DRM-free software is not "free/open source" software so you do not have all freedoms but you still have some very important freedoms. That is you can have an independent backup and you can run the software independently of any service. On DRM software if some very specific service goes down or a very specific piece of hardware fails, you loose the access to the game. DRM-free does not have that problem.

Quoting: GuestDigital Rights Management [...]

Pretty good and objective explanation on the topic of DRM. Very welcome given that the subject usually causes quite a stir.

To add to the above. DRM is some limitation placed on the digital product, that restricts its usage after purchase. It's not necessarily related to sharing or copying (for instance mobile carriers used DRM to prevent people from switching to competitors).

There are several reasons that there is opposition to DRM. First is ethical. DRM is a form of overreaching preemptive policing. Same as using presumption of guilt is unethical, so is DRM. It's like policing you a priory, assuming you are a criminal by default, employing all kind of restrictive and surveillance methods.

Second is pragmatical. DRM cripples the digital product (you can't install or back it up without breaking the DRM if for example the service that DRM is deployed by goes bust and so on). Basically, DRM users are hostages of the DRM service and provider, and their control of what they bought is significantly reduced. Usage of DRM also compromises your system privacy and security, because DRM is aimed at policing you and sees you as adversary. So it'd by design built on not trusting you. Therefore it shouldn't be trusted back either.

Add to that a set of corrupted undemocratic laws instituted in many countries (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention ), which declared breaking DRM illegal (see how such corrupted laws came to pass here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/ustr-secret-copyright-agreements-worldwide ).

Which gives those who deploy DRM a method to create new laws at will, just by slapping DRM on anything they want to restrict.

So opposing DRM by refusing to support it with your money is a form of voting with your wallet. This can vary from not buying any games / music / books / films etc. with DRM, to not using any services which are conductive to DRM. It's the reason some prefer to use strictly DRM-free distributors - it helps reversing this bad practice.

DRM is a mechanism the copyright industry uses to try and squeeze out extra sales.

They insist it managing your rights as a consumer, but it is infact enforcing what ever random restrictions they decided to impose.

A few examples of DRM you may have encountered;

DVD/BR - theses discs are typically DRM protected so that they can only be played on pre-approved devices, and to make sure you do not make a working copy(1) to avoid scratching the original disc. This is also the reason you cannot playback DVD or BluRay on Linux.(2)


CD's - some cd's used ( use? I've not bought music on CD's for a few years now.. ) a DRM called "cactus shield" that violated the red book standard by claming to be a data cd. This mean that CD players that understood data cd's ( CD players that could play a cd of MP3s were all the rage at one point ) were incapable of playing them or would play back the corrupted MP3s placed on the disc.


In both cases the restrictions were easy to buy pass for people with technical knowledge but did/does great harm to paying consumers how had no clue how to get rid of them.

Some DRM's are better implemented than others - take Steam for instance, it doesn't try to prevent you from enjoying your content on you device of choice or place restrictions of what peripherals you can use. But it's still a restriction management system - Once your done with a game you do not have the possibility of selling it used or lending it to a friend.

You might think that's ok "because poor software developers" or something like that, but try and immagine if the same restriction was placed on your gaming hardware, or your car.

I've personally never sold a used game myself but I do miss the ability to lend a game to a friend to get them hooked so we could have some multiplayer action, which would have meant an extra sale.


Hope it helps a bit :)



1) This is a legal right given in many countries, obviously it's mean for use inside the household only.
2) You can you just need to install the anti-DRM package that I'm sure 99% of all linux users install even though it's illegal in USA ( due to DMCA or so I'm told )

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Guppytake Steam for instance, it doesn't try to prevent you from enjoying your content on you device of choice or place restrictions of what peripherals you can use. But it's still a restriction management system - Once your done with a game you do not have the possibility of selling it used or lending it to a friend.

Even for DRM-free games you may or may not have the right to resell, give or lend them, depending on their licence. But of course it’s technically possible.

A licence cannot make you worse off legal wise - this means (amongst other things) you cannot forfeit you right to resell your property. And yes the license becomes syou property once bought.

Except DRM has nothing to do with sales, at least not with increasing them. DRM only decreases sales because it cripples the product and hinders legitimate customers, while having no effect on pirates and etc.

Quoting: GuppyA licence cannot make you worse off legal wise - this means (amongst other things) you cannot forfeit you right to resell your property. And yes the license becomes syou property once bought.

no...

A licence is NOT your property, so you may not have the right to resell. A licence is just a licence. It is a kind of agreement between you and the owner that you do have the right to use.

****
also

DRM is always a kind of malware that tries to enforce the licence. There are worse types of malware and less worse but it is always malware by the very definition of malware.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

EU has similar provisions

No contract can make you worse off legally without providing compensation (this is true in EU, not 100% sure about USA, but I imagine they must have something similar )


As for Microsoft et all they put a lot of invalid shit in those license -one version of the media player license said they held exclusive rights to all files on your computer's. After all who is going to point up the dough to run the lawsuit?

Also I don't see Microsoft taking action against 2nd hand windows licenses from used laptops/desktops

Copyright lobby hates first sale doctrine, and tries to undermine it every time they get a chance. So far they failed.

I'm no expert on us law, but the way I understand it they are using the DMCA to prevent you from making use of the first sale doctrine. "Sure you can resell, but you can't break the code that would allow you to do so"

Where I live we are allowed to break DRM if it interferes with our consumer rights, but then that's not a big thing in the USA it seems.

Anyway this is getting off track, still i suppose it's another example of how DRM is used to diminish the consumers rights