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.

[crowe]

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.

Perhaps try being internally consistent next time? If you have trouble getting exposure, you won't be able to be paid upfront, which means you need the finished product to show off and gain support and popularity. But that's negated if "futurists" (read: pirates) use their false logic to justify taking your work away from you without compensation. Sometimes it's impossible to prove something is worthwhile until it is finished. I think that is very true in gaming especially, where the way something works or feels is very important to its value -- and I think over the coming months as kickstarters start to fail and their products often turn out to be less than was promised, people will understand that buying something sight unseen can be a very dangerous idea. Of course, "futurists" will be ok, because as you said they don't actually put money into things, because they believe it's justified that others pay for what they enjoy.

[VortexCortex]

@crowe: I'm not advocating copyright infringement.  Whether or not anyone can justify it, it's going to happen; The reason it even matters when it happens is because of sales systems built on artificial scarcity.  Regardless of how flawed the copyright infringer's logic is, it doesn't correct the fact that the current distribution model is based on duplicating bits and artificially restricting the flow of information...  If you want to talk about logic: Bits are effectively in infinite supply. Thus, trying to make a business out of selling copies of bits is even more illogical from an economic perspective; Indeed, it's down right flawed... To say nothing of the ethics involved.

As to my being "internally consistent": Screw that.  That's bad thinking right there: Life's not internally consistent.  Comments like these are like a pseudo-intellectual finding demons at fault where pebbles were responsible for the fall.  My aim is to communicate; If you get the gist then I've succeeded.  We're humans, our neural networks are fabulous and can extract lots of meaning despite tiny flaws in the signal without getting hung on the details.  If yours gets stuck on small imperfections, then consider retraining it.  Please tell me you didn't just dismiss the rest of my sentiments or that this wasn't the only point you found at fault if you did.

Besides, such statement is unwarranted: See my above statement about bootstrapping yourself into a more ethical position by leveraging the current artificial scarcity system.

If you have trouble getting exposure, you won't be able to be paid upfront, which means you need the finished product to show off and gain support and popularity.

First off: "Pirates" do not hinder your exposure, they're not the problem.  Protip: Radios play music, artists get exposure because people can hear the music for free, people come to concerts to watch them work (where the musicians get the bulk of their income).

Furthermore, if no one will buy into your idea, then it's probably just not a good idea.  You'll waste time creating said idea and end up only selling a few copies.  Ask around, this is actually quite common.  Hey, not saying that you shouldn't make whatever dream you have come true -- I love many quirky unpopular games, but this is the business forum...

No one has all the answers, but basic economic principals shouldn't be ignored.

Here's how I ACTUALLY make a living, without any DRM:

Instead of ignoring Economics 101, and trying to sell sand to beach bums via restricting who can be at the beach, I'm contracting sand castle constructions everyone can enjoy and when I work I get paid.

As a contract software developer I bid on jobs and create the software then get paid the agreed amount.  Sometimes it's time+ for ill defined tasks.  This labor model is the way every other industry works.  Even being employed at McDonald's is a weekly contract for your work.  Art and music consignments exist.  Established studios have the capital to pay developers for their work using the profits from previous games, but in the artificial scarcity system they gamble their futures on uncertainty.  Would you do manual labor if your boss said: I'll pay you if it's good enough?!  That's what publishers do.  Keep in mind they can afford to fail a few times.  If you can't afford to fail then why try and duplicate their business model?

When my business software work is done, the company doesn't pay me per seat of software installation -- copying the bits isn't the work I do, I'm a programmer not a hard disk drive or OS; I have other work to do.  Most of my work is open sourced; These efforts can enrich many companies and individuals not just those who had the problem and paid to solve it (this is a very powerful concept).

True, exposure is an issue.  Many of my jobs come by word of mouth based on my good reputation.  If your games are consistently good, your exposure will happen -- You'll have a reputation for making good games.  If your past works are good, and you want to make something you can't prove will be good until it's finished, then maybe people will fund development based on the fact you have a good track record (See: Double Fine, or Two Guys From Andromeda.  They just had an idea and a good rep).

Also consider that when you release games for free, your work is paying for advertising -- It's not wasted effort.  Giving away useful DRM free business software has helped me gain exposure and a rep for writing decent code...

[s0]

@crowe: I'm not advocating copyright infringement.  Whether or not anyone can justify it, it's going to happen; The reason it even matters when it happens is because of sales systems built on artificial scarcity.  Regardless of how flawed the copyright infringer's logic is, it doesn't correct the fact that the current distribution model is based on duplicating bits and artificially restricting the flow of information...  If you want to talk about logic: Bits are effectively in infinite supply. Thus, trying to make a business out of selling copies of bits is even more illogical from an economic perspective; Indeed, it's down right flawed... To say nothing of the ethics involved.

the problem is that right now videogame publishers want to have their cake and eat it. i.e. they want consumers to buy games as if they were physical products but then don't let them USE them like physical products. i'm talking about shit like always-online drm and the whole "you dont own the game just the license to play it" thing. imagine if the company that made your toothbrush could decide when, for how long and in which 3 bathrooms you get to brush your teeth.

either sell your products like physical goods and let consumers use them accordingly (no drm, reselling is legal etc.) or sell the "license" but at a more appropriate price.

[Evan Balster]

Vortex:

I contract too.  I like the idea of not having to and being able to work full-time on my own projects.  Anyway, a simple rebuttal.  By your logic:

1. The software industry will crumble when humanity as a whole becomes disillusioned to artificial scarcity and ceases to treat data like physical products, and contractors will go down with the ship, or

2. That won't happen, and selling one's own creations will remain just as viable as contracting for companies which do so, albeit with greater risk and reward.


Your remarks on artificial scarcity make perfect sense, but they don't seem like they bear much practical value.  They don't change my inclination to throw ten dollars at a game I think I will enjoy, and they don't change my outlook on the software industry: the significant consequence is that piracy will proliferate, as it is and has already.

So let's double back around to the proper topic of this thread.  Piracy increases awareness of a software product and its developer, much like free software increases awareness of a contractor.  The forward-thinking approach in a world where file-sharing is on the rise is to turn it to one's advantage.  If 100,000 illegal downloads of a piece of software can be turned into 3,000 sales, that's money to live on.  Money to make another game with.

Certainly, those bits don't cost anything and the work is in the past, but people don't think this way.  Why do we tip our waitress after our meal?  It isn't going to make her service retroactively better.  Why does the odd passerby throw five dollars to the street busker and his beaten-up guitar?  There's no economic sense to that; his music is FREE as the air through which it ripples.

People like to show their appreciation to the good things in the world, and to do their part in keeping those things alive.  In the worst of worlds -- or the best? -- that is what keeps a software developer alive, and that is why things will not change in the way you suggest.

[VortexCortex]

I contract too.  I like the idea of not having to and being able to work full-time on my own projects.  Anyway, a simple rebuttal.  By your logic:

1. The software industry will crumble when humanity as a whole becomes disillusioned to artificial scarcity and ceases to treat data like physical products, and contractors will go down with the ship, or

2. That won't happen, and selling one's own creations will remain just as viable as contracting for companies which do so, albeit with greater risk and reward.

1. I didn't say the industry would crumble.  You must fear this to be true, I never said that.  I only talk of change.

2. If you contract then you realize you have a contract to do work, you'll get paid for the work you do... That won't change when people stop charging for copies.  The free & open source software industries are built on the premise that getting paid to do work (provide a service, add new feature, etc) is just fine and needs no artificial scarcity sales.

Your remarks on artificial scarcity make perfect sense, but they don't seem like they bear much practical value.

This is only because you don't realize they already have.

They don't change my inclination to throw ten dollars at a game I think I will enjoy, and they don't change my outlook on the software industry: the significant consequence is that piracy will proliferate, as it is and has already.

Don't change.  Become extinct.  It's the way of the Universe.  Neanderthals didn't die out over night, but where are they today?  Piracy proliferating is the direct result of the disillusionment you mention.  That you'll still pay ten dollars for a game will likely hold true if it's to get a demo turned into a full game or to pay after it's created.  This is the first generation where the global bi-directional instant information networks have existed.  Just like the machine gun changed war, and the printing press changed publishing, change is coming in the digital world.

So let's double back around to the proper topic of this thread.  Piracy increases awareness of a software product and its developer, much like free software increases awareness of a contractor.  The forward-thinking approach in a world where file-sharing is on the rise is to turn it to one's advantage.

The even more forward thinking can prevent piracy from detracting any profit by collecting said profit up front.  Sure, this puts a cap on the greed of being able to make more and more money from little to no work, so established business will resist; However, there's no reason to play by the old rules now just because the old guys do.

Certainly, those bits don't cost anything and the work is in the past, but people don't think this way.  Why do we tip our waitress after our meal?  It isn't going to make her service retroactively better.  Why does the odd passerby throw five dollars to the street busker and his beaten-up guitar?  There's no economic sense to that; his music is FREE as the air through which it ripples.

You're wrong.  Tossing the money to the busker is a payment for providing the music.  You don't toss as much money to a bum as to a busker, that's why buskers exist.  You tip your waitress because of the social contract.  It's part of paying for your meal.  Return visits will reap rewards from tipping well in the past.  Time Exists.  Incidence are not isolated.  The busker can busk more, maybe buy a better guitar and make better music...

People like to show their appreciation to the good things in the world, and to do their part in keeping those things alive.

Well, it seems you're in perfect alignment with my way of thinking here.  This alone would allow us to transition from ransoming bits to getting paid to make good things.

In the worst of worlds -- or the best? -- that is what keeps a software developer alive, and that is why things will not change in the way you suggest.

Do you fail to see the changes I've cited already?  Publishing is becoming extinct, and with it goes their model of artificial scarcity.  They try to apply systems of tangible goods to purely digital products.   Self publishing is gaining a huge adoption among science-fiction writing, and other tech savvy writers.  Same goes for video games, music, movies...

Man, it's like a blind man telling me "blue" doesn't exist because they've never seen it.  I'm done here.