Should DRM information be on packaging?

[Dreaming]

Hiya

Was thinking about this earlier today after reading another article about Spore. Basically, my idea is that people who are informed do consider the DRM protection when making a buying decision - if you buy a piece of music that says you can't copy it you might pay more or buy from somewhere else where you can copy it and redistribute it how you like. The problem is the government won't intervene because of the old chestnut 'it is better to let the free market decide' and they're right, really. If we are happy to pay for DRMd products and the producers of such products are happy to make them, why are we all complaining? The problem is I think actually we're not happy, but because there is a lack of information, people will still buy in many cases items which otherwise have restrictive DRM included.

This is almost like the music / games industry being a bit sneaky, and changing the way we think we should be entitled to use their products without expressly saying it. I mean, you buy a download, it will work on your computer. As soon as you want to put it on CD for your CD player though... and that's the pitfall.

I think, similar to other consumer information labels (like age requirements or contains violence / sex / language), there should be a rights to use label. With simple, non specific / non jargon tickboxes practically saying 'online activation required' 'right to copy / backup' 'CD required to play' 'transferable' (i.e. you're allowed to sell it second hand) and so on. This makes the industries more accountable to the true wishes of the consumer meaning we are not getting screwed over (if that is the case, which is another question altogether) and makes companies more sensitive to consumer demands with regards to DRM - afterall if the free market is designed to cater for us and people prefer to buy products without restrictive DRM then soon the companies will move away from DRM. Or if people prefer to buy products with DRM we observe the opposite effect.

This is not enforcing any laws on DRM or asking the government to ban it or whatever, I just think something should happen (petition or something?) to ask the government to make it necessary for any producers of products covered by intellectual property laws exactly what the consumer is getting, because by law we never own the product, we own a physical CD but we only buy the right to listen to music or to enjoy a game. Because we were brought up on console games and games without DRM we have never looked at it this way before and I think it is important to inform people of exactly what they're buying. This is only correcting market failure to provide transparent information on what you actually get and it is making sure the whole process of buying rights managed products is fairer.

Thoughts?

edit: this could also improve revenues for m'facturers and choice for consumers because they could segment the market with cheaper DRMd products and more expensive 'DRM free' products. So casual gamers would buy the cheaper one and the hardcore fans would buy the nice one with no restrictions on use whatsoever.

[Fatboy40]

Absolutely it should be !

[MadduckUK]

without reading your post (sorry, its late). yes absolutely

edit: where is the poll!

[vrykyl]

without reading your post (sorry, its late). yes absolutely

edit: where is the poll!

+1

Yes it should 100% be on the box - I always checked before buying a game to make sure it didnt have starforce protection on it, and I wont be buying spore etc for the same reasons.

[floppybootstomp]

Oh, for sure - yes.

Just started playing Crysis Warhead. Great game, crap DRM. Five installs and you're out, but it doesn't tell you that on the box.

PC Games are now rental, you don't own them. I know you may argue that legally we never did but there was a time you bought the game and you were sure you could play it anytime in the future. Not so now.

I am very seriously considering a games console for games, probably ps3 cos it takes mouse & keyboard, and just use Linux for serious computer stuff.

have just loaded Linux Mint V5.0 KDE DVD version and it is very good indeed.

Recognised all my hardware straight out of the box, including Linksys wireless network, I was online within five minutes of install.

Interesting to note that Bioshock scrapped all it's DRM limitations one year after release. You can now install it as many times as you like.

Maybe they realised they're isolating the games community.

Personally I always pay for games, I like to encourage the games developers and I think games are cheap for the amount of entertainment you get out of them.

I think most folks feel that way even though I can see some of you smirking.

Nah, Crysis Warhead DRM and all the others - I am getting sick of it.

[simonfitba]

Yes. I want to make an informed choice about the crap I put on my PC.

[SiM]

I think too much fuss is being made about DRM... if it bothers you, there is an easy way around it, but I can't mention it here

[kalniel]

The minimum requirements should be (ie internet connection) - license conditions not really though - that's where the EULA comes in, and as you're able to get a full refund if you don't agree to the EULA I think it's fine to keep that inside the package.

[Hicks12]

The minimum requirements should be (ie internet connection) - license conditions not really though - that's where the EULA comes in, and as you're able to get a full refund if you don't agree to the EULA I think it's fine to keep that inside the package.

Really? hate my computer stores(game etc) as they have the policy of only replacements for PC games no refunds unless its sealed. I didnt even know crysis warhead had DRM till i saw some posts(and then got the game) but it only says activation required over internet on the box and its one of them small print bloody things. Its false advertising imo and when it install software without your consent(is it in the TS?) then its completely wrong.

[kalniel]

Really? hate my computer stores(game etc) as they have the policy of only replacements for PC games no refunds unless its sealed.

They might try that, but they can't overrule statutory rights, and you only accept the contract when you agree to the EULA. I know that on Atari products you can return them direct if you don't agree to the EULA eg:

If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA you may not install or use the Software and within 15 days of purchase you must contact Customer Support at atarisupport.com.

You will be given a Return Merchandise Authorization number (RMA #). You then have 15 days from the date of this contact to return the Software in its protective covering, the Manual and the original sales invoice to the address supplied to you.

To be honest if I wasn't sure then I'd ask to see the EULA in the shop before I bought it. But then I'm a bit of a pain like that

Its false advertising imo and when it install software without your consent(is it in the TS?) then its completely wrong.

I agree small print is annoying, I think they should do a better job of conveying all minimum requirements to be honest, but I'm not sure about false advertising or installing software without consent - copy protection is as much part of the package that you are buying as other third party softwares, such as directX, uninstall sheilds, perhaps even 3rd party engines such as speedtree, renderware etc. They're all software that's being installed without individual consent.

[Hicks12]

I know what you mean but the fact it doesnt unistall itself after the game is gone then its bad, why should EA be allowed to do this when it uses your pc information >.<. I think they are just trying to kill off pc gaming or move it to online sales.

[kalniel]

I know what you mean but the fact it doesnt unistall itself after the game is gone then its bad, why should EA be allowed to do this when it uses your pc information >.<. I think they are just trying to kill off pc gaming or move it to online sales.

I agree that not uninstalling after you're done is bad (although, have you tried uninstalling DirectX? ) At least TAGES provide an uninstaller. But I don't get why you'd think anyone selling PC games would actually be interested in trying to kill it off. If they don't want to sell PC games then no-one is forcing them to.

[Hicks12]

I guess its an over exagerated opinion i have , but they could be doing it because then they coudl just concentrate on consoles maximise profits there and no one would complain pcs dont get it.

I doubt it as they are most likely trying to force in online sales as its a cheaper way to maintain things as you dont need keys etc.

[razor92]

Yes it should be easy to see and understand for the average user. Otherwise will end up selling our souls to be software manufacters without relising it.

[Saracen]

I think it should be clear what you're getting before you buy it. In my opinion, it is absolutely indefensible for publishers to not make it clear, and with needing a microscope to read the writing, if there are restrictions on how we use a product before we buy it. If Ford sold us a car, would we accept being told afterwards that we can only use it on Monday though Thursday, or that we need to get the engine activated by them once a month? Of course not.

IP laws are IP laws, and if I pirate a game, I am subject to being held to account. But significant licence restrictions should be clear in advance, and to me, activation servers are utterly unacceptable for a game. I will not ever accept that from a game. It's bad enough from an OS, but I need the OS. There isn't a game ever been invented, or that ever will be, that's good enough to get me to accept activation servers.

So, publishers and/or developers are quite entitled to embed any DRM they like, and to use activation servers if they wish, and they won't hear any objections from me provided they make it crystal clear on the box so I know before I buy ..... which I won't if I see that. But what I DO object to, very emphatically, is buying a game and only finding out about activation limits and servers, etc, when I try to install it.

Be transparent, games companies, in advance of the purchase decision, and you won't get any bitching about it from me. You also won't get any money if you use those sorts of technology, but I won't moan about it. But trying to foist in on us surreptitiously (like Sony and their rootkit debacle) is disgusting and, in my view, downright dishonest.

In my opinion, they can market any product they like, with whatever restrictions they like, provided they supply the information necessary for buyers to make an informed purchase decision. Then, the market will decide. I (strongly) suspect that my attitude is exceptionally harsh and very much a minority. Most gamers will moan, but then buy anyway. Fine. That's their choice, as it's the games company's choice to embed obnoxious DRM. Just give us clear information about what we're buying, so we can make an informed decision on whether to buy or not.

[Dreaming]

Another example: despite all of us here knowing about spore's issues with activations (is it now 6?), my friend who got it for his 21st birthday earlier this month was talking to me last night and I told him and he looked at me in shock. He has already installed it twice in the two weeks he's had the game and is the kind of guy because he has a small hard drive he takes a game off as soon as he's played that one and installs another to play it. This is the average gamer who are getting products with restrictions placed on them without knowing about them when they get them.

I've written a short non whiney letter to my MEP but I doubt to hear anything back politicians aren't brilliant in that way .