Quoting: Quote from CaldazarThe problem with DRM, especially on Linux, is that it adds to the already virulent notion that unfree software is the legit norm, while free software is the abomination, possibly illegal.
That's no paranoid exaggeration. It's actually a widespread belief that Linux is illegal because it is libre, to a degree that people threaten to call the police if you promote it.

=> For example

Quoting: QuoteAfter confiscating the [Linux] disks I called a confrence with the student and that is how I came to discover you and your organization. Mr. Starks, [...] I cannot either support your efforts or allow them to happen in my classroom. At this point, I am not sure what you are doing is legal. No software is free and spreading that misconception is harmful.

That's what we're dealing with and it's a huge damage to society. Every DRM getting our "Legit-Stamp" add to this.

Are you being serious? Your "example" is ludicrous. I'm not disputing it's legitimacy but citing it as a widespread belief and also saying it's "no paranoid exaggeration" is contradictory. Maybe it's a widespread belief in Germany, as I don't live there I shall concede that. But it's not in the UK, where I live. I've used Linux for the last 7+ years exclusively whilst at the same time sorting out family and friends Windows computers (regularly!) and I've never once heard anything like that. Not once.

Quoting: Quote from CaldazarFor me personally and practically, the main problem is that the software on Steam is linked to an account. I can't just lend it to someone else or resell it after I played through.
Especially here in Germany we have a problem with the censorship of any display of violence against humans.
Now if a gamer in the US wanted to "gift" me the uncensored US version, we'd better take care that Steam doesn't get wind of it or two bans will follow.

That takes off quite a bit of my freedom to decide what's happening in my computer.

All that said, like with lying, it's tolerable to a degree, for example to avoid cheating in multiplayers, but the principle ethics of it being inherently wrong stays untouched by practical considerations. Ethics always comes first.

Ok, I understand what you're saying about lending or resale but then again, if there was no Steam on Linux you couldn't anyway as this game, for example, wouldn't exist on Linux! And it's not up to Steam whether you can lend the game, that's up to the developer. If they want you to lend the game they'll do a DRM free version. Even then I'm not sure many would be happy with you lending it! Isn't that unethical if it goes against their wishes?

No one is curtailing your freedom to decide what's happening with your computer - don't use Steam. It's not forced on you. Your distro will exist fine without Steam.

DRM is unethical overreaching preemptive policing which by default insults legitimate users because it assumes everyone to be a criminal. I consider no DRM to be reasonable, ever. Besides always being unethical, it has no practical reasons to be used for any business. Historically it was claimed that DRM is needed to prevent piracy, but that was always complete bunk. DRM is used for anticompetitive purposes and for other side shady reasons. DRM created such derivatives as DMCA 1201 and the like (anticircumvention provisions) which together with DRM violate common civil rights like free speech and compromise users privacy and security.

Someone said in the other thread, that Steam's DRM is OK because you hardly notice it so it's "not intrusive". It reminds me a bizzare idea of one of the NSA surveillance defenders, that if you don't notice that your privacy is violated, then it's not violated. Do you really believe that to be correct? I consider that to be completely opposite. I.e. imagine a hidden camera which you don't notice most of the time so it doesn't bother you because it doesn't register in your mind. Is it "not intrusive" just because it spies on you staying out of your way? Not at all. Hidden camera is even worse precisely because you get comfortable with it.

Same goes for "non intrusive" DRM. It's much worse than "intrusive" one, because users stop paying attention to the fact that their privacy and security is violated. If you pay attention to comfort only, you forget about many other important issues.

Shmerl - I absolutely agree with what you've written regarding DRM. I've always hated it and even had a letter published in a computer magazine berating hidden rootkit style methods back when I used Windows (briefly).

However, we'll have to disagree on Steam. I don't even see it as DRM. The whole point is that it isn't intrusive. Nothing is spying on me. Everything is up front. If a game tried to install "hidden" files or some kind of rootkit then I would be up in arms and wouldn't buy that game. I installed Steam for the functionality it offers, my choice.

I think your analogy is flawed - "imagine a hidden camera which you don't notice most of the time so it doesn't bother you because it doesn't register in your mind. Is it 'not intrusive' just because it spies on you staying out of your way?" - if it's a hidden camera then you wouldn't know it's there in the first place! So in that case it couldn't bother you or register in your mind ;) I am certainly NOT comfortable with the thought of hidden cameras (or hidden anything for that matter).

My privacy and security has not been violated with Steam.

fabertawe: How do you know that Steam DRM is not spying on you, for example when you run the Steam client? How do you know what else it does or doesn't do? DRM is always a black box which never can be trusted (precisely because it's a black box created by treating you as a criminal). There is nothing upfront in any DRM. DRM is always built on the notion of not trusting you (the user). Trust implies mutuality, so if they don't trust you, you have no reason to trust them (those who deploy DRM). They treat you as an apriory potential criminal? You should treat them as apriory violating your privacy and security with their black box code. I see it as a reasonable symmetrical attitude towards any DRM.

Hidden camera was used as an analogy of something not bothering you because you don't pay attention. It can be "partially hidden" or whatever. My point is, that "comfortable" DRM does not in any way mean that it doesn't violate your privacy. If anything - it's only worse, you because users relax and don't pay attention.

Quote[...]
I've used Linux for the last 7+ years exclusively whilst at the same time sorting out family and friends Windows computers (regularly!) and I've never once heard anything like that. Not once.

Storytelling, both of us, I admit. And please note , that I'm going into 'devil's advocate mode' now.
Anyhow, Ed Robert's and later Bill Gates' accusations thrown at the Homebrew Club are not some stories, it's history.
There the whole narrative started,saying that free software was anti-commercial theft, committed by parasites.

This is the narrative that prevailed to this day and is indeed widespread in the minds of society.
You never heard the terms "freetards" and "communist" coined on Free Software communities in 2013?
Aren't "Hacker" public enemies today, second only to terrorists, jailed for using websites and devices in a way it wasn't intended?
Isn't Linux the OS of those hackers, who will steal your bank account as soon as you install it, because it is open?

Never assume that you and your personal surrounding has anything to do with what has been planted into the hearts and minds of society as a whole.
With accepting DRM you're not legitimizing all that but you add credibility to it.
You admit that taking away fundamental freedoms is ok for the cause of protection against said thieves and parasites.

QuoteEven then I'm not sure many would be happy with you lending it! Isn't that unethical if it goes against their wishes?

It was, if they wouldn't call it "buying" and, more important, if it wasn't software.

Call it "lending" and reduce the price you're willing to pay accordingly and the first point is done.

The second point is by far more important.
Software by its very nature is nothing but the usage of the natural language of logic to describe the optimal path from an input to an output.
"If you smash a hammer on a nail, it will force it into the wall".
Now please respect my terms under which I allow your carpenter to do that or let him use a screwdriver instead, because I have written down the hammer method.

I buy a hammer, I pay for a carpenter, but that's not what DRM is all about.
DRM prohibits me from learning the method, or lending the product to a friend. They freaking jail people for opening a phone case.
Any wonder a geek with strong ethics cries foul?

Again, as with lying, there are good reasons to decide against strict ethics, but you should never be inconsiderate about it.
Or let Monsanto and BASF tell you what to do in your garden and then tell the people, that's just alright and nothing to worry about.
It's convenient after all.

I don't generally like DRM personally apart from Steamworks because that actually adds in some fun features.

Quoting: Quote from Shmerlfabertawe: How do you know that Steam DRM is not spying on you, for example when you run the Steam client? How do you know what else it does or doesn't do? DRM is always a black box which never can be trusted (precisely because it's a black box created by treating you as a criminal). There is nothing upfront in any DRM. DRM is always built on the notion of not trusting you (the user). Trust implies mutuality, so if they don't trust you, you have no reason to trust them (those who deploy DRM). They treat you as an apriory potential criminal? You should treat them as apriory violating your privacy and security with their black box code. I see it as a reasonable symmetrical attitude towards any DRM.

Hidden camera was used as an analogy of something not bothering you because you don't pay attention. It can be "partially hidden" or whatever. My point is, that "comfortable" DRM does not in any way mean that it doesn't violate your privacy. If anything - it's only worse, you because users relax and don't pay attention.

I'm with you on most of what you say, no customer actually likes DRM.

But you say "How do you know that Steam DRM is not spying on you, for example when you run the Steam client?". Well the answer, of course, is that I don't know. So by the same token, you don't know that your "DRM free" binary game isn't spying on you! Do you see where this is going?

A healthy dose of paranoia is good but if you take your argument to a logical conclusion then you should never run a single binary, ever. You can't pick and choose which binaries you don't trust, without evidence, to suit your argument. It's none or all.

I take great issue with DRM and I have no issue with running Steam as things stand now. That could change in the future but as it stands now I'm not that paranoid.

Caldazar - Ok, I see where you're coming from on the first part of your post :) Not quite sure I follow your analogy though, you can't screw a nail into a wall, only hammer it!

I actually don't like DRM, really, never have. I'm certainly not trying to defend DRM in any way. See my last reply to Shmerl, above - I don't understand the phobia regarding Steam, that is all, which is where all this started.

Quoting: Quote from fabertaweBut you say "How do you know that Steam DRM is not spying on you, for example when you run the Steam client?". Well the answer, of course, is that I don't know. So by the same token, you don't know that your "DRM free" binary game isn't spying on you! Do you see where this is going?

That's my point. Comparing DRM and just closed binary is not proper, since DRM is built on the insulting premise of considering you a potential criminal by default. Closed binary doesn't imply anything like that (at least by default).

So attitude towards DRM should be symmetrically more distrustful by default. That was my main point. Since the whole logic behind DRM is always not even economical, but some kind of perverted thirst for control, violation of your privacy and security should be always expected to a higher degree than simply not trusting a closed code.

But that's about opposing DRM on pragmatic grounds (security and so on). Even more so it should be opposed on ethical grounds as being overreaching preemptive policing. It's like opposing abusive practices of a police state in essence. Also, since DRM is a direct cause for sick DMCA 1201 like laws, I see a point in opposing all forms of it, and not picking "comfortable" vs "not comfortable" ones, which doesn't send the right message at all.

Shmerl - I totally agree with you on DRM! What you say is spot on. So where is the DRM in Steam, that's all I want to know.