[pcchen]

Originally Posted by Davros

then how do you suggest, leaving it up to them has produced nothing, if anything the situation has got worse. Legislation is about the only option left

Has the situation really got worse? Do you know that some of the earliest digital distributed software only allows a limited number of installations? I believe most digital distributed software don't do that anymore. That didn't take a legislation to accomplish.

The problem with legislation on business matter is, in most case, the legislators don't really understand the underlying problem. They don't have to implement the system, nor they know what problems may occur when implementing such system. So, there bounds to be some very bad laws, which, when you look at it, may seem to be very good, but actually completely unworkable. Unfortunately, once something is written into the law, it can be very difficult to get rid of it.

I believe most people are satisfied with current digital distribution systems (well, at least some systems). Steam, for example, seems to be very popular (the Witcher 2 sold much more copies on Steam than on GOG, which is DRM-free). People don't seem to be very concerned about the fact that they can't sell those games they bought on Steam. If enough people started to demand for the ability to transfer their licenses to other account, I believe there will be some business willing to take this market.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by pcchen

How's that a win if all software developers are forced to adopt a much more consumer-unfriendly term?

Software publishers, not developers.

And they aren't forced into a "kick those consumers as hard as possible and steal their wallets!" business model. Mostly, because those consumers now recognize that for what it is, and understand that they are blatantly ripped off.

As with all mass-produced products, you earn more money not by raising your prices and blackmailing your customers, but by offering a fair product for a fair price. If you want to earn more money over the long term, you need to drop your price and be more consumer-friendly instead. Economics 101, really.

Unless you're only in it to make a fast killing, of course.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by pcchen

Has the situation really got worse? Do you know that some of the earliest digital distributed software only allows a limited number of installations? I believe most digital distributed software don't do that anymore. That didn't take a legislation to accomplish.

The problem with legislation on business matter is, in most case, the legislators don't really understand the underlying problem. They don't have to implement the system, nor they know what problems may occur when implementing such system. So, there bounds to be some very bad laws, which, when you look at it, may seem to be very good, but actually completely unworkable. Unfortunately, once something is written into the law, it can be very difficult to get rid of it.

I believe most people are satisfied with current digital distribution systems (well, at least some systems). Steam, for example, seems to be very popular (the Witcher 2 sold much more copies on Steam than on GOG, which is DRM-free). People don't seem to be very concerned about the fact that they can't sell those games they bought on Steam. If enough people started to demand for the ability to transfer their licenses to other account, I believe there will be some business willing to take this market.

You mix things up. Digital distribution is first and foremost very convenient. You don't have to wait until you can go to the shop, and you don't need to find one that has it in stock and offers a good deal. Pay and play.

But most of their sales volume isn't in first-day deliveries. They're in the (heavy) discounts, and the huge catalog offered. I spend far more money on deals for games I never play than on premium-priced games. And I'm not alone in that, far from it.

While Blizzard still has a lot of credits, it won't last when the actual gaming experience is riddled with many annoyances. They're arrogant and think they can fuck over anyone, and have those abused users still buy their products at premium. That's exactly the mindset that would have me sell their stocks, if I had any.

Economics 101, really.

[pcchen]

Originally Posted by Frank

Software publishers, not developers.

Hardly any differences. More regulations only forces more independent developers to find a publisher to publish their software, because they won't be able to do (or it would be too expensive) by themselves.

And they aren't forced into a "kick those consumers as hard as possible and steal their wallets!" business model. Mostly, because those consumers now recognize that for what it is, and understand that they are blatantly ripped off.

You mean consumers are all stupid and need the government to tell them what's what?

As with all mass-produced products, you earn more money not by raising your prices and blackmailing your customers, but by offering a fair product for a fair price. If you want to earn more money over the long term, you need to drop your price and be more consumer-friendly instead. Economics 101, really.

Actually, Economy 101 tells us that we don't prefer the help from the government to achieve this, and this is the whole point of this discussion.

But most of their sales volume isn't in first-day deliveries. They're in the (heavy) discounts, and the huge catalog offered. I spend far more money on deals for games I never play than on premium-priced games. And I'm not alone in that, far from it.

If you are talking about Steam's sales being more than GOG's, then I can tell you that my data is after the first month of the release of the Witcher 2. That is, no discounts involved.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by pcchen

You seem to be missing the point that this is not a good way to make them to be fair with the consumers.

So has been argued, like it was argued GOG.com would never work.

[pcchen]

Originally Posted by Richard

So has been argued, like it was argued GOG.com would never work.

Does GOG.com allow you to sell a digital purchase to another user? If not, then "it was argued GOG.com would never work" is not relevant in this discussion.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by pcchen

Has the situation really got worse? Do you know that some of the earliest digital distributed software only allows a limited number of installations? I believe most digital distributed software don't do that anymore. That didn't take a legislation to accomplish.

Actually, that is still normal. Almost all G4WL have a limit of 15 installations, games that are sold on Steam still have installation limits (on Steam alone: http://steamdrm.flibitijibibo.com/in...e_Big_DRM_List), games like Borderlands, Crysis, Dirt 3, GTA4 Episodes, Batman Arkham City.

The problem with legislation on business matter is, in most case, the legislators don't really understand the underlying problem. They don't have to implement the system, nor they know what problems may occur when implementing such system. So, there bounds to be some very bad laws, which, when you look at it, may seem to be very good, but actually completely unworkable. Unfortunately, once something is written into the law, it can be very difficult to get rid of it.

You're correct in saying the legislator has no idea but that's why they're lobbied by the industry. See SOPA/PIPA and even going back a few years the DMCA. Practically every single piece of legislation about tecnology is driven by the industry.

I believe most people are satisfied with current digital distribution systems (well, at least some systems). Steam, for example, seems to be very popular (the Witcher 2 sold much more copies on Steam than on GOG, which is DRM-free).

Steam also has 40 million accounts. It was installed, almost as a trojan because it was the only way to play CS/HL2 - see also BF3, or do you believe Origin would have had 13 million accounts if BF3 or SW: TOR was available on Steam?. Not to mention payment options which GOG sorely lacks. Don't underrestimate the community focus Steam has. That's what's driving people to buy on Steam because they have full integration, friends can see what we're playing, competing for achievements, etc.

People don't seem to be very concerned about the fact that they can't sell those games they bought on Steam. If enough people started to demand for the ability to transfer their licenses to other account, I believe there will be some business willing to take this market.

And yet, when some people show concern they are shot down with FUD (the market would colapse, every publisher will move to subscription-based games, it will be worse for consumers). As for some business willing to take on this market: http://www.kitguru.net/software/gami...gital-content/

[Richard]

Originally Posted by pcchen

Does GOG.com allow you to sell a digital purchase to another user? If not, then "it was argued GOG.com would never work" is not relevant in this discussion.

The point I was trying to make is that simply arguing some new idea/product will fail does not make it so.

P.S. Also, I don't think anyone is under any illusions of the current stores allowing sale transactions. At best they'd allow license transfer.

[pcchen]

I think this discussion should already beyond that: I mean, already many possible downsides of a required license transfer for a digital distribution system was discussed, yet not too many solutions to these problems presented here.

This second-hand game problem was already discussed many times on this board. Basically, since I believe in efficient market, I support the right to sell used games, because it, in some way, make a market for games with more accurate prices (i.e. market prices), since most retailers are not allowed to sell games too much below its MSRP. However, with a vibrant used game market, a worse game is going to have worse second-hand sales value, and that helps the market to decide the real price of a game better.

However, this is for games with physical media. In the world of digital distribution, there are too many problems (some of them presented here by others) needs to be solved before this becoming "required by law." Without something to persuade the majority of publishers and developers that this is doable, most of them are just going to go the route that's even worse for consumers, such as a renting or subscription model. And apparently even the EU are not going to make laws forbidding these models.

GOG.com vs Steam is actually a very good example for DRM-free (a different issue) games. Most publishers don't believe in DRM-free games, because they fear that piracy would be rampant (note that this is not a recent thing, game publishers were trying to protect their games way back in the floppy disc era). GOG.com started by talking with publishers for backlog games, which most publishers think are already worthless (just like movies already shown on HBO regularly: they are practically worthless for movie studios). GOG.com provides a way to make money from something practically worthless, and that's why those publishers agree to provide DRM-free versions to them, because they have nothing to lose.

However, even with this, and I think GOG.com is already quite successful, they are still not able to afford to sell their games, DRM-free, all by their own. They still have to use Steam. Of course, most of the reason is that Steam has way too many users than GOG. But one may also argue that if consumers like this DRM-free game model so well, there should be even more publishers willing to replicate this. Apparently, there is none.

Now, what will happen if the government started to demand that all games should be DRM-free, and written it into law? It's likely to be even worse than this law.

[Richard]

Most of the problems being presented are doomsday scenarios taking absolute cases with 1.0 probability of situations that aren't even legal. Case in point: license transfer would allow multiplexing.

This is a non-starter because condition sine qua non for multiplexing is one owner having control over who uses what. If EA sells a game to Joe and Joe sells to Jane then Joe stops having access to the game to multiplex to another person. Jane would have to sell the game back to Joe for that to happen. Even if that were to happen, Joe could then be sued for renting the game rather than selling it which IS prohibited. Even if you ignore all this, for argument's sake, no company would make it easy to transfer licenses in bulk like you need for multiplexing. Like I mentioned previously, they'll make you endure 15 days or whatever of support calls every single time you want to transfer a license. So that's that "problem" solved.

The second issue I've seen raised, that you also mention, is that publishers are simply going to move to subscription-based games. Again, this problem is not a real one for two factors. First of all, we're already moving towards subscription-based gaming (see XBOX live, WoW and OnLive), this law has nothing to do with it. Secondly, as I retorted, publishers can do what they want: they can charge the same thing for a rented game. Didn't you imply that consumers aren't stupid? If people continue to buy rent games for 50/60 euros then they have no problems with this thus the law is okay. If they don't, publishers will drop the price or permit license transfer. Supply & demand.

The third issue, which is completely philosophical mind you, is the issue that because digital sales are not physical the same laws can't be applied. Why? Every day laws are applied in many different circunstances and contexts. Who gets to say which laws are applied where? Publishers? Again, why? The court here was very clear: a sale is a sale is a sale. What matters is that money exchanged hands. The money was for a sale and not for renting or some other kind of service.

Or do you argue that because DMCA was passed before digital distribution it can't be applied to digitally distributed games? Because taxes were created before there was currency it could only be applied to bartered goods?

It's fine to agree or disagree with the ruling but I haven't seen any strong arguments supporting the doomsday scenarios.

Now, what will happen if the government started to demand that all games should be DRM-free, and written it into law? It's likely to be even worse than this law.

Worse how? Worse for whom? What are your thoughts on goverment requiring that all market analysts disclose any and all relations they have with the companies that are advising about? Or that all new buildings be asbestos-free. Or the various consumer protection to guard against lemons? Or the prohibition on cartels?

Companies exist to make money. Everything else is just a means to make money. Self-regulation is contradictory to that goal. You need regulation to ensure that companies don't cause harm in their pursuit of their only goal. Quality control only exists because of government oversight (and regulation): you only follow a spec if you know someone will judge you against it.

WRT GOG, they now sell brand new games. Many publishers are not putting their (new) games there for the same reasons I've stated above: whilst they have no basis or proof it will be worse, they fear change. There are many such examples, see music industry and "mp3 downloads", even Steam got a very slow start despite having the backing of Valve/Half-Life 2.

[pcchen]

Originally Posted by Richard

Most of the problems being presented are doomsday scenarios taking absolute cases with 1.0 probability of situations that aren't even legal. Case in point: license transfer would allow multiplexing.

This is a non-starter because condition sine qua non for multiplexing is one owner having control over who uses what. If EA sells a game to Joe and Joe sells to Jane then Joe stops having access to the game to multiplex to another person. Jane would have to sell the game back to Joe for that to happen. Even if that were to happen, Joe could then be sued for renting the game rather than selling it which IS prohibited. Even if you ignore all this, for argument's sake, no company would make it easy to transfer licenses in bulk like you need for multiplexing. Like I mentioned previously, they'll make you endure 15 days or whatever of support calls every single time you want to transfer a license. So that's that "problem" solved.

So you think it's ok to let the publishers establish their own rules? Is it legal if the publisher only allow one to sell their licenses after a year? Or a month?

Furthermore, even with a "reasonable" time like a month, or 15 days, it's still possible to establish a "renting" system simply by asking those who wants to "rent" to transfer back the license back. All they need is to ask them to deposit some money in advance and guarantee that they can get the money (minus the "rent") back if they transfer the license back. It's hard to argue that this is "renting" because the "buyer" can choose to not return the license back.

Also, there's no apparent limitation on softwares with physical media, why should digital distributed games differ? If you believe that all software should obey the same law, why digital distributed softwares are allowed to set such limitation like 15 days or a call to the support?

So you see, digital distribution is indeed different.

The second issue I've seen raised, that you also mention, is that publishers are simply going to move to subscription-based games. Again, this problem is not a real one for two factors. First of all, we're already moving towards subscription-based gaming (see XBOX live, WoW and OnLive), this law has nothing to do with it. Secondly, as I retorted, publishers can do what they want: they can charge the same thing for a rented game. Didn't you imply that consumers aren't stupid? If people continue to buy rent games for 50/60 euros then they have no problems with this thus the law is okay. If they don't, publishers will drop the price or permit license transfer. Supply & demand.

I'm just saying that demanding digital distribution to allow license transfer will accelerate this trend. Consumers don't like rent things (as proved by the performance of renting and selling of home video on Apple ITMS). So publishers, at the moment, want to provide a way to let the consumers buy their software, instead of renting. (Surprisingly, publishers do know that they have to satisfy their consumers) However, if this second-hand law is established, publishers may believe that it's no longer a viable model and will have to go renting model.

And as you say, if it's simple supply & demand, there will be no need for such law. Publishers will have to permit license transfer if consumers really want that.

There are also many other problems that's not mentioned here. For example, right now, if your Steam account is hacked, all you have to do is to prove that you are the legitimate owner, reset your password, and all your games are back. However, if a license transfer is allowed, it's possible that all your games will be gone. You may say that Steam should cancel these license transfer if you can prove your account is hacked, but it's very difficult in practice, and those who "bought" these games may also be scammed, because they'll find the "used game" they bought with real money suddenly gone. This is a legal mine field many publishers are not willing to tackle. Either way, in the end we'll see a lot more account hacking and stealing because it'll actually be profitable.

Worse how? Worse for whom? What are your thoughts on goverment requiring that all market analysts disclose any and all relations they have with the companies that are advising about? Or that all new buildings be asbestos-free. Or the various consumer protection to guard against lemons? Or the prohibition on cartels?

I'm talking about DRM-free software, not those unrelated examples you mentioned. If the government require that all software to be DRM-free, then I can assure you that most commercial software will become service, be it cloud based or otherwise. Do you think this is better for consumers?

WRT GOG, they now sell brand new games. Many publishers are not putting their (new) games there for the same reasons I've stated above: whilst they have no basis or proof it will be worse, they fear change. There are many such examples, see music industry and "mp3 downloads", even Steam got a very slow start despite having the backing of Valve/Half-Life 2.

Of course, and my point is exactly that: GOG seems to be performing worse than Steam on the same game, which is actually published by GOG. Apparently, DRM-free is not that attractive to general consumers. But of course this is off-topic.

[pcchen]

Extra Credit made an episode about this issue:

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/digital-resale

It seems that they believe the most plausible way to do this is to let players to sell their games for store credit. I'm not sure if this fit the philosophy of the EU court decision though. Also this doesn't seem to help any with the free market idea, because the resale value is certainly decided by the store.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by pcchen

So you think it's ok to let the publishers establish their own rules? Is it legal if the publisher only allow one to sell their licenses after a year? Or a month?

That's exactly what I'm saying it will happen. If they blatantly break the law today, how much do you think they'll try to bend it?

Furthermore, even with a "reasonable" time like a month, or 15 days, it's still possible to establish a "renting" system simply by asking those who wants to "rent" to transfer back the license back. All they need is to ask them to deposit some money in advance and guarantee that they can get the money (minus the "rent") back if they transfer the license back. It's hard to argue that this is "renting" because the "buyer" can choose to not return the license back.

What you describe is called leasing and it is very well defined in law. It's not a sale and it's not a rent. Basically, if there's any legal-binding guarantee of getting money back it's not a sale. That's why "sales are final" can not be used in a regular sale over here because you always have 15 days to return a product (with some exceptions like underwear, perishables, etc.) and get a refund no questions asked. Yet another law digital stores break today. Apple is required by law to provide 2 years of full warranty here in Europe: they're now being sued for only covering the first year.

Also, there's no apparent limitation on softwares with physical media, why should digital distributed games differ? If you believe that all software should obey the same law, why digital distributed softwares are allowed to set such limitation like 15 days or a call to the support?

The original argument (not by you) was that physical media was not instantaneous while digital games were. I'm simply showing that, just like physical media, there can be artificial delays that make it non-instantaneous. If you argue that physical media is instantaneous (I just hand over my DVD to my friend) then digital games being instantaneous is no different at all.

Put another way: the argument of "transfer delay differences" is falacious because the time it takes to transfer ownership of purely physical products varies by the product itself and yet, the law doesn't vary: it takes longer to transfer ownership of an airplane versus a book but the exhaustion rule applies to both.

So publishers, at the moment, want to provide a way to let the consumers buy their software, instead of renting. (Surprisingly, publishers do know that they have to satisfy their consumers).

That's demonstrably false because of the existence of this ruling. Oracle's main case was that it did not sell but instead rented the license, therefor the exhaustion rule did not apply! For the last 20 years or so software EULAs have changed "software product" to "software license" and "sale" to "grant a license", hoping that would deflect First-Sale claims.

However, if this second-hand law is established, publishers may believe that it's no longer a viable model and will have to go renting model.

Like I said, this is not a second-hand law. This decision only recognises that digital products, like physical products before it, follow the exhaustion rule. There has been a second-hand market for as long as there have been home consoles (i.e. 30 years) and only now they're moving towards subscriptions/pay-per-play/etc.

And as you say, if it's simple supply & demand, there will be no need for such law.
Publishers will have to permit license transfer if consumers really want that.

Like they have supplied DRM-free games? Ask anyone if they prefer DRM-free games over any kind of DRM you care to mention or be forced to install SecuROM, or whatever. Have you ever seen anyone "like" DRM? At best you'll see comments about how they didn't have problems with it. Ask them if they'd prefer to play they Blu-Rays over non HDCP-compliant equipment or be forced to buy a new TV to enjoy the content they paid for, not because their old TV was lacking technically but because of copy protection. Customers didn't want DRM.

Turn it around and the argument you're making is: Companies will stop producing games because people just pirate them. If people want companies to continue to make games they'll have to stop pirating them. Because people want to continue to play new games they stop pirating, so there isn't any need for copy protection laws.

So, just like the DMCA and similar laws pushed by industry in the last two decades favouring companies, now comes a ruling favouring the consumer; why is it such a shock? Why weren't all the other cases of government regulation abusive?

There are also many other problems that's not mentioned here. For example, right now, if your Steam account is hacked, all you have to do is to prove that you are the legitimate owner, reset your password, and all your games are back.

As an aside, I had a incident with Steam roughly a year ago where, because of an update they did, my account was wiped of all games. This happened to a lot of people mind you. I did a few posts here, the Steam forums were rioting. Long story short I spent 19 days on their support system without access to my games, most of which single-player but let's not even go there. Even after providing the purchase receipts for every single one of my games they wouldn't restore them. Finally, in desperation I PMed a Valve employee (not a support staff) on the forums which finally admitted they had a DB problem and restored my account. And THEY caused the problem, imagine if my account had been hacked.

However, if a license transfer is allowed, it's possible that all your games will be gone. You may say that Steam should cancel these license transfer if you can prove your account is hacked, but it's very difficult in practice, and those who "bought" these games may also be scammed, because they'll find the "used game" they bought with real money suddenly gone. This is a legal mine field many publishers are not willing to tackle. Either way, in the end we'll see a lot more account hacking and stealing because it'll actually be profitable.

Another perfect example of government regulation. That's why banks are required by law to reimburse customers of drawn funds when their account is accessed illegally where the bank cannot prove gross negligence. Why the need for such a law if banks would quite obviously (sarcasm) do the right thing for their customers! I'm sure a clever lawyer could drag Steam into this requirement, now that customers can deposit funds in the Steam Wallet.

I'm talking about DRM-free software, not those unrelated examples you mentioned. If the government require that all software to be DRM-free, then I can assure you that most commercial software will become service, be it cloud based or otherwise. Do you think this is better for consumers?

Those examples are related because you're arguing government has no business regulating the industry. That's why I pointed out fairly diverse examples of situations or industries where government regulation/oversight is quite obviously needed. You simply disagree that DRM needs regulation. It's fine to disagree.

But WRT your question, see my signature. I'm quite pragmatic: it will be better in some aspects and it will be worse in others. One thing I don't fear is change. The video game market was better off after the crash of 83. Sometimes you need a forest fire to clear away the debris and start anew.

Of course, and my point is exactly that: GOG seems to be performing worse than Steam on the same game, which is actually published by GOG. Apparently, DRM-free is not that attractive to general consumers. But of course this is off-topic.

You can't compare sales numbers directly. The two stores aren't comparable on community features, payment options (my favourite payment option isn't available on GOG - yes, I've compained to them already), or even something as simple as brand recognition. You and me can immediately acertain whether GoG is trustworthy or not. If a regular joe wants to buy online what store do you think they'll recognise, therefor trust, therefor buy from? Probably Amazon. Anyway, what drives people to buy the exact same game on Steam versus Gog could be any number of factors that override the DRM: i.e. correlation and causality. One thing we are sure is that GoG is growing in members, sales and (newer) games.

EDIT: I should add that I have no intention of selling any of my games. Well, perhaps NWN which is my only regret - but it's a physical copy so... Anyway, I'm only interested in this discussion for the principle of the thing.

[pcchen]

Originally Posted by Richard

What you describe is called leasing and it is very well defined in law. It's not a sale and it's not a rent. Basically, if there's any legal-binding guarantee of getting money back it's not a sale.

Of course, you can patch the law to forbid this to happen, but as you said, there will be holes.

The original argument (not by you) was that physical media was not instantaneous while digital games were. I'm simply showing that, just like physical media, there can be artificial delays that make it non-instantaneous. If you argue that physical media is instantaneous (I just hand over my DVD to my friend) then digital games being instantaneous is no different at all.

Actually there's still big difference. You can transfer a digital license to any one on the earth at any time almost instantaneous. I doubt that you can do that with a physical media, unless you happen to have an access to a Star Trek beaming machine.

Put another way: the argument of "transfer delay differences" is falacious because the time it takes to transfer ownership of purely physical products varies by the product itself and yet, the law doesn't vary: it takes longer to transfer ownership of an airplane versus a book but the exhaustion rule applies to both.

But has anything in the history ever to be like digital distribution, where it can be near instant to anywhere on the earth? I guess maybe money? (and money do have different rules, for different reasons)

That's demonstrably false because of the existence of this ruling. Oracle's main case was that it did not sell but instead rented the license, therefor the exhaustion rule did not apply! For the last 20 years or so software EULAs have changed "software product" to "software license" and "sale" to "grant a license", hoping that would deflect First-Sale claims.

Since Oracle already wants to go the renting model, this ruling is not going to change that. However, for those publishers who don't want to go all renting model, this ruling may make them more likely to go that way. And this is my main problem with this ruling.

Like they have supplied DRM-free games? Ask anyone if they prefer DRM-free games over any kind of DRM you care to mention or be forced to install SecuROM, or whatever. Have you ever seen anyone "like" DRM? At best you'll see comments about how they didn't have problems with it. Ask them if they'd prefer to play they Blu-Rays over non HDCP-compliant equipment or be forced to buy a new TV to enjoy the content they paid for, not because their old TV was lacking technically but because of copy protection. Customers didn't want DRM.

Of course, just like most people don't like cops, or tax. But they are sometimes necessary, or at least "have no problem with it".

Turn it around and the argument you're making is: Companies will stop producing games because people just pirate them. If people want companies to continue to make games they'll have to stop pirating them. Because people want to continue to play new games they stop pirating, so there isn't any need for copy protection laws.

Really? I mean, if we look at adult entertainment industry, it looks like piracy is basically killing it. Some news reports said that many "actors" and "actresses" have to do something like "internet live show" to maintain their livelihood. Of course, that's what people said about "finding new business model," but I think it's natural to assume that if this goes on they'll abandon traditional adult movies and go for "live show only" model.

So, just like the DMCA and similar laws pushed by industry in the last two decades favouring companies, now comes a ruling favouring the consumer; why is it such a shock? Why weren't all the other cases of government regulation abusive?

Because DMCA is bad. This ruling, IMHO, is not much better (although it may look good on the surface).

As an aside, I had a incident with Steam roughly a year ago where, because of an update they did, my account was wiped of all games. This happened to a lot of people mind you. I did a few posts here, the Steam forums were rioting. Long story short I spent 19 days on their support system without access to my games, most of which single-player but let's not even go there. Even after providing the purchase receipts for every single one of my games they wouldn't restore them. Finally, in desperation I PMed a Valve employee (not a support staff) on the forums which finally admitted they had a DB problem and restored my account. And THEY caused the problem, imagine if my account had been hacked.

But at least they can get your games back. If your account is hacked and all game licenses are transferred to other accounts, you can imagine that it's going to be much harder to get them back. But of course, since you actually paid money to them, even if your licenses are stolen, they are still more likely to get your game back (and cancel the license transfer).

Another perfect example of government regulation. That's why banks are required by law to reimburse customers of drawn funds when their account is accessed illegally where the bank cannot prove gross negligence. Why the need for such a law if banks would quite obviously (sarcasm) do the right thing for their customers! I'm sure a clever lawyer could drag Steam into this requirement, now that customers can deposit funds in the Steam Wallet.

Actually you can see that's my argument is that Steam will get them back if the user can prove that the account was hacked. However, those transferred licenses are likely to be "sold" to other innocent people on e-bay or other second-hand channels. Those are very unlikely to get their money back from the scammers. So this is still profitable for scammers.

Right now, hacking Steam account is already somewhat profitable, because many have credit cards associated with their Steam account, and right now it's possible to "gift" games (buy a new game and send it to another account) in Steam. But at least there's extra protection from credit card companies.

Those examples are related because you're arguing government has no business regulating the industry. That's why I pointed out fairly diverse examples of situations or industries where government regulation/oversight is quite obviously needed. You simply disagree that DRM needs regulation. It's fine to disagree.

No, I'm not against regulations. I am against bad regulations. This ruling is, IMHO, a bad regulation, for those obvious reasons discussed on this board. I believe there are going to be even more problems after this ruling is established.

You can't compare sales numbers directly. The two stores aren't comparable on community features, payment options (my favourite payment option isn't available on GOG - yes, I've compained to them already), or even something as simple as brand recognition. You and me can immediately acertain whether GoG is trustworthy or not. If a regular joe wants to buy online what store do you think they'll recognise, therefor trust, therefor buy from? Probably Amazon. Anyway, what drives people to buy the exact same game on Steam versus Gog could be any number of factors that override the DRM: i.e. correlation and causality. One thing we are sure is that GoG is growing in members, sales and (newer) games.

My point is, GOG is just a start (though already for a few years). However, DRM-free vendors and platforms are still in the very minority. Why is that? I mean, customers certainly don't want DRM, as you said, but why don't they embrace the DRM-free platforms? And DRM has been there in various form for decades.

Of course, Steam is much larger and more popular. But this can be seen as the market working. Apparently, DRM-ed games are more profitable, so they can spend more money on making more payment options available, marketing, or even better games. For game developers, DRM is also extra work. If DRM-free sells more, they wouldn't do that. But again, this is off-topic.

[Davros]

FDSL Enables Used Digital Game Sales

German software developer GDC Game and Download Company announces they are ready to roll out FDSL (Fast Download Technology with Streaming Logic) to digital distributors as a way of facilitating the trade in used games, saying this will enable them to comply with a recent legal ruling in Europe about used digital games: