next »

[Evan Balster]

I'd like to hear some thoughts from people on the topic of "polite" DRMs.  These are DRMs that do not hinder functionality and make a non-harassing appeal to pirate users about purchasing them.

It's my opinion that such are unlikely to be removed by software crackers and provide a means of converting a subset of the pirate userbase without alienating anyone.


In another thread, I brought up a particular subset that I may well employ in the future:

So I want to express this thing I have been thinking on for some time.


HOW TO MAKE A GOOD DRM:

1. Make a Good Thing that will demonstrate an abundance of worth to the person who uses it.

2. Program into it a means of detecting whether the copy is legitimate, but take NO ACTION if it is not.

3. After a period of time or event where it can be ascertained that the Good Thing has demonstrated its value, make an appeal to users of illegitimate copies.  Explain that the Good Thing came from a Real Person who Worked Hard to make it and hopes you like it enough to justify its monetary cost.

4. Offer to let the person pay for the Good Thing.  Do not take it away from them if they do not.  Making further appeals only with great care; do not harass the user to the point where you detract value from the Thing.


Why is this a "Good DRM"?

- The "DRM" in question is extremely unlikely to be removed, given it poses zero restrictions and non-casual pirates (crackers, notably) tend to be believers in paying for things which have demonstrated their worth.

- By no means will all pirate users purchase the software, but some of them will.  Again, your case rests on demonstrating the value of your Thing, making a case that it's worth paying for, and making that easy to do.

- There is a chance that users who would not have purchased your Thing conventionally (the so-called "non-lost sales") may become paying customers, by virtue of imposing a conversion rate on pirate users.  It's not inconceivable that this could offset the "costs" of piracy.


Model citizen:

[Evan Balster]

A rebuttal, copied from the other thread:

Considering the number of people who've responded to equally polite requests with

"screw you, art should be free"
or
"if i paid for anything i would buy it from a big company because I trust them"
or
"if every sale counts for you you obviously suck at business and deserve to fail"

I doubt it would make any actual difference, although it might feel nice.

The "DRM" in question is extremely unlikely to be removed, given it poses zero restrictions and non-casual pirates (crackers, notably) tend to be believers in paying for things which have demonstrated their worth.

Except for the ones who want to crack everything so they can put their names in it. Some of them really enjoy modifying the title screens of games so that they can claim everything belongs to them. 

I'm not arguing against it - I mostly don't bother putting DRM on my games at all, and I see no problem with a polite one - I'm just dubious of it having any effect.

[Rube]

If you acknowledge that DRM does nothing, you should probably spend the time you would have spent on DRM - that is, creating a database of keys, and getting the game to connect to a database, and the security involved in keeping the connection secure, and state checking for things like what you do if the user loads the game for the first time without an internet connection, and so on - and instead spend that time making a better game.

I'm not sure there are going to be many people who upon reading a text box telling them that pirating is wrong will have an epiphany. I'm sure you'll get a few, but I think you'd get more sales from spending that time making a better game.

Because better games sell more.

[PsySal]

Evan I think what you're saying makes a lot of sense.

[Klaim]

I plan to do a polite DRM too, but as my game have some kind of "email" system inside, I will use it (like an email from the author of the game) instead of some surprising message.

Also, that way I can make sure that if the game is hacked, it will still have this message displayed because the email system is part of the game mechanic and if the game can access internet then it can be sent from my server.

[Evan Balster]

Hanako --

I feel as though the people who say those sorts of things don't represent a majority.  As for content hacking?  That's harder to say; I think that's more common fare in multiplayer games but don't have much experience with the matter.


Rube --

It doesn't need to be an elegant or particularly secure DRM system, since it's meant to be unobtrusive enough that it isn't worth the effort to remove.  I don't reason a great deal of effort would need to be involved in implementing it.

As far as "epiphanies", I have no delusions of convincing people to "stop pirating" -- honestly, I could care less.  The goal is to make a non-alienating appeal to pirate users of the software or game, and build that case on the value it has already demonstrated.  I think it also extends a comparatively friendly hand in the direction of file sharing communities, where their relationship with IP-holders and their ilk tends to be more adversarial.

[James Coote]

I have a game I'm planning to expand slowly over time with updates and expansions

I'm wondering if it is better to be a bit more subtle with DRM. Say something like "Warning: Could not update to the latest version as your security key is out of date. To manage your keys, go to [insert url here]"

Inevitably, some pirate will find a way around the DRM, but paying to have a security key means you get the update or expansion instantly. There is no hanging around waiting for the latest version to be cracked.

I.e. pay for convenience and to be the first to get the new content, rather than paying for the actual content itself

[RudyTheDev]

... pay for convenience and to be the first to get the new content ...

This. Convenience and no need to wait for a cracked update is a great motivator to actually purchase the software. Especially if the software is indie and it might take a long time (if at all) until an update is cracked.

[Evan Balster]

Honestly that sounds like an entirely standard DRM approach to me.  Further, it runs the risk of making it more of a pain to be a legitimate user than is necessary, if key management and web interfaces are involved.

[James Coote]

Honestly that sounds like an entirely standard DRM approach to me.  Further, it runs the risk of making it more of a pain to be a legitimate user than is necessary, if key management and web interfaces are involved.

Obviously you don't actually have complex security keys that players need to manage.

Alternatively you could just say something like "Error connecting to update server. Some patches and downloadable content may not be available"

The risk with being subtle is some players will miss the hint. They'll get confused into thinking your game has a bug and start generating support requests

The point is to convince the player it is easier to just buy the damn thing.

[VortexCortex]

Due to tangential work in business software I've got most of the components together to have a very strong DRM system in my future games.  However, the users won't want to remove it because I'm giving THEM its full power.

The trusted key store is on their system, and initially only contains my software key, thus any updates can be distributed via direct download or bit-torrent or some other means, and the game itself can vouch for the validity of the cryptographically signed code & data.

Furthermore, the users can add additional trusted keys.  An interface is presented to do so when installing or running a yet untrusted user created mod.  The editor has a tool to generate the asymmetric key pairs, thus users can create their own certificates to sign their mods.  This process is transparent to them, except for the entry of the Mod Author information.

I plan to provide a community testing process for mods whereby the community itself can play and approve the mods for semi-official cryptographic signature.

Installing mod: Mega Mecha Maze
Created by: Joe Sixpack
Community approved and rated: ****

This mod contains scripting and asset replacements.
Do you want to trust this author? [more info]

Code:

( ) No
( ) Yes
(o) Just once

[x] Remember my action for other mods by this author.

This system does not need a connection to the Internet to validate future mods or updates, though blacklists of bad mods can be optionally accepted (on by default).

This is because I've had experience with other game modding communities where exploits and viruses are spread through some mods.  In that community the modders have no tools to certify their works and the players have no tools to verify the mods.

I pay close attention to exploitability, but I'm not worried about the system getting cracked.  Truly, such a stunt would invalidate the current architecture of the Internet's security system, so in a way it's already been tested thoroughly (TLS / PKI).

----

Furthermore, if you want to appeal to consumers, realize the truth about their payment.  Paying customers DO NOT buy your game.  Your game was an effort created once by you, it has already happened, it's TOO LATE TO PAY for your game.  Instead realize that those who pay to play your game are funding your future development.  Each sale is saying: "I like what you did and here's money so you can do more"  Sure, some of the cost of distribution absorbs a bit of the payment, but open your eyes and look at what the money really does for you.  It helps you make more stuff, it can't help the game in the buyer's hands get made.

Don't fail at Economics 101: Supply and Demand
As the supply tends towards infinity price approaches zero, regardless of cost to produce or demand.

Bits are in near infinite supply. They are not scarce in the least.  Your ability to configure the bits is what's scarce.  It's your work that's worth something.

You can't sell sand to a beach bum.  Try to get paid for your work, like everyone else in the world.  Your past work is past, you can't get paid for it.  If you don't want to work for free then don't.

You can't win a fight against the unregulated copying of information.  We are copying beings, right down to our DNA.  Life IS copying, "May the best copier win!" has been life's battle cry for billions of years...

In the Stone Age, you'd be stoned to death if you tried to prevent folks from copying your stone tool design.

In the Bronze Age, you'd be speared by your own metal tip designs if you tried to charge others for reproducing them.

WELCOME TO THE INFORMATION AGE.

[PsySal]

Furthermore, if you want to appeal to consumers, realize the truth about their payment.  Paying customers DO NOT buy your game.  Your game was an effort created once by you, it has already happened, it's TOO LATE TO PAY for your game.

I like a lot of what you have to say but this part isn't really sensible. Of course something can be purchased after it's created! Almost everything is.

Of course it's nice to think that customers want you to create more, but for instance I saw a movie today because I wanted the experience of seeing it and I was curious about it. Not because I particularly care if they make a sequel! I imagine most people buying games feel the same way: they just want the game.

You are correct though, the supply and demand equation has to do with the effort required to copy the bits, so to speak. That's a really sensible way to look at it, I think.

[VortexCortex]

Of course it's nice to think that customers want you to create more, but for instance I saw a movie today because I wanted the experience of seeing it and I was curious about it. Not because I particularly care if they make a sequel! I imagine most people buying games feel the same way: they just want the game.

So, what you're saying is, you were interested in what they had already done, and payed them money to see it, even though that money won't go to making the thing you were interested in better at all...

Tell me the truth.  If it was free to you, you would have seen it anyway, right?  You essentially only payed because you had to?  Because they were placing an artificial scarcity on their works and holding it hostage, ransoming it to whomever pays the fee.

Look, I'm no anti-copyright zealot, I just see things how they really are, and it's pretty disgusting in most cases.  Look around you.  Everything you have is a result of the flow of ideas and information.  Every time the limitation of communication occurs, it's only due to malevolence or greed.

There is a different path, a virtuous one.  One in which you get paid to do the work, as you do the work.  For instance, I help fund Pioneer One because I was interested in it, and now you can watch those episodes for free, just fire up your torrent software, the work's been done and paid for, the distribution is free.  They work on the new content, because that's how they get paid.

Did you know that there are no copyright or design patents in the Fashion and Automotive industries?  Oh, the horror!  Who will want to Innovate?!  Wait... those are two of the most innovative and monetarily successful fields... their restrictions have been lifted, they are free to create.

The artificial scarcity system is already seeing stress (why? it's unnatural), and it's only enforceable now because of laws created by folks who have failed to understand nature and culture at its most fundamental levels.  Who knows how long people will accept the censorship and artificial limitations?  I'm not waiting to find out.  Onward!

Sure, use the current system to bootstrap yourself into the new system, you sort of have to right now, because there's just no way to get funding from interested parties ahead of time... or is there?  Ah, that's just one of many fledgling services, but squint and turn your head sideways when you look at the big picture and you can sort of see what future trends will bring.

Both methods will be around for a while yet, so if you're still buying and selling artificially scarce goods, then there's nothing wrong with that. You're a product of your environment, I understand, it's fine... "It's not your fault, but is is your problem."  So, don't get miffed when "pirates" (read: futurists) remove your bogus artificial restrictions and you're out money because you didn't get paid up front for the work.

A builder gets paid after the work is done, but they had a contract to build and know they'll be paid for the work they do.  Artists and Developers at big studios work under the same basic rules.  Where'd the artificial scarcity come from?  Publishers.  Why is it when you remove these middle men, you adopt their methods instead of sticking to what works for everyone already?  In the age of instant information we don't need their artificial scarcity systems anymore.

I may have been a bit zealous in my prior post but it's just to make a point -- to spread that idea freely...  My real point is that we should realize that this is the dawning of a new age, and anything that fails to adapt to change becomes extinct.

I don't think this is off topic, these concepts are severely tangential to the design of a DRM system... especially a polite one.

The most polite DRM is the one that doesn't exist (or even need to).  The most effective DRM system is one in which you just keep your ideas in your head and don't let anyone else experience them.  You can find some middle ground, but that whole area is disgusting quicksand to me.

[Evan Balster]

Code:

The most polite DRM is the one that doesn't exist (or even need to).  The most effective DRM system is one in which you just keep your ideas in your head and don't let anyone else experience them.  You can find some middle ground, but that whole area is disgusting quicksand to me.

A "polite DRM" such as the one I proposed doesn't involve performing any of the defined functions of a DRM whatsoever.  It simply delivers a message under specific circumstances.  No restrictions to copying whatsoever.  Thus it isn't really a DRM at all by definition, which makes a lot of the discussion above seem irrelevant to me.

Though I'll throw a bone to this tangent:  Regarding upfront funding of art, it's not an effective system without binding the artist in some sense.  Ideas are worthless and executions are valuable.  Promises are fragile and dreams are hard to wrestle into reality.  You can't rely on a Kickstarter, for instance, to produce what it promises.  Even if successful.  Ambitions must be met with doing and for various reasons that doesn't always happen.  To worsen the problem there's little difference between a failure and a work in progress.  A book half-finished and a book abandoned look quite the same.

[PsySal]

Whoa whoa whoa! I think I really do see what you're saying, and I agree that it's awesome that you can now fund projects that are not yet made or just in the process of being done.

But money flows for lots of reasons, and I'm not sure the one you have said is the only "virtuous" path. For instance, you can also pay money to show appreciation for something. People do that a lot, like good service at a restaurant.

You seem to be saying it's immoral to ask for money for any reason other than "work currently being done" and I disagree with this. I think I see your point but I disagree.