the consumer and ironically promotes piracy rather than stopping it. I own(legally) a handful of DRM games and its truly a worthless and childish way punishing legit gamers while the pirates get none of the side-effects of DRM. When developers stop being whine asshats and start making better games instead of poorly done unoptimized ports with DRM then people might actually want to but them.

Comment Number:	539814-00552
Received:	1/12/2009 1:03:06 PM
Organization:	Oblique Automation Solutions, LLC
Commenter:	Lance Larka
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 fully support artists and game companies having their work protected from theft. However, current trends in DRM are ineffective, intrusive, and damaging to my property. Nor are they required to ensure a successful product launch and sale. Systems that check for the presence of the CD or DVD are typically circumvented within days of a product being released. Systems that use a monitoring service such as SECURErom add intrusive applications to my computer without telling me. These applications frequently conflict with other applications I use. They are also circumvented within days of release. Systems that allow only a certain number of installs per serial number restrict my ability to upgrade to a new computer. They are also circumvented within days of release. Thus the only people that DRM really affect are the legitimate customer who does not use pirated copies. The thieves just ignore the DRM altogether. Last year a small game company released "Sins of a Solar Empire" with no DRM. Further they released a digital download version of the game. If piracy was so bad this would be a recipe for disaster. A non-protected game already packaged in a form that could be distributed illegally upon release. What really happened was that they released such a good product that legitimate customers broke all records for number of units actually sold. Hundreds of thousands of copies legitimately sold. By all measures it was a blockbuster release. The sad truth is that most games released are buggy, poorly designed, and badly implemented. Poor sales of these products are frequently blamed on piracy instead of acknowledging that it was simply a bad product. Pirates don't play bad products any more than honest consumers. I will support any system that actually protects property, including mine. The game I buy is that property just as much as the work that went into it is the property of the publisher. Both parties must be protected equally. That is not happening right now. Thank you for asking for input on this very important issue. Lance Larka

Comment Number:	539814-00553
Received:	1/12/2009 1:13:38 PM
Organization:	GameStart
Commenter:	Renato Bazan
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:

Thank the Federal Trade Commission for this opportunity. My story concerning Spore is a sad one. I highly antecipated the launch of the game, since its first appearance in Game Developers Conference 2006. Later on, already in 2008, I pre-ordered the game six months in advance, expecting it to be one of the greatest of the year, being a fan of Maxis studio as I am. No sooner than the game arrived, I installed it in all three computer I have at home, unsuspectfully believing I owned the game. I did not intend to distribute the game among friends or neighbourhood. I simply wanted to share it with my family. About two weeks later, the news surrounding the DRM business start to pop up everywhere, leaving me confused. When I tried to uninstall the game and then install it elsewhere to test the issue, I found that I didn't have the right to play it anymore. Simple as that. I paid a relatively high price for a game in this one, considering I bought the collector's edition. Yet I couldn't play it anymore. When I went back to the two other installs I still had, I ordered my anti-virus to stop DRM software SecuROM from sending information to foreign server, only to find out that I could not use the internationals game server anymore. And Spore is all about sharing. I paid about 70 dollars for Spore, and I could not play the complete experience more than one month. I feel I've been fooled by some money-grubbing corporation and, quite sincerely, I really don't care if, as they claim, "only less than 1 per cent of Spore players install the game more than three times": I've paid the price for it, I think I have the right to install the game as many times as I want, whenever I want, on or offline. As long as I am the one using it, there is no violation.

Comment Number:	539814-00554
Received:	1/12/2009 1:14:19 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Greg Baker
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:

The use of DRM by hardware manufacturers, publishers, and copyright holders remains an unfair and impractical solution for consumers, limiting choices when purchasing hardware and creating mini-monopolies around specific formats. The way DRM works now, consumers are often forced to purchase specific hardware devices to play media which should be playable by any number of devices. A prime example of this is music purchased through Real's Rhapsody Music Store. Such music can only be played on a device which support the PlaysForSure DRM model. This eliminates all iPods and most set-top box media players. If a consumer purchases music or movies for one DRM system and then chooses to purchase a different player in the future, there is a good chance that all of their media will be rendered unplayable when, in fact, it is fully compatible, but not playable due to DRM restrictions. In a similar light, digital content providers are pressured less to compete with other digital content providers on price or quality of content if they control a majority of the hardware market because those users are "locked in" to a specific format. However, these restrictions are completely artificial because almost all digital media formats are natively cross-hardware compatible. It is only when DRM is introduced that consumers options are restricted and incompatibility is introduced. As a consumer, I would purchase more and more items online if I knew that I could play my content on a device of my choice, but as it is, I can not, so the growth of the market suffers as other consumers, like me, choose to be very selective in what digital purchases they make.

Comment Number:	539814-00554
Received:	1/12/2009 1:14:19 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Greg Baker
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:

Comment Number:	539814-00556
Received:	1/12/2009 2:08:09 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Holden
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:

A companies right to include DRM on their media/software is perfectably acceptable, just as it is my right to not buy anything that includes it. The concern I have is with media/software that is not clearly marked as having DRM. Any media or software which has limitations on its use should be clearly displayed BEFORE purchase and should be explicit in explaining the details of how the media/software is managed. It would be ideal if this information is not buried in a EULA, but this is mostly a wish.

Comment Number:	539814-00557
Received:	1/12/2009 2:12:49 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	John Sinks
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:

Digital Rights Management (DRM) is detrimental to the consumer. It’s detrimental because it removes control of exercise of a basic right of ownership, that being use of the product, from the legitimate legal purchaser. People are routinely penalized by DRM with access to the music or other legally purchased entertainment media being denied them because the service the entertainment media was purchased from shut down their servers. As a result the DRM technology built into the media files can not authenticate the media files authenticity. In this case the consumer is left with a loss of money because the product they paid for can no longer be used, and through no fault of their own. In other areas such as games, the game producers use the DRM capabilities to control a legal purchaser’s use of the product by threats of removal of that use if the purchaser does not meet certain unassociated criteria such as posting as the producer likes in the producers open public forums. Game producers frequently use DRM to remove a person’s use of a game based upon the dubious and false statements of others that someone might have been cheating, or might have been not as accepting as the abuse or opinions of others, in a game. Even the U.S Army, although not specifically including DRM in its Americas Army game, allows a third party vendor to install its possibly insecure and computer compromising software called PunkBuster for anti-cheating into the Americas Army game. As such the U.S. Army allows a form of DRM to occur because PunkBuster routinely removes use of the Americas Army game from U.S. Citizens who are the legitimate and rightful owner of the Americas Army game because it was developed and paid for with American tax payer dollars. As such the U.S. Government through the U.S. Army may be infringing upon the rights of ownership of the American citizen. DRM is not used as a method of protection for content. It is used as a method of control. DRM has been, and continues to be, used by software and big content producers and providers to control the legally purchased access to a product at the whim of the software or big content producer and provider. These software and big content producers and providers often use intrusive, abusive, and computer compromising, methods, installed in secret on a persons computer systems without providing the person any form of redress or method of removal or notice of such methods activity when active and what information the method is actually gathering and sending. There is frequently no method of removal provided for these methods. DRM needs to be outlawed. The potential for abuse to the detriment of the consumer is too great and neither the U.S. Government nor producers of software or entertainment media should be allowed the use of such technology.

Comment Number:	539814-00558
Received:	1/12/2009 2:13:30 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Ethan Larson
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:

Hello, My comment on DRM systems is that they are commonly too restrictive. I work in the game industry, so I have a vested interest in how well games sell and the effects of piracy. My experience is that these systems only stop a small amount of casual piracy. People who really want to pirate something will. What you're left with is a system that makes it difficult for genuine customers to use what they're purchased. Another fundamental problem with digital downloads (music and games alike) is that there are gigantic 12-page legal documents people need to read to understand their rights. People should be presented with a quick version that highlights the most important parts (how many copies they may use, how copies may be used), and a disclaimer that the full legal version should be consulted if there are remaining questions.

Comment Number:	539814-00559
Received:	1/12/2009 2:16:37 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Corey
State:	CA
Agency:	Federal Trade Commission
Rule:	FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:

Comments:

DRM is a largely fruitless endeavor which only serves to punish legitimate customers rather than pirates. It inconveniences users by imposing arbitrary limits upon the products they own, such as the number of times a game can be installed or by requiring users to activate a game online before it can even be played. These requirements would be tolerable if DRM was actually effective at stopping piracy. However, this is not the case. Spore, a popular PC game with DRM, was "cracked" by hackers and distributed online weeks before retail release. Now, according to numerous torrent websites, Spore is actually the most pirated game of all time. Most games with DRM are cracked on the day of the game's release or shortly thereafter. In spite of this fact, legitimate customers must continue to endure the limitations of DRM while pirates get to enjoy content without any such limitations. DRM proponents will often claim that DRM is effective at stopping "casual piracy," the sharing of physical media amongst friends and associates. However, this method of copyright infringement is largely antiquated. With the mainstream penetration of torrents and broadband connections, anyone can download a pirated, DRM-free version of a game, movie or music album with relative ease. Doing so is often faster and easier than getting physical copies from a friend. If someone is so technically inept that they can't download these things, then DRM is completely excessive and unnecessary. A rudimentary (and far less limiting) CD-check would be just as effective at stopping them from copying and sharing games, for example. There is also the argument that DRM stifles the rampant sales of pirated media in countries like China and Vietnam. As with "casual piracy," this myth holds no water. All someone has to do is obtain pirated content off the internet, burn copies onto physical media and then sell them. This content will be cracked and free of DRM and no different than the pirated media sold in the past. In summary, the use of DRM in games and other mediums cannot be justified when it clearly isn't effective at stopping piracy. There is no good reason whatsoever to limit customers' Fair Use rights when these limitations obviously have no effect on pirates. Copyright owners have the right to protect their properties but this right should never infringe on the rights of paying customers.

Comment Number:	539814-00560
Received:	1/12/2009 2:30:48 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Brad Venable
State:	OK
Agency:	Federal Trade Commission
Rule:	FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:

Comments:

DRM has not been a problem until it starts scanning my PC for any programs that are on its 'blacklist.' If a program embedded in the game that I purchase scans my computer for software it doesn't 'like,' then the company that publishes the game is trying to tell me what I can and cannot have installed on my PC. That is a violation of my civil rights and so many ethics codes that I literally don't know where to begin. If DRM is limited to checking to see if I have a CD-ROM or DVD-ROM in the optical drive, wonderful. But the day that I let a company have the right to tell me what I can have installed on my machine is the day that my rights have been spat upon and tossed aside. The other thing that really disturbs me is the propaganda that software publishers, movie studios and other venture capital-like companies use to deter regular law-abiding citizens from the evils of stealing movies, music, and software. A prime example of a lie perpetuated to captive audiences was the "PSA" shown in theaters of a regular Joe painter that worked on a movie set, painting backdrops and the like. In this message, he talked about how people pirating movies took money out of his pocket, and not to post movies on the internet so he could feed his family. That is a blatant lie in the direct sense. That man does the job he is hired to do, he gets paid. That contractor does not see another dime in residual payments after the movie is released, unlike the actors. I think that business practices of invasion of privacy and false or misleading messages are the kind of behavior that warrants examination.

Comment Number:	539814-00561
Received:	1/12/2009 2:52:55 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Henry Nichols
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:

While I understand companies intrest in protecting thier work it does not need to be at the expense of its customers. We do not like to be treated like a criminal as we are the ones willing to pay for a good product. The biggest issue is the underhanded manner in which the DRMs operate and are installed onto a users machine. Many DRMs install and function much like a virus or spyware. Theese DRMs can sometimes create system vulnerabilities that the users is unaware of and lead to thier machine being exploited. The user is also often stuck with the DRM once the application has been removed from the machine.

Comment Number:	539814-00562
Received:	1/12/2009 3:40:46 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Josh Morse
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:

A company that produces a product and sells it to a consumer has no right to impose regulations on how the product may be used. Especially considering the amount of money spent on current electronics. Most new games cost upwards of $50 or $60 and with the economy stumbling and looming towards collapse each day, producers and companies shouldn't be able to impose restrictions on how their expensive product can be used without being forced to lower the price in response to the decreased entertainment value that can be obtained from the software or media.

Comment Number:	539814-00563
Received:	1/12/2009 4:28:11 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	McCorkle
State:	VA
Agency:	Federal Trade Commission
Rule:	FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:

Comments:

While I understand the desire for publishers to safeguard their intellectual property from piracy, the simple fact is that every piece of software has been pirated. Spore, infamous for its heavy-handed DRM scheme, was one of the most-pirated games of 2008 (an estimated 1.7 million copies were pirated as of December). Bottom line: pirates will continue to pirate. Publishers need to realize that a consumer-friendly approach is a superior option to one that will actually drive away potential legitimate consumers. This reality sadly eludes many publishers, hence this FTC forum. Requiring the user to have the disk in the computer's CD/DVD drive is a perfectly reasonable DRM scheme that ties the physical media to the digital content. Attempts to include additional DRM, such as contacting a central server, are a grave concern to me as a consumer. What happens to me if that server cannot be accessed or if that company goes out of business? The most severe form of defrauding occurs when a publisher includes a limited number of installs that are not refunded upon uninstall. A consumer's expectations about ownership are violated, leaving a rental situation in place of an ownership contract.

Comment Number:	539814-00564
Received:	1/12/2009 5:12:06 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Jean-Sebastien Gauthier
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 think DRMs aren't a good way to prevent piracy and copyrights infrigments. Right now the thing they do the most is pissing off legit customers that are honest and like to encourage the industry. When I buy a computer game for instance, I don't feel like dealing with online accounts and online activations. Even worse than that, why can't I install my game on as many computers as I want? Sometimes they give like 3 installs. What if I have already 2 computers at home? Both can break, I can change OS, there's many reasons why I may need more than 3 installs. After that you might want to go in vacation and install the game on your portable. Or again you go at the mother in law place for a week and install your game for the week you're there. (Because let's face it, how can you survive being at your mother in law's place for a week without chilling out on games?) To reduce piracy you need convenience. That's not what DRM are bringing. They are only complicating everything for no valuable reasons. What was the game that was the most pirated in 2007? Spores. It was also the one with some of the most draconian DRM measures out there. It actually shows that fighting piracy with DRM = fighting with swords underwater. When I buy a game I should be able to install it whenever I want. If I don't pay for the internet I should be able to play from the get go if the game isn't an online multiplayer game only. If that simple convenience logic can't be achieved then have laws that makes people understand that they aren't really buying what they buying. Educate people into realising they basically rent the rights to use the game because we don't "own" them anymore. If the internet is absolutely needed in anyways there should also be a huge and clear warning on the box. This would prevent me for mistakenly buy products I don't believe in (like the ones using DRMs. Same goes for music. The music industry is crying at the internet and their music being copied. They fear CDs will die and such things. Now explain me why most CDs stores don't have an online purshasing system? Why when I log on the website of the warner group I can't buy their physical goods but online? For them to make money again they don't need to create draconian measures like DRM, they need to get more convenient. They need to EMBRACE the internet in order to control it better. They should ALL have online stores where you can chose to buy music physically or digitally. They would make a TRUCKLOAD of money instead of trying to save their soon archaic system of retail stores only. More convenience = I will buy more. If the experience is complicated for no valuable reasons I will cherry pick my experiences. tks for reading. :)

Comment Number:	539814-00565
Received:	1/12/2009 5:41:49 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Willy Guan
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:

Data Rights Management is clearly invasive to our privacy, harmful to our computers, and has been proven ineffective to perform it's intended job. The fact that some DRM found in PC video games cannot be removed from a computer is alarming. DRM is supposed to limit the user's ability to use a product, thats like telling me I can only change the channel on my TV a few times before it labels me a television broadcast thief. If I purchased the product, I am not a thief and should not be treated as one. Apple's Itunes store has recently removed all DRM software on it's products to please it's customer base. I think all companies should follow in their footsteps.

Comment Number:	539814-00566
Received:	1/12/2009 6:17:33 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Murr
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 that DRM is simply inane. Apple's decision to remove DRM from their iTunes store was amazing for artists because of the public's obvious disgust towards DRM and its limiting nature. The debacle behind the video game Spore for the PC's DRM (which lead to a decision that requires a phone call to acquire more licenses for more installations, still pointless and time-wasting) should be a great example. Please, please get rid of DRM in full. It harms the creator more than the consumer.

Comment Number:	539814-00567
Received:	1/12/2009 6:22:47 PM
Organization:	None
Commenter:	Stephen Taurone
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:

Greetings, I purchased Supreme Commander a year ago, and found that after I had installed it once. It would not let me re-install the game later on. Apparently this was part of the DRM package installed on the DVD. For purchased software how can this be both fair to the consumer or to the market in general? Why should I have to buy multiple copies of the same game for one computer just because I need to re-install. Hopefully things like this can be resolved by the FTC. ~Steve

Comment Number:	539814-00568
Received:	1/12/2009 6:54:47 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Jones
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 so annoying that services that use it pretty much keep me from buying the product. In fact, their use has the exact opposite effect. I end up pirating a product I would otherwise purchase simply because the DRM process is so invasive and annoying that the quality of my life is actually BETTER if I just break the law. Cases in point? the DRM on Spore and Bioshock, and the entire premise of Netflix on your computer is completely shot because of the awful way DRM works. I'd really rather follow the law, so how about you help us help YOU on this one? If its not easier than stealing it, keep working on it. I'm not going to punish myself as a law abiding consumer just to watch a couple hours of film or listen to a song.

Comment Number:	539814-00569
Received:	1/12/2009 7:03:51 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	James Mashburn
State:	OH
Agency:	Federal Trade Commission
Rule:	FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:

Comments:

DRM is an unfair restriction on consumers. I was going to purchase the PC game Mass Effect by Electronic Arts until I read online about the many problems that legitimate consumers are having with the company and running the game on their computers. They are limiting the times that you can install a game. If your computer is upgraded or repaired more than a certain amount of times then the program that you purchased is useless. I did go to the store to read the box for Mass Effect. It stated in small print with a asterisk following that it needed internet access to be activated. On the back of the box in smaller print was the explanation for the asterisk. It stated that you needed to go online at www.ea.com to find out information about the activation. I went to www.ea.com and searched their website. I could not find the end user license or an explanation of the online activation. I could not find any information about the DRM that limits how many times you can install the game. I did not find any information on the program that installs itself onto you computer to keep track of the DRM and if it can be uninstalled when you uninstall the game. A consumer should have complete disclosure of all the DRM and the consequences BEFORE purchase. If I had not researched the game prior to purchase I would have bought it not understanding the limitations of the use of the software. I did not purchase the software and will not purchase anything from Electronic Arts or any other company that severely restricts my rights as a consumer. Thank you for your kind attention.

Comment Number:	539814-00570
Received:	1/12/2009 8:50:39 PM
Organization:	Relicnews.com ( a fan run site for products made by Relic Entertainment, a US Owned Company)
Commenter:	Tyler Higgs
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 helped run online software troubleshooting forums for years (since 1999). I have seen hundreds of legitimate software purchasers have issue with DRM software built into their purchased products. Search http://forums.relicnews.com for the string SecureRom for a few hundred examples. The vast majority of users have no problems with copy protection, but those that do are all legitimate purchasers of the software. Those that pirate or otherwise illegally obtain their software have no such problems. As such, legitimate purchasers are the only ones being punished as software companies attempting to secure their product from use by those who haven't purchased their product. I would suggest DRM stay in place at a most-minimal level (CD check or online account verification tied to a CD key only). Any DRM errors should be freely supported by the company providing the product. DRM should be as unobtrusive as possible and should never punish legitimate purchasers (as a goal). Fines and/or punishment for those CREATING the methods that bypass DRM be ramped up to an extreme level. Examples need to be made of the next person or group that provides the method to bypass copy-protection in the most public way possible to act as a deterrent. If you can't pay for the product/service/software/media, you shouldn't be using it. ps. While you're at it, can you do something about Virus writers and email spammers as well.

Comment Number:	539814-00571
Received:	1/12/2009 10:36:56 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Nate Miller
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 recognise the need for companies to defend their work but its easy to go too far, I think that putting install limits on software is going to far since it removes ownership of the game and makes it more like renting a piece of software and such protection should be clearly marked and there should be some consumer protection if the drm method used conflicts with computer hardware preventing paying customers from using it. oh and any warning about drm on the box should be more descriptive then just "this game contains technology intended to prevent copying that may conflict with some disk and virtual drives"

Comment Number:	539814-00572
Received:	1/12/2009 10:40:19 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Darnell
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:

DRM needs to be reworked in a way that is more consumer friendly. First any and all DRM that loads onto and remains actively on a computer should be clearly declared on the packaging. Many of the previous versions of DRM that actively loads on a computer have had issues that reduce the ability of the computer and could totally crash the system. Second I believe that the companies should be forced into a dual setup system so that those of us who do not wish to have such potentially harmful programs loaded onto our computers for just a videogame can have the option of not having the DRM program loaded directly to the computer we choose to operate their product, but then it would me we the users would have to insert the disc each time we use that program - a historically proven affective method that does not risk potentially harmful DRM programs being forced on us. In either case point 1 still is very important so if nothing else it informs the customer and then they won't waste hard earned money, they will be then making an informed decision to buy the product and put up with the DRM or avoid the product all together. I would also like to point out to all these industries that the average consumer, such as myself, is honest and willing to pay for a good product. However, we are tired of the hassles produced by these types of DRM. In contrast, those who do pirate software, do so and will continue to do so in a manner that gets around the DRM these companies waste money to create. All these DRM's do is cause difficulty for the honest consumer to the point that many of us have vowed to not purchase any product with such invasive DRM involved. A good example is the game SPORE - until I heard about the DRM I was very interested in it, then the information came out about the DRM ( from various gaming internet sites not the company itself ) and I then decided I would never get it because of the DRM. NO I did not pirate it - but from what I understand I could have even before it was officially released and without the malicious DRM programs - I understand ( again from internet gaming sites ) that a lot of people did end up pirating it just because of the DRM. The extensive use of such DRM is in fact increasing the amount of pirating occurring. I hope that this will help convince you that both alternatives to existing DRM is needed and that the companies need to clearly mark their chosen form of DRM clearly on the packaging to inform the consumer

Comment Number:	539814-00573
Received:	1/12/2009 10:49:22 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	J Keener
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:

I only have a couple comments. Inclusion of modern DRM (securom most notably) that goes beyond simple media verification ( disc checksums - cd keys ) invariably takes the game off my buy/play list, probably forever. Stray security software that won't uninstall with it's host game is a trojan. I have heard several reports that newer versions of securom may even update itself ! I cannot verify this, but it is something that needs addressing. Secret uninstallable software that denies you usage of your hardware if it sees fit and can maybe get 'new instructions' at a later date. You can't shut it off and you won't be told about it. That is potentially a huge security risk. You don't need to be paranoid to see that. Make manufacturers disclose everything about their DRM in great big letters on the box just like they did with cigarettes. That would be a big help to consumers. thanks jk

Comment Number:	539814-00574
Received:	1/12/2009 11:11:13 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Carlson
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:

Digital copyright-protection schemes -- as I'm sure you've heard before -- have never phased anyone who pirates material, and only punish the legit consumer. It's broken both ways. A dead idea.

Comment Number:	539814-00575
Received:	1/13/2009 12:08:08 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Peter Donis
State:	VA
Agency:	Federal Trade Commission
Rule:	FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:

Comments:

I would like to echo the following observations submitted to you by Eric Raymond, the well-known computer programmer and advocate of Open Source Software: [quote] The worst effect of DRM is that it generates pressure to cripple general-purpose computers in an attempt to foil emulation attacks. As a society, we can live with silly restrictions on device-shifting the latest blockbuster movie, but we cannot tolerate (for example) attempts to prevent PCs from running software not certified in advance by a consortium of Big Media companies. Yet that - and even more draconian restrictions - is where the logic of DRM inexorably leads. Such measures have already been advocated under the misleading banner of so-called trusted computing, and half-attempts at them routinely injure today's computer users. I would not ask the FCC to ban DRM, even if that were within its remit. Markets will teach the media companies that DRM is folly. What the federal government can and should do is decline to prop up the DRM fraud with laws or mandates. Specifically, if the so-called broadcast flag or any other similar measure is again proposed, the FCC should reject it. To the extent that FCC regulatory or administrative action can mitigate the damage and chilling effects caused by the DMCA’s so-called anti-circumvention provisions, that should be attempted. Most generally, the FCC should make policy with the understanding that when media companies claim that DRM is useful and effective, they are not only misleading the FCC but deluding themselves. [end quote] As a computer programmer myself, I would add only the following to Mr. Raymond's cogent analysis: the freedom that I and all other US citizens have to configure our computers how we like, and decide for ourselves what software shall run on them, is, in today's information age, an integral part of the liberty guaranteed to us by the US Constitution. The FCC has a duty to ensure that these freedoms are protected, and protection of our liberty as citizens must take precedence over attempts by any business to co-opt the government into unfairly favoring its business model.

Comment Number:	539814-00576
Received:	1/13/2009 12:18:19 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Peter Donis
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:

Please accept the following correction/clarification to my previous comment (tracking number 539814-00575): The comment I referenced by Mr. Raymond referred to the FCC; my comment was submitted to draw to your attention that similar observations apply to the FTC and its regulatory powers, since the FTC has the same duty as the FCC (or any other government agency) to protect our basic liberties.

Comment Number:	539814-00577
Received:	1/13/2009 2:13:35 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	James Cunningham
State:	ME
Agency:	Federal Trade Commission
Rule:	FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:

Comments:

The problem with DRM is that it doesn't work. It's a broken system and there's no way to make it any less broken. From a publisher point of view they might as well try to grasp a giant handful of jello- the harder the grip the more squishes out between their fingers. To extend the analogy a little farther than necessary, the problem is that after squeezing it the jello isn't exactly in an edible state. From a consumer point of view what this means is that potentially harmful products such as Securom and Starforce are foisted on to our computers, limiting what we can do with a product that we own. These programs, in an attempt to exert greater control over how the product they're infected with is used, can instill system instabilities and, in rare extreme cases, fry certain hardware. And for what? A fair percentage of PC game buyers frequently hit up sketchy web sites for a program that circumvents DRM, specific to each product and, more often than not, available on the day of the game's release. While these programs circumvent the licensing agreement they allow the product to be used in the manner to which one would reasonably expect. I can play a CD, DVD, or video game in any compatible console, why would I allow a PC game to be slaved to one computer? While it's true that DRM will prevent sharing one copy of a title among multiple users simultaneously, the negative repercussions are hardly a fair trade. The consumer feels like he's treated as a thief, is forced to download a license-violating program to use the product in a reasonable fashion, and may even end up with potentially harmful extraneous software as a side effect. This is bad business practice. From a personal point of view, anything I buy I own. I'm not licensing the use of the software to be subject to the terms and conditions imposed by an outside force; it's mine. If I want to watch a CD or DVD and give it away, or sell it to a friend, that's my right. It's everybody's right, for that matter. How PC software manufacturers think they get an exception to the rule is a bit of a mystery.

Comment Number:	539814-00578
Received:	1/13/2009 2:35:15 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Brian Crocker
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 does not stop piracy. 99% of all new PC games, and every major console video game system or hand held system have their software pirated. Websites like www.thepiratebay.org, isohunt.com, mininova.org, and gamecopyworld.com are just a few of many websites that you can obtain any game media regardless of DRM the day it appears and often times prior. DRM is a joke, and sadly companies waste millions on it's illusion. Even software other than games is at guaranteed risk of piracy. Any song, album, movie, computer operating system, even ebooks are all pirated because DRM is simply not effective whatsoever. There is only one true DRM that is effective, and that is the likes of games such as World of Warcraft, Everquest, and Star Wars Galaxies, or any game that requires a login and password prior to and during play of said game. Other companies that attempt to use DRM of any other nature fail, and do not understand that the said system above is the only way to control their content. So, please FTC do not punish or prosecute companies who attempt to use DRM because they are already punishing themselves enough by allow their content to be pirated/stolen to those that do not care about paying for it. Feel free to contact me, I can open your eyes to the true depth and failure of DRM and blindness of said companies that use it. There are no boundaries on the internet:

Comment Number:	539814-00579
Received:	1/13/2009 4:27:35 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Greg Edwards
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 two key flaws: It is both proven ineffective at curbing piracy, and is intrusive to the legitimate user, frequently interfering with use of the afflicted product for its intended purpose. It's always possible to defeat a DRM system, and this is for one very simple reason: In order to provide the desired service, the data has to be fed to the DRM-afflicted device by some means. Even if the data is encrypted, the device must know how to decrypt it. One may discover how to do this by reverse engineering. One who is about to illegally distribute copyrighted material already has no regard for this class of law, so legislation like the DMCA will serve as no deterrent. There are frequent cases where the central "big brother" server of a particular DRM scheme, Yahoo's music store, for example, is shut down, rendering all purchases from such sources, inert. DRM is also, by its very nature, incompatible with both unprotected systems as well as competing systems. A device must be able to understand the DRM scheme to be able to enforce its restrictions, and, of course, no DRM scheme is going to concede and provide an unprotected file to a DRM-free device--that would defeat the purpose. Lastly, the greater majority of DRM schemes in active use exhibit a large number of false positives. The SecuROM product activation system is often tripped by uncommon hardware & software configurations, locking the user out of his legally purchased, yet DRM-laden software. Copy protection on CDs and DVDs (which is even accidentally bypassed by a great number of copiers) achieves its goal by corrupting the error correction sections of these discs, causing them to fail much earlier in their life cycle than they ought to, and they often fail to work at all on inexpensive players, which aren't the most aggressive at compensating for errors. The companies currently using or developing DRM need to stop treating their consumers like the enemy. They need to understand that pushing around their customers and dictating the ways in which they can use their products isn't the solution to piracy; all it serves to accomplish is to alienate their consumer base--their bottom line.

Comment Number:	539814-00580
Received:	1/13/2009 8:01:24 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Christopher Huber
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:

Due to the invasive nature of most software DRM (SecuROM being one of the worst) I tend to avoid playing most games on the PC. The sad fact about DRM is that it does nothing to stop piracy and everything to make paying customers jump through hoops. When customers have to use the same "cracked" files as pirates to play their purchased game to avoid performance issues the DRM system is flawed. The same goes for music and ebooks. I might purchase a file on one device but listen to it on another. If I buy a book in a bookstore I can take it with me everywhere. Why can't I do the same with a ebook?

Comment Number:	539814-00581
Received:	1/13/2009 9:07:44 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Doug Glover
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:

The invasive DRM that prevents honest consumers from installing and activating the software they paid for as many times as they want does zero to prevent piracy. People that want pirated software are going to get pirated software. DRM only inhibits those it should not; the people that own a legitimate copy. Thanks

Comment Number:	539814-00582
Received:	1/13/2009 9:37:43 AM
Organization:	none
Commenter:	Richard Hanton
State:	IA
Agency:	Federal Trade Commission
Rule:	FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:

Comments:

The use of digital rights management has become widespread in recent years as companies have sought to protect the media they sell. But, this has been intrinsically detrimental to the consumer. Where for decades consumers have been able to buy a piece of media and own full rights to use that software, DRM allows companies to attempt to withhold those full usage rights. The consumer deserves a certain set of rights with their media including the ability to make a backup copy or a digital copy (for a mobile media device) provided that they do not sell these items or misuse their copies. Furthermore, the use of DRM is usually, if not always, only a partial fix because if media is playable, there is usually a way that can be found to circumvent protections. These software codes that circumvent the protections are then eventually integrated into easy-to-use software that the average person can use. This process eventually makes every form of DRM obsolete. Another important argument against DRM is that DRM has become a monopolistic tool as it has become more complicated, expensive, and advanced. There are reports that the specifications for the Sony Corp's Blu-ray disks specifically require copy protection even when the artist does not require or want DRM on their product. This copy protection that is required is provided at set prices by companies affiliated with Sony which range in the thousands of dollars. This is far too much money for a small artist to produce Blu-ray disks and has also kept smaller disk producers away from Blu-ray production, keeping prices high and hurting consumers. There are benefits to be gained from DRM and dangers from DRM, but I believe the dangers are greater than the benefits and that it should have greater regulation within government due to its monopolistic tendencies.

Comment Number:	539814-00583
Received:	1/13/2009 10:23:38 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Ben Tobin
State:	MT
Agency:	Federal Trade Commission
Rule:	FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:

Comments:

DRM hurts consumers, innovation, and artists, and electronics manufacturers. The greatest and most obvious problem with DRM is that it prevents consumers from using the media they purchase in ways that the publisher disapproves of or failed to consider, even if those uses are perfectly legal. The publisher must give the consumer special permission to do simple things such as copying the media to a new computer when the old one is obsolete. If that publisher goes out of business, the consumer usually loses the ability to use that media. This has happened with several companies already. Current law makes it illegal for the consumer to even try to circumvent the DRM, even if that's the only way for them to access the media they purchased. The harm to electronics manufacturers comes from the pressure on those manufacturers to include limitations in their music players, movies players, and other equipment. To be DRM compatible, the hardware must have extra features to prevent the consumer from using their media in certain ways. This is expensive and time consuming, and it's not something that any consumer would ask for. It reduces the value of the hardware while making it more expensive to develop. It takes time and money away from developing desirable features that result in truly competitive products. DRM hurts publishers and artists because it reduces the value of their product. If consumers can't access the media in the manner of their choosing, it is of little value to them. This can drive down prices and reduces adoption of what should be an extremely cost-effective method of delivery. It's far more profitable to sell a download than to sell any sort of physical media. Additionally, DRM-encumbered media simply cannot compete with illegal internet downloads. If I own an inexpensive media player, chances are good that it will only play unencumbered formats. I would be unable to play legally-purchased media with DRM, but I could play pirated media downloaded for free from the Internet. Finally, despite claims to the contrary, DRM does not prevent piracy. There are always ways for sufficiently motivated and creative people to make copies of protected media. If consumers can consume the media, pirates will be able to copy it. This is never going to change. Because of this, DRM does not hurt pirates or media theives. DRM hurts only the honest customers who pay for their music, movies, or software, instead of stealing it.

Comment Number:	539814-00584
Received:	1/13/2009 10:36:11 AM
Organization:	DoIT Showroom
Commenter:	Bob Novak
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:

As a consumer of digital media, both digital music and computer and console games, I sincerely dislike DRM. While the purpose of DRM was to protect digital content rights for the companies that sell and distribute such media, the effect of this system has been far from the mark. DRM effectively locks out the end consumer from fully utilizing the product that they purchased. Restrictions on the number of loads, in games like Spore for example, have caused severe backlash in the community and have weakened consumer's confidence in digital media, rather than strengthening it. DRM is easily circumvented by pirates, and really only causes problems for the people it is supposed to help. I understand that companies have a right to protect their property, but DRM is not the way to do it. Please consider legislation or regulations to reduce DRM use and try to find a better way to protect digital media rights. Thank you.

Comment Number:	539814-00585
Received:	1/13/2009 2:13:25 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Mike Foringer
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 should never have existed. It doesn't stop anyone from pirating anything, only hampers the legitamate users. I have DVD's that I legally purchased that I can't watch on my computer. I have games that force me to uninstall them before formatting my computer or else I lose my rights to use them. Even my COMPUTER OPERATING SYSTEM makes me call in every single time I need to reinstall it. This is a hassle to everyone. The people who pirate these things end up stripping out DRM anyway, and get a better product for it! I purchased the software, so let me use it how *I* want to. If you want to treat users like criminals, look at what happened to the music industry. DRM does not hurt pirates. It only hurts end users, the trust and respect of the company and the companies bottom line for having to pay for a protection system that isn't going to stop anything. Just say NO to DRM

Comment Number:	539814-00586
Received:	1/13/2009 3:43:42 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Jones
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 waste of time and effort and doesn't make any progress in trying to protect digital media from piracy. It only ends up hurting the average user. It also limits the ownership of the digital media and devalues it, up to the point where in a few years time your rightfully bought media possibly won't 'work' anymore. Compare that to vinyl records which still work now, decades after they were replaced. It turns digital media purchases into rentals.

Comment Number:	539814-00587
Received:	1/13/2009 5:08:35 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	DarKross Eigen
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 just make everything worst, we paid for a license, and pirates can use it in a easier way. Recently i just got a video game, was harder to me to play, and he just got a pirate copy. We dont recieve what we paid for

Comment Number:	539814-00588
Received:	1/13/2009 5:56:31 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Ashwin Mehra
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:

While there is no problem with a security system, the fact is that DRM is a defective system. DRM blocks full access to the user who (most likely) paid for the product, while the pirate gets full access with no strings attached. In addition, it is relatively easy to bypass any form of DRM protection, as is evidenced especially by the fact that heavily DRMed games get pirated before their release on the market. A proper security system should give full access to the user and limited access to the pirate, and not require invasive programs and drivers, kernel access, blocking of security programs and features like SecuROM does with UAC, and constant internet access. An even better solution, perhaps, would be to ignore pirates altogether and just focus on a better user experience for the actual buyers, especially since no DRM would not scare away current buyers, attract buyers who pirate because of DRM, and lower prices because of no need to put in DRM, attracting more buyers who would otherwise pirate or not buy the product at all.

Comment Number:	539814-00589
Received:	1/13/2009 6:06:35 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Michael Kirbish
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:

I would just like to add my name to the list of likely thousands of gamers who find DRM - In particular, DRM which requires online verifications, rootkits, or other invasive procedures to play a game I have spent my legal currency for to be not merely completely uneffective in stopping piracy, but also devaluing the product and denying the consumer their rights to the use of their purchased product. DRM Already is and could in the future be abused to prevent people from using their products if the company deigns that they should no longer be allowed to do so. I would ask as an American citizen and a lifelong gamer to take action against the game and music corporations and protect the American consumers right to free, legal use of his purchase.

Comment Number:	539814-00590
Received:	1/13/2009 7:36:00 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Mark Kilczewski
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:

SecuRom once installed, reports back to it's "activation servers" ostensibly to prevent piracy. Things like system configuration, programs/peripherals installed, and other personal information. Once the host program is uninstalled, SecuRom stays behind, continuously transmitting this personal data back to it's home servers. This is a known fact about one of SecuRom's features. There is very little else known about it's other capabilities, as it's makers and the companies that hide it in their software have been less than truthful/evasive when directly querried about it. SecuRom is spyware, that is a fact. It violates your civil rights. Companies like EA, 2K, and Bethesda have bamboozled their customers by not only installing a trojan on their machines, but also making them pay for it. Quite a few people believe just because a game doesn't have limited installs, it does not contain SecuRom. This is not always the case. SecuRom has many features, including "just a simple disc check", which can be enabled/disabled by the coder. Red Alert 3 doen't even have a disc check, however, it does hide SecuRom. The point that alot of people just don't get is, even if SecuRom did absolutely nothing with regard to disk checks, limiting activations/installs, Conflicts with other software/hardware, it still attaches itself to your OS surrepticiously, and cannot be removed without a reformat, or an extensive manual uninstall. Your machine may or may not work after this install. Imagine if an employee of say, EA came into your house and just sat there in the corner, out of the way, not doing anything, except watching you. And despite protests, and requests to vacate, stays there sitting in the corner. When you call EA to complain, they politely tell you that he needs to stay there in case you ever decide to rob EA. This is what SecuRom does to the consumer electronically. A phrase coined by some of the more, precocious, SecuRom smugglers out there. A consumer asks, "will this game have DRM?". They respond, "No activation or install limits, only a simple disc check.". Thus, they have sidestepped a direct question, and, hopefully, convinced the consumer that their product is somehow less malignant than one that uses activation, and install limits. If these smugglers really only wanted to use a "Simple disc check" for DRM, why wouldn't they just use SafeDisc? Because SecuRom is, first, and foremost, spyware. Anyone who's interested should pick up January copy of PC Gamer. On page 12 there's a 2 page write up concerning DRM and the Spore fiasco. In it a Mr. Randy Stude, director of the Gaming Program Office at Intel, and president of the PC Gaming Alliance, says that he "believes the efforts by the people who voiced their opinions about SecuRom created the awareness for change". He likens the 1-star flame campaign on Amazon to the Boston Tea Party. Brad Wardell of Stardock says that heavy-handed DRM restrictions are backfiring and may be inadvertently driving consumers towards software piracy. He further states that publishers should apply a "Litmus Test" to their copy protection scheme. "Will it cause legitimate customers to feel like chumps for buying something when they could have downloaded a copy without restrictive DRM?". There is a section titled "SecuRom: OK to hate" that explains how SecuRom spys on the user. It closes with saying that there needs to be an environment that listens to consumer complaints and doesn't treat them like criminals.

Comment Number:	539814-00591
Received:	1/13/2009 11:57:48 PM
Organization:	C. Obscura
Commenter:	Logan Crouch
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 both a content creator (video and photography) and an avid consumer of movies, music, and video game and production software, I have been forced by necessity to become familiar with the workings of DRM technology. In almost all of it's forms I have found it to be a greater nuisance and in some extreme cases, to be a malicious intrusion on the consumer. Restrictions placed on audio and video prevent someone who legally purchased a copy (because they are, in fact, purchasing a copy of the file, not a license of that file) from enjoying that file even in normally accepted places such as on their TV, in their car, or on a personal media player. The end result is a market of miniature monopolies fragmented only by who sold both the content and the device capable of enjoying it. It's as if you had to buy a VHS player from Paramount in order to watch any of their movies, and another for anything from Fox, or WB. The DRM packaged as part of software is even more insidious and intrusive. At it's most benign it is a useless irritant, requesting ridiculously long series of numbers and letters before the software can be used, at it's worst it is the same sort of software exploiting weaknesses in the operating system of the computer that virus and spyware writers target and use to cause billions of dollars of loss globally by damaging the software of the machine it's installed on. It is unwanted and unrequested and can cause errors in the normal operation of a person's computer as well as increase the risk of damage to their data or privacy. It also removes any power the consumer has and places it all in the hands of the vendors, as example, in the case of the computer game Spore. It installed with it SecuROM, a small piece of software known to cause incompatibilities with the CD/DVD drive of many machines or even crash the computer it's installed on, rendering it useless. As a further offense, if one wished to install the game more than 3 times, something likely in the event you needed to replace your computer, or upgraded over time, then you would have to contact EA and request for permission to continue using the game that you have already paid for. A request that could very well be denied and prevent the customer from use of the product they purchased. All of these draconian measures have been proven futile in the face of even half dedicated pirates. The more intelligent ones are able to write software to automate it's removal or perform it themselves and release the 'clean' versions or the tools to the public at large over anonymous networks. Often it is used by even legitimate customers in preference to the restrictive measures on the copies they purchased since it allows them to use what they purchased in accordance to the laws of Fair Use. Quite simply, DRM in it's current form acts only as a punishment to the legitimate consumer, rather than any sort of serious deterrent to piracy. In fact, in many instances it prevents the legal applications outlined under Fair Use and in some cases behaves in a way that would be considered illegal by any other party. Becoming just as serious a threat to the content providers in the long run as piracy is in the near future.

Comment Number:	539814-00592
Received:	1/14/2009 12:10:57 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Gregory Glockner
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 is an ineffective and burdensome mechanism to protect publishers from theft of their intellectual property. DRM is stifling adoption and innovation in terms of digital content. For instance, the DMCA and the lack of DRM-free video formats means that average consumers cannot adopt high-tech video solutions as well as they have with MP3 audio. At the same time, DRM has done little to prevent illegal trading of copyrighted material. What is needed is a way to punish people who illegally trade copyrighted material, while allowing consumers to fully utilize their legally licensed media. I would like to see DRM replaced with watermarking technologies that would allow consumers to freely copy their licensed material. Illegal copies could be traced back to the source, and the copyright violators could be punished in accordance with the law. Meantime, legislation would make it illegal to develop, use or distribute software that removes the watermark from a file. This legislation should replace the current DMCA.

Comment Number:	539814-00593
Received:	1/14/2009 12:43:22 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Jonathan Zepp
State:	MD
Agency:	Federal Trade Commission
Rule:	FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:

Comments:

DRM is an acceptable form of copy protection in some circumstances, but above all it must not be invasive. DRM in the form of invisible programs installing themselves on your computer and reporting home is unacceptable, but integrated into the application and doing the same or being visible and potentially turned off while not using the protected software is acceptable in my mind. DRM software that limits installations or number of copies to a fixed number is unacceptable, once purchased software should have the same rights as physical property for a single user. While limiting these aspects could potentially limit piracy, they have significant negative effects on the rightful end user and destroy any legitimate resale value. In a similar vein, DRM software that limits the number of copies or installations in use at once is acceptable. DRM requiring proprietary software or hardware is somewhere in limbo, but in its current state is mostly acceptable. I think building hardware for the sole purpose of DRM content protection and severely limiting the hardware which either predates the addition or was built without the part (especially out of price concerns) should be discouraged, but is not illegitimate. This can work well on exclusively proprietary systems, and if the hardware is affordable can integrate into the market well. Software is generally more acceptable, but it should be kept both transparent and minimally invasive. Ideally, software required to use some content should not run in the background in all times and should not disable or change other software running along with it. Good DRM, DRM which is not invasive, will not provoke piracy, and that bad DRM does provoke it. I do not condone piracy in any form, but I think that invasive forms of DRM are encouraging piracy and furthering it along while other forms are not instigating piracy against themselves. With clear piracy education and noninvasive DRM, I think piracy will decline. Many people purchase all of their content legitimately and should not be penalized for the people who do not, but the people who pirate will have fewer reasons to do so if the content is both available and not protected in invasive ways.

Comment Number:	539814-00594
Received:	1/14/2009 2:57:54 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Sean Ridgeley
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 I feel is a very totalitarian way of going about things. I understand the impulse (why people would want to protect their property), but 1) it inconveniences legitimate customers and 2) it taints the relationship between creator and fan, as well as the thing itself (game, music, etc). While to some DRM is not a big issue, or an issue at all, even beyond this I fear if we continue to let it happen it would get worse and worse. I hope companies begin to trust people to buy whatever it is they're selling...there's enough distrust in the world. Yes, some people are going to steal. But they're going to steal anyway. If they're smart enough to know about DRM and dislike it, they're certainly capable of figuring out how to get rid of it, and/or to steal it instead of purchasing it. And it just serves as a challenge for some, which they enjoy overcoming. Distrusting your customers and treating them like this will make them not want to buy your product, because it is inconvenient, acts against preservation, and for some, because it demeans the art (if it is art). Personally I intentionally do not buy anything with DRM, and have even bought things largely because they do not have DRM, so as to send these messages out, and I know a lot of others do the same. Please think about these things and the direction in which our society would head if we let them continue. Freedom over restraint...the masses cannot be controlled. We've seen it tried throughout history, it just doesn't work. Thank you! Peace.

Comment Number:	539814-00595
Received:	1/14/2009 9:13:59 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Rebecca Ives
State:	NE
Agency:	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 some ways I can understand wanting to limit who gets to download software, so that only the company that sold the software profits- that's business. But the music industry has had to deal with the sale of used CD's. The big issue for this particular game is that I have had to reinstall sims 2 several times- either because I had to replace my computer or because it was having problems running and reinstalling it was the only way to fix it. If I had had to deal with the DRM issues that EA has put into place now, I would be extremely frustrated because I have installed the game well above the allowable times they say will be on the SIMS 3. I bought the game, there should be no limit on how many times I install it on my own computer. In addition, the spyware that will come with this game is off-putting. The spyware they would install will not go away once the game is uninstalled. I am only purchasing the game. I am not purchasing DRM and I certainly do not want spyware that can be doing a number of things I don't know about and may not want on MY computer. EA may own the rights to their game, but they do not own the rights to MY COMPUTER.

Comment Number:	539814-00596
Received:	1/14/2009 10:22:00 AM
Organization:	Home
Commenter:	Mark Wolf
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've owned numerous PC game titles from EA and Ubisoft that use DRM such as SecuROM or StarForce. Games I own are bought from brick-and-mortar retail outlets, or from online distributors such as Steam, Direct2Drive, or EA Link. On several occasions I've had to remove non-game applications, such as CD/DVD burning tools, DVD Region modification tools (since I am German and live in the US), virtual CD/DVD drives or simple CD/DVD Copying utilities, because I was having problems with games not starting after installation. I am unaware of any law that allows another program to dictate what I can and cannot have on my computer. The computer is my personal property, as are the applications that I install on them. I am an IT Director for a firm and understand there may be incompatibilities between applications and that issues can occur, but to blatantly have a GAME PUBLISHER ask a user to uninstall applications because they're been "blacklisted" by their chosen DRM, is totally absurd. The applications that I use are lawfully distributed and I apply them lawfully. If I have a game that does not function after an installation, generally the error codes that I research on the web lead me to articles on the DRM developers web sites explaining that I must remove X, Y, or Z type application because it has been blacklisted. Usually to resolve these issues, this requires an uninstallation of the game and said "offensive" program, and then a reinstallation of the game for it function as intended. BUT, there have been occasions, such as with Silent Hunter III, a game published by Ubisoft, where I have had to reformat my computer and re-install the operating system in order to get the game to function properly. There have been conflicts between games that may use similar brand but different versions of DRM. Install game A, it works fine, then install game B, which works fine, but game A ceases to function and throws up an error which I can search online and then point to DRM. As I stated I am an IT Professional. I may reformat my operating system volumes 2 - 4 times a year for regular housekeeping purposes. DRM that have limited installation quotas without the ability to get back the installations via an uninstallation or de-registering of a game, restrict me as a user to limited number of uses of the game. Therefore I do not own the game, just a limited number of uses of the game. Don't I have rights as a consumer? The game developer now dictates how many times I can remove and add MY game to MY computer? To contrast what a lawful consumer has to go through, I will explain how a pirated game that has DRM embedded functions. It's date X. I want game A which comes out on Z date. Game A also has DRM the restricts the number of installations. So, even though it is before date Z, I can go to a site, use a download client and search for game A. I find game A, and download it. I install game A, I run a combination of a cracking utility, key generator, or simply a modified executable that comes with the pirated version of game A, and there are no activation requests, no limited installations, no hidden rootkit-like installations, or requests for uninstallation of my other applications. What is the benefit as a lawful purchaser of games? I support the publishers and developers of games by paying them to inconvenience me? What is my incentive to BUY their games? Publishers complain about losing sales; maybe inconveniencing customers, and treating them like pirates is losing them the sale? I don't mind digital or hard copy distribution of games where an internet connection has to be maintained to register the game as long as it is stated on the box, as long as there is an offline component in case the Internet isn't working at that moment. Heck, phone in registrations would be ok by me too. Use a hardware key (small usb or parallel port device) to run the game. ESRI uses them on their GIS applications. Regards, Mark Wolf

Comment Number:	539814-00597
Received:	1/14/2009 11:08:22 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	M Jeffrey Slebodnick
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 think DRM is bad, especially when it comes to gaming. To have to play any game with the orignal disk inserted is a huge hassle, and if the disk becomes scratched or damaged, you have to go and purchase a new disk, at your own expense. get rid of DRM please! If i pay for something once, i expect to be able to use it however i feel like.... and thats all i want... to be pay for an item, legally, and then use it how i see fit... so please get rid of DRM thanks

Comment Number:	539814-00598
Received:	1/14/2009 11:18:06 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Glenn Wiorek
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:	539814-00598.pdf

Comments:

Very much against DRM. Sorry even want to move off Microsoft Windows XP and Vista because of it. I have been subject to years of abuse by vendors for being a legit user. All these their ideas have over the years ruined much of my hardware (CPUs, drives, monitors), cost me countless hours fixing things and costs me money to support the schemes they are trying to control us with. Enough! I will not pirate but I will boycott instead. I can live without video games, the latest lipsynced music pop hit, or remake of the remake DVD. I have included just a few of the comments from discussion on-line with others who are voting to boycott too.....

Comment Number:	539814-00599
Received:	1/14/2009 3:04:03 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Borden
State:	OK
Agency:	Federal Trade Commission
Rule:	FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:

Comments:

Dear FTC, I am a 20 year old student and unofficially a 'computer guru'. I opened my first computer case at 4, and by eight I had three in my room-most of them from garage sales-that I would take apart and put back together. I could, at that age, run DOS and windows 3.1 from a command line. During this time I was an avid gamer. When my best friend would get a game with old versions of safedisc or securom, I wouldn't even know they were there when I successfully copied and played the games with him. (I was 12 at the time). Hindsight is perfect, though, when I can say that some games for some reason always crashed my computer, even from a non-copied disk. With the operating system I was using (windows 2000), this could only mean a faulty device driver-as the games had no other way to get that deep into my computer's insides. My point is that CD-based copy protection didn't stop a twelve year old, and I wasn't a malicious hacker, just a kid that downloaded a piece of shareware (cloneCD) and used it. Fast forward to modern times. DRM is everywhere. Bioshock launches with securom like spore uses. Another friend at a LAN party tells me about it. I google "bioshock 3 activations" and find that it is true, and then, I head to a particular site dedicated to cracking DRM off of games, yet with a sense of honor-they don't generate CD-keys, which are a different copy protection. Within five minutes I have this friend, who had installed this game on his dad's laptop, his desktop, and his mother's laptop (they travel quite frequently), playing the game with the DRM off. If I had been helping him pirate the software, that's how fast it would have been. My most recent experience with DRM hindering me was in a slightly older, but still popular game by the title of "Sid Meier's Civilization IV". The DRM scheme in this game is different than most you'll hear about, it's called safedisc. Safedisc works by covertly installing a device driver, much like securom,. If it detects any programs or any remnents of the programs used to copy disks with copy protection, the game doesn't work, with no obvious error. (I found this out by going to control panel/administrator tools/event viewer, which will show ANY error. My system was actually stopping the safedisc copy protection driver from loading because the version the game insisted on was dangerous, however, a normal user would never know) I had bought the game to play with friends for a sort of 'game night' they do. I missed out on the game night because the only thing I could do to get the game to work was to crack the copy protection off. However, cracked copies in general don't play multiplayer with non-cracked copies. My point is that these myriad DRM schemes all are amazingly simple to crack. I'd like to ask that in your panel, you take a modern game that requires a CD or DVD inside your disk drive, and pull the CD/DVD out. Try to run the game to demonstrate that the copy protection does not allow it to work without the CD. Now head to a place like gamecopyworld.com and find your game title. It should be simple enough, this site even has updates for the games listed, so if you need to update the game, do so now. Grab the crack for the latest version, copy it over the version the game has, and try to run the game again. In five minutes, you've just had as much trouble removing this DRM as a pirate does. The problems this causes for pirates are ZERO. I'm certain, however, you'll hear about the problems this causes for consumers like me. I buy all my games and software now, and when they have nasty DRM on the games and software, i abstain from buying them, or pirating them. As a (pre)teen with no money, I had no options. Thank you for listening. Chris - P.S., please make these comment forms WYSIWYG so they preserve comment formatting.

Comment Number:	539814-00600
Received:	1/14/2009 4:10:40 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Jason Trippet
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:

My comments will mainly refer to the use of DRM technologies in computer games. Anti-duplication measures that are taken by publishers, measures that limit themselves to existing on the physical media on which the purchased content is stored, are one thing. Macrovision & SafeDisc protection on DVDs, for example - these are not a problem because they do not infringe on the Fair Use and First-Sale rights while accomplishing their purposes of inhibiting unauthorized duplication. That's what publishers should be limited to: inhibiting unauthorized duplication of copyrighted media - NOT inhibiting normal USE of the media by an authorized owner. SecuROM specifically is controversial because of its behavior: - installs hidden programs on a user's PC's hard drive without consent - those programs are at a security level which invites malicious attacks on potential security breaches - those programs have documented histories of negatively affecting (read: rendering inoperable) legal hardware (CD/DVD burners) on legal PCs of authorized owners - those programs do NOT remove themselves completely and totally when the licensed media (the game) is uninstalled and removed from the hard drive In the second place, the notion of installation/activation limits is unconscionable. If a consumer purchases a piece of media (regardless what type, movie on DVD, album on CD, book on cassette, game on DVD/CD), it's within his Fair Use rights to consume that media in any way he sees fit, and at any time he sees fit. If that consumer wants to install/uninstall his game every single time he plays it, or upgrade his PC every month and reinstall the game every time, that's within his right to be able to do, without having to place a call to a publisher (which may or may not still be in business at the time) asking for permission to do so. It's akin to a consumer having to call up Lucasarts every time he wants to watch his Star Wars DVD. He bought the right to consume the media, he should be able to do so in peace. Furthermore, these measures that are taken that extend beyond the physical media are injuring the consumer-to-consumer secondhand market, which is the right of all consumers (of media and of non-media tangible products) under the First-Sale doctrine. If a consumer buys a DVD (or a CD or a game), the First-Sale doctrine says that ownership of the physical media & the content provided therein has passed to the consumer. Therefore if he decides he wants to sell the physical media (and the content provided therein) secondhand to another consumer, that's his right. These new DRM measures taken by game publishers like Electronic Arts and Ubisoft are infringing on that right by irrevocably linking the purchased copy with the original purchaser, with the right of transfer completely removed. There must be a balance struck between the anti-copy measures taken by the publishers and the Fair-Use and First-Sale rights of their customers. There wasn't a problem with Macrovision and SafeDisc, confined as they were to the media itself, but the introduction of these new (sometimes called draconian) measures that are external to the media is unacceptable and must be curtailed.

Comment Number:	539814-00601
Received:	1/14/2009 8:58:01 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Parker
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:

In September of 2008 I bought a computer game and found out it had DRM on it, which only allowed me to install it 3 times on my computer. Seeing as I paid $50.00 for the game, I do not feel that the publisher has the right to tell me that I will have to purchase a new copy of the game if I want to install it more than three times. This was especially upsetting to me as my computer experienced a serious error shortly after installation of the game and had to be wiped clean. Naturally, I had to use another install of the game to get it back on my computer. I have also recently updated the video card on my computer, which I just learned uses up another installation. I have owned this game for barely four months and already I have used up my three installations. According to the company that I purchased it from I will have to buy the game again if I want to load it up on my computer again. This, I believe, is wrong. I did not rent this game. I paid for it with my own money. I understand companies put this software on their games to prevent piracy, but this feels more like an infringment on my right to do what I want with products that I purchase. I have no desire to pirate any software and I don't feel it is right to be acused of doing so merely because I try to load the game more than 3 times. As pointed out above, I ran into hardware errors and upgrades which unneccessarily used up 2 installations of the game. Needless to say I will never buy another product using this software because it is a waste of money. I will never buy a product twice because a comapny limits its use. That is what rentals are for.

Comment Number:	539814-00602
Received:	1/14/2009 9:13:54 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	R Anderson
State:	WI
Agency:	Federal Trade Commission
Rule:	FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:

Comments:

I feel that only letting a few computers run a program quite restricting. I have 3 computers that are used amongst the people I live with, and that can take up most of my DRM right there. This isn't the biggest problem I have with DRM though, I feel that this is an attempt to stop the used video game industry. Right now DRM is only used on PC games but with all the newer consoles being on line, I am sure it won't be long before all games will have this. EA has made plenty of money and bought up lots of smaller software companies, they don't need a choke hold on the whole industry past and present.

Comment Number:	539814-00603
Received:	1/14/2009 9:37:02 PM
Organization:	Citizen
Commenter:	John Seel
State:	VA
Agency:	Federal Trade Commission
Rule:	FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:

Comments:

To all concerned: DRM, or digital rights management, is intrinsically a contradiction in terms. Rights imply the ability, without restriction, to undertake usage of property. DRM provides precisely the opposite effect, by preventing one from using their property in the way that they see fit. The holders of DRM argue that this is necessary under the concept of a "license", but then refuse to uphold their own responsibilities in support of a licensing concept - such as re-issuance of media for minimal fees, the idea that the license is transferable and permanent, and then routinely argue against first sale rights, in direct contradiction of well established case laws. DRM is often installed without requesting any form of express permission, particularly on personal computers. This renders those computers vulnerable to hacking, at risk of having information sent to unknown parts of the internet without their knowledge, and represents what could be argued as an illegal intrusion of those computers. The major issue with DRM, however, is the lack of ability to ensure that in the future the DRM holder will still be solvent. If the IP holders of DRM were forced to provide an unlocked version into public escrow, that became public domain upon either end of life cycle of the primary product or dissolution of the firm, DRM might be more tolerable. At this time, DRM has no value to consumers, and in fact, often renders consumers vulnerable to attack, with their information at risk, and further puts them at risk that at some point in the future they will be unable to run software that they have purchased. This is, quite frankly, untenable in a time when software costs are greater than the cost of the machine running the software in many cases. Sincerely, John Seel

Comment Number:	539814-00604
Received:	1/14/2009 9:57:49 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Mike Price
State:	KS
Agency:	Federal Trade Commission
Rule:	FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:

Comments:

DRM does absolutely nothing to protect software and games from pirating. Pirate groups will often have the DRM cracked within a day of the software being released. If nothing else, invasive DRM often causes potential buyers to either boycott or download illegally pirated copies. Blizzard and Stardock have the right idea. Require a unique cd key to download updates and play the game online. DRM does nothing to prevent piracy, and all it does is discourage customers.

Comment Number:	539814-00605
Received:	1/15/2009 3:54:44 AM
Organization:
Commenter:	Timothy Dunaway
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:

DRM is useless and annoying. I bought over 100 dollars in downloadable content from Microsoft and my xbox 360 red ringed (broke) it was under warranty and was repaired promptly . when i received it and turned it on my DLC did not work . thnaks to DRM they wouldn't refund me or give me credit

Comment Number:	539814-00606
Received:	1/15/2009 1:40:36 PM
Organization:
Commenter:	Todd Guthrie
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 schemes are absurd - when I purchase the product, I have the right to use it for my own purposes, so long as I do not profit from it in violation of the original copyright. I should not be subjected to draconian idiocies such as SecuROM, which installs potentially damaging software on my computer in order to prevent me from a behavior (piracy) I won't engage in anyway. I am tired of the default assumption by corporate media giants that all users are pirates - paying customers should not be treated like criminals simply because it is cheaper and more convenient to do so than it is to actually track and punish the pirates themselves. Fix the problem by prosecuting those who actually break the laws, instead of harming the vast majority of us who are legitimate, law-abiding consumers. I have Fair Use rights as a part of my purchase of the product, and DRM clearly infringes upon them if I cannot make backup copies or transfer material from one location to another. Stop the insanity - curb corporate abuse of consumers through DRM. Thanks for your time and consideration.