Do you seriously believe M$ can afford (either ways) losing a fundamental court case against a single individual for any forms of an EULA's breach?

Or is it, that they'd be willing (and able beyond proportions, btw) to stack what it takes to actually win whatever *OTHER* situations?

Here's the main concern with relative Law - it simply adapts.

While, Joe Schmos (users, consumers, public) can only bite lips, tongue & cheeks, brush their teeth, dump a tall glass of cold dirty water and eventually - shut the f*** up, cuz their leverage is microscopic - if any.

Sure, Judge X can screw (in GREAT ways) the whole interpretation(s) presented and scramble the basic principles of justice to favor one side - that having major consequences - since that's what society pays them for.

Are you (all) seeing a recursive pattern yet?

Money.

Be it -- also -- owned, licensed or copyrighted enough to deplete or grow to the interest of a few rather than many.

Keep the change.

"No man has the inherent right to the labor of another man."

Well said, but your point neglected the fact that you have been repaid on the terms you yourself have set.

If I walk into a store, and wish to purchase something a painting, purchase it, take it home, and hang it up, it does not vanish after being moved to a new spot 3 times. It's not leprechaun gold.

If I go to a man on a street corner and purchase a watch, provided it's not itself stolen property, he does not hunt me down in my home after I removed and replaced it on my arm 3 times, and thus demand it back.

If I loan my car to a friend, it is not repo'd the next day.

If I purchase a cd, they do not kick down my door after the 3rd listening.

If I sell you a rock for $50, do I have the right to demand it back, because hidden inside is a EULA that says you may only view it 3 times?

If I sell you a vehicle, with 3 gallons of gasoline, and a welded shut tank, you might sue me, and rightfully win, mightn't you?

The act of purchase, is a human conception of the transferrence of property from one person to another. That act implies good faith from Both parties. I, as a purchaser, would not clone your work and redistribute it. Hence Distribution. I as a purchaser now hold this property as my own. You received payment of your choosing.

I as a seller of a work understand that I accept Payment for a piece of property, in acknowledgement that I am entering into a good faith Contract to give this piece of property to you.

As a work that is copyrighted, a Copyright, promises you safety from unfair duplication of your work, for which you would get no Compensation. In other words, you would not be able to sell that particular object. Copyright protects your right to sell as you see fit. $50 bucks a game. That's your price. That is what a copyright gets you... the ability to sell your game.. See where this is going?

So. Did I buy your object or not? I guess not.

Btw, non-disclosure, until after a sale is made, of terms which limit the usability, for which you could not have reasonably assumed, is fraud. Pretty pandering of terms like license assume knowledge and understanding of the contract terms. Changing the terms after a sale is made will never hold up in a court of law. Try it some time.

Edit: If you'd like to know where EA has gone wrong, as that was the original question, just contemplate that all of this flicked through my mind in an instant when I found out I was the proud owner of what was in time to become a paperweight.

Btw 2: Walmart is discontinuing support for DRM'd music they have sold. A company does not have to sink, to sink their customer's purchase, when DRM is involved.

Edit 2: I have contemplated my post, as I have contemplated the question in the title of this browser window. I think you need to take a step back and consider the realities for the situation for a moment. You might ask how to viably stop people from copying a radio transmission. You might ask how to stop them from recording your conversation with them. You might ask how to stop people intercepting and reading your email. All of these questions come from a flawed perspective. You made a concious choice to distribute something through a medium for which you have no control. People with less scruples than you will do as they please, regardless of your wishes. If you don't want to accept that you have no ultimate control, then your only alternative is to choose the only other choice a copyright holder has. That is to not sell their work. If you want to protect your work after the fact, from illegal (immoral) copying, you must create mechanisms to secure it. If you can't secure the object itself, then you can't win the battle against copying, because you chose a medium for which there is no inherent security.

Let me, for a moment, provide an example of mediums that have been designed as secure mediums, so that I may 'prove' my point.

DVD: Has encryption, and other features. The only fault was an inherently low amount of designed security. A fortress could defeat an army, but wont stop a nuclear blast. If enough effort is applied, most systems can be circumvented.

HDDVD: Better encryption, but same problem.

Blu-Ray: Same.

Each of the above is a Secure channel through which to deliver a specific content. Each of the channels is flawed, yes, but they at least have some security about them. Each piece is designed to shield the data inside of it.

A.. program, that resides on a computer, to stop copying (which it isn't designed to do in fact), is not a shield, it's a fly swatter. That self same program purports to protect the copyright of the work, yet the copyright was already in effect when the sale was made!
A computer that does not have such a program, but still has the copyrighted work, for which no sale was made, does not have this shield (fly swatter). So where is the protection?

Enlighten me if you will, protector's of copyright, how does this program protect anything, when it exists only after the sale is made, and exists not at all when no sale was made? It's presence is after the fact. Since it's presence depends on a sale being made, how did it facilitate the sale? Through no logic, either sane or not, can I deduce how it's presence might have spurred someone to purchase the original work.

In which thread is it? And it is strange you can't activate it if you have the serial Id unless:

-  it is a used copy already registered

- someone has registered the serial Id without buying the copy

- it was in a manufacturing batch that used already issued serial id

Hardly. Impulse,Steam and EA remote activation are all broken and they are essentially the same basic model with the same basic issue.

They depend on a remote DRM activation server, when that is gone (as it will be at some point) you have nothing. In the mean time they use this as technical "solution" the the problem of your "first sale doctrine" rights.  Legally you are entitled to do what you want with purchased copy of a game/music/movie, but they basically take that away from you, because they don't wan't to compete with their own product in the used market.

In short you are paying full price for a rental.

Just ask Walmart/Yahoo/Microsoft music "owners" how well this model is working for them?

Frogboy, I would like to ask you a question directly, should you ever visit this thread again. Would you agree that the current copy protection schemes are not actually designed to prevent copying, but rather designed to keep a person from reselling their game, and thus populating the Used game market, of which drains a game companie's profits down the road? It seems to me that the phrase "You can't fool everyone all the time" comes to mind, but in regard to CEO's of game companies, or those making the decisions. They can't seriously all be sold to the idea that this mechanism stops the initial copying and distribution of their game. It does not take a programmer to figure out that simply removing such protections in the first place effectively unlock the entire work for redistribution, and that process only needs to happen once. If one agrees with the above, would you also agree then that your aims would be different from the aims of a company such as EA in that you would be trying to defeat the point of the copy, while they would be trying to defeat reselling of their product? If you do so agree, I think you would also agree with my above post, that what you ask is a technical impossibility if that protection remains solely bound to the game itself, and causes no interfence to the game. Even your patches could be pirated and distributed, defeating even your activation. Stardock support however can't be pirated, so I heap praise for that. That in turn comes back to the logic, that you can only make safe that which can't actually be stolen. Is that what stardock has concluded?

Do yourself a favour and remove Norton Antivirus. I had it on my system, and it did indeed block system performance - the stupid program would overwrite system files (most notably a network.dll) with its own *corrupt* versions for security purposes. Great for security checks, but buggered-up when it came to functionality: many games` online features were unavailable because of Norton file corruption. Who knows if other aspects of the OS failed due to this trait.

As soon as I removed Norton my system operated perfectly. I now use McAfee VirusScan and have no problems.

I don't think so. But I don't think that publishers (ourselves included) are going to make any special effort to make it easier to resell digital content either.

I think the main issue is making it more convenient to be a legal customer than to be a pirate. Right now, too many publishers are making it more convenient to be a warez issue.

Personally speaking, as a gamer, here is where I draw the line:

Acceptable to me and I would put on our own games:

• Requiring a serial # to download updates
• Requring updates be on a secure download server
• Requiring validation/digital signing checking to play on-line

Basically, if they have to be on the Internet anyway, then whatever.

Here is what would also be acceptable to me:

• Requiring an Internet connection to install (on-line activation ala Vista) as long as it's on the box.

Here is what is NOT acceptable to me:

• Making me have the CD in the drive to play it
• Having some low arbitrary number of installs (this REALLY annoys me) in the product's lifetime.
• Having the program install a driver on my system that runs all the time even if I'm not playing the game.
• Having to be online to play the game even in single player mode.

. . . and forget "activating" the games, simply installing either of the clients requires an internet connection. Just tested on a virtual machine.

Just a collection of thoughts on the matter...

• I'm perfectly fine buying a 'license to play' instead of 'purchasing ownership' of a game as long as the effect stays the same: I, the honest buyer, can play the game whenever, whereever and as long and often as I like.
• It's obvious to me that as a pair of shoes or a shirt or anything else personal a piece of software should be meant to be bought once per _user_ so the license stays with _me_, not with my computer or with some installation media or manual. So I should be able to play on my 'big' machine at home and on my notebook while on the train to work, for example, but I cannot play the same game twice at the same time, of course.
• Nothing must be able to stop me from using my software. If I upgrade my machine, so be it. If I migrate to a completely new one, so be it. I'm fine with techniques that don't store a hash computed from all my hardware and lock me out as soon as this hash changes, but rather store all my individual pieces of hardware and know 'ok, this new harddisk is not a different machine, all the rest stayed the same.'. In order to register after installation I should have an account with the vendor coupled with my email address so no loss of manual, media, hardware or anything may destroy my license.
• When a vendor goes out of business or decides a product has reached the end of its lifecycle, a final patch should be issued freeing the product from any DRM traps that might result. If there's no more commercial interest in the product, there really shouldn't be any more restriction on it. Alternatively, a cross vendor licensing platform should be instituted which assures that old products can be used (nearly) forever.
• As internet is quite commonplace nowadays, I'm fine with registering my products online and letting the vendor check if I'm a multi user or just a multi installer (there's quite the difference between me installing a game on ten machines and playing it on a different computer every evening or me installing a game on three machines and letting my brothers play as well). If there's no internet connection, just let the product log its uptime and communicate that to the vendor when a connection becomes available (_not_ a smallband connection please This would work fine for people having a slower connection, too, as background transmission services could be used for this communication so that the user wouldn't be bothered.
• With the point above stated, it should be unneccessary to give back or uninstall a license. When a product is installed on say six machines and one of them never shows up on the internet again - well, what will have happened.
• If a vendor finds out that more persons than just me must have used my license (ouch!) there is no need to apply brute force measures. An intelligent licensing system could ask me whether I let someone try out the product and whether I'd like to upgrade the user count of my license (at a discount, maybe?. Most honest people would have no problem buying a second license for some family member because we would no longer pay a fortune for a game because the two prime reason for high prices - sharing and reselling, cannot survive with such a model.
• When vendors finally learned to know me by my (sets of) hardware and to know I'm good by my usage of their products, they really should drastically lower the prices for their products! The prices are most often 'justified' with high piracy levels and private sharing and reselling etc. Once it is clear that a license is for me and me alone and you can check that, please don't make me pay rates for large families anymore.
• The model described above will not work on machines that are never connected to the net, of course. And one could argument that some evil pirates may set up special gaming machines at their homes only to run pirated software. Well, yes of course. But look at reality - no true pirate has ever been stopped from doing his work. And by recognizing the honest users machines and habits better and lowering the prices for licenses resulting out of this knowledge there will be quite the extra revenue through family members (how about family discount licenses?), friends and colleagues, and quite for sure a number of former pirates will find it too labourous and expensive to steal and start buying. ,-)

Am I able to sort all this into a crisp conclusion? Let's see:

• One rather cheap license per user. A user is a single person, not a couple, no (group of) friends, no family, but one human being.
• Intelligent recognition of the user and his license, unlimited installations
• No drivers, rootkits, special runtime applications, installation media check after installation, manual check etc.
• Online usage checking, collection of usage data if no internet connection available.
• Offer to upgrade license on violation.

Another concept that's quite appealing to me is this: Make the user pay on a weekly basis, free first week for trying it out, full rates for the first four weeks and then decreasing down to zero (e.g. 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, repeat 4 until target price is reached, then zero). This way the old net price we're used to paying would stay the same - but only if the product is good enough to be kept playing. Many users are mad about vendors publishing shiny stuff for 80 bucks that they play through in a single week. You don't pay double for movies with more expensive special effects, do you? But you pay more for extra long movies. You pay for your watching, not for their making, so we should pay for our playing, too. Other vendors can make great games at nice prices that last for months and months, so there would be quite some motivation (or commercial ruin) for vendors creating beautiful vessels of lacking gameplay to improve their concepts.

Oh, you're lucky - I'm out of time, so no more thinking. Stop reading this, go have some fun. )

As a buyer of hundreds of PC games over long years and one with a keen eye for observation I think I completely understand both sides of the issue of consumer rights vs. corporate profits.

1) Gamers as consumers treat their product like any other consumer treats their product...once they buy it it is theirs to keep forever and ever. You have no say in what they do with what they bought. Why would you? Anyone who says otherwise is a greedy fool and everyone knows that, hence the backlash at greed and fools.

2) Game Developers as businessmen treat their product like any other businessman would treat their product...once you are a customer, they want you as a loyal customer forever and ever. You have no choice in price...you pay what the asking price is or you don't get the product. Why would you get a product for free or be treated as a valued customer for free? Anyone who says otherwise is a cheap thief and everyone knows that, hence the backlash at cheapskates and thieves.

The tactics and strategies of both positions above vary wildly...from opportunity: "Hey, it's easy to get this product for free!" or ""Hey, let's just update the player roster and call it NEW!" to subterfuge and usurping credit and payment: "I'll crack this .exe and burn a thousand copies and sell them in Hong Kong or Ebay" or "Screw it, get this turd out the door, buy favorable reviews and flood the forums with paid for opinions and fake-buzz"

Like everything, the happy medium is the balance of both extremes: recognizing the futility of trying to force the market to accept something it does not want and the market actuall buying that which it demands more of. Piracy as a word is a red-herring...a false enemy. The real enemy is this natural law: That which can be Read can be Written.  Those wise persons know that the secret to business success is "Build a better mouse-trap and the world will beat a path to your door". 

DRM specifics? Instances and methologies? Utterly insignificant and meaningless to the innovative businessman, who understands that which can be read can be written and his paying customers are the ones that matter and if they aren't buying, you need to re-examine what and how you are selling it!

Just like to say that was a *wonderful* post, Zacharot. 

You should read it, Frogboy (if you haven't already)

As far as I'm concerned, I am buying the right to use the product however I damn well please, provided it is not in a manner which violates copyright.  Furthermore, I have this right in perpetuity or until I transfer that right to another individual.  The seller should not be allowed to inconvenience me in any way whatsoever when exercising this right.  They *certainly* should not be allowed to prevent me from exercising that right by means of arbitrary restrictions which have nothing to do with the product in question (so time-limited licenses, fair enough since that is the business model on which the product is based.  Activation limited - not fair.)  Introducing extra terms and conditions that inconvenience me, the legitimate buyer, to protect the seller from *other* individuals is not reasonable.  It should not be made my problem.

Stepping down from the ethical to the practical, a *small* measure of inconvenience is acceptable.  But I must say I'm finding it hard to come up with a scheme that works.  The closest I can see would be activation based, say 3 or 4 activations at one time but, crucially, with a *convenient* system for deactivating old hardware and activating new; something that can be done in minutes online or by automated phone system.  Or alternatively, a generous activation limit with regular resets.  The big problem with any activation based approach, though, has been pointed out - what happens if the company goes bust and/or stops honouring activations?

Stardock's system seems OK.  I don't remember any great hassle when I had to update my software keys after a major upgrade.

I just posted this in the Bill of Rights thread but I think it merits posting here as well:

For those interested in a recent article published by the Escapist dealing with gamers rights please check out the following article "We the Gamers."

I agree with what you said in the first paragraph, but I really wouldn't classify TPB as beeing "relatively nice when it comes to agreeing to publisher's requests". Have you seen their page listing legal threats (http://www.thepiratebay.org/legal/)? I don't think they've ever removed anything from that site unless it was something like child porn.