The Needles: Michael Pachter, Ubisoft and the Perils of Rights and Wrong

[Samurai Goomba]

Actually I think the problem is that Michael Pachter didn't focus much on the effects on legitimate users. Their rights to own and use their own games as they see fit, which is where he fails. What a company like Ubisoft is doing does not just protect their property, but infringes on the rights of those who purchused the games legally.

As far as Ubisoft being legally right, I am not entirely sure about that one. I suppose it can be argued legally, but only because I feel the goverment has yet to seriously pay attention to the games industry and what it does. All of this junk about EULAs and the like are legally dubious because they are something that you run into AFTER you've paid money and can't return the product. That's a key element that all of these arguements seem to miss entirely.

I think to some extent the games industry has gotten away without signifigant legal investigation or action, that it has developed something of a god complex when it comes to their "rights" to abuse customers. Things like price fixing, arranging release schedules to avoid direct competition, and similar things are all illegal at least in the US. Heck they publicly admit to large scale "game developer conferances" which exist to more or less set industry policy and standards. Before someone questions this, consider that this is pretty much what gas companies have been under investigation/in battle over for years now, over fixing prices at the gas pumps and coordinating price hikes accross the spectrum (which is what the games industry did a few years ago when they raised game prices by $10 accross the board). It's just that nobody yet cares.

To me, I think DRM is immoral, hurts legitimate buyers (which some people do mention), and when it's draconian and affects what you can do with your property is not properly presented like a contract should be before you pay money for what is more or less an unreturnable product.

Stop and think about this some time. Pirates aren't right, but neither is the game industry. Neither has a moral high ground here. Legitimate customers are the ones getting hurt by what amounts to two groups of criminals duking it out.

Such is my opinion.

This is basically what I came here to say.

You like gabbing off about legal rights (directed at the OP), and "actual" rights, but the fact of the matter is that many times DRM, in addition to not affecting pirates at all, infringes on the LEGAL RIGHTS of legitimate customers.

So yeah. Sorry, but your article is wrong. Any "actual right" which infringes on the legal rights of others is not a right at all but something we have allowed a company to get away with.

I wish people would stop seeing the word "EULA" and reading "legally binding contract," because in truth it's as Therumancer said-a big part of why game companies get away with what they do is because it's never been popular for lawyers to defend the legal rights of gamers.

If you want to present this article as 100% opinion, then fine. But when one argues about objective morality or at least legal morality, I feel obligated to point out (even if I was beaten to it slightly by the fine fellow I quoted) the massive holes in your argument.

EULAs are not contracts people need to stop pretending they are. Copyright laws are pretty clear in countries and all countries that are a part of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (almost all of them) share copyrights across boards and have the same basic protections.

First Sale Doctrine (using the US example but mostly the same everywhere) means you own a copy of whatever material you bought. Inherent is the rights to sale the copy, and use the copy how you please. Think of a book. This is the traditional way to view copyrighted materials sold on some type of media, and the one I believe they should force companies to abide by.

Software companies try to get around this by saying they are selling you a license to use their product, not a copy of the software. The EULAs are to that effect. However courts have held up in some situations where if the EULA was not fully disclosed to the customer prior to the sell (remember not agreeing means you can't use it, and since you have to start to install it to see it you can no longer return the opened copy of the software) that the EULA is void that First Sale Doctrine applies.

Just because they put it in writing does not mean it's legal.

Also, this.

 

[Callate]

For me, the bottom line is this: while this particular system of DRM is in place, I'm not buying new games from Ubisoft. It may be your "right" to make legitimate consumers navigate a maze of barbed wire and attack dogs just to get to the content they allegedly, in the consumer-screwing pile of licenses and small print that constitutes a modern EULA, purchased. Just as it may be your "right" to carry assault weapons in heavy populated public areas, or scream that the person whose funeral is being held is going to hell (your local laws may vary, lucky you.) But that it is a "right" you're exercising doesn't mean you aren't a huge asshole.

 

[mjc0961]

What I want to know is this: Why does anyone give a shit what Pachter has to say in the first place?

But if I had to comment more specifically on this, I'd say that I don't like that he seems to think anyone disagreeing with Ubisoft's right to make consumers jump through hoops is automatically a pirate who doesn't "pay for stuff". I pay for plenty of stuff, thank you very much. Just no stuff with the Ubisoft logo (and EA logo on a PC box) because their DRM is shit. And by not paying for that, I don't mean pirating. I mean not playing it at all.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I came to grips with this before Pachter ever opened his mouth.
Ubisoft wants to force DRM down my throat? Fine. I don't do business with Ubisoft. If it says "Ubisoft" on the package as either publisher or developer, I don't even look at it.

Vote with your wallet.

 

[mjc0961]

Example is not in place and not nearly of what I am saying, He did steal money that you in one time had. Developers never had that money and under no circumstances they wouldn't have that money.

You people just can't fit in your heads the logic. Next time read all my posts on this subject and when you come near of the point, then answer, until then you are just wasting time of both of us.

I think they point they were going for here is "If you didn't pay for the game, you don't have the right to play it."

You can try to justify your piracy all you want, but if you didn't buy a copy, you shouldn't get to play.

 

[Atmos Duality]

You can try to justify your piracy all you want, but if you didn't buy a copy, you shouldn't get to play.

Heh. And Ubisoft responds with "You bought the game, you might get to play."
Legally, that is barely inches above being a scam.

Piracy is piracy. It is not justifiable by law. Ever. No argument presented to date can change that.

To quote a (butchered) old proverb.
"If there is poison in the wound, it must be cut out before it spreads."
Vote with your money if you think DRM is wrong. Don't buy. Don't pirate. Let them die in obscurity.

 

[mjc0961]

You can try to justify your piracy all you want, but if you didn't buy a copy, you shouldn't get to play.

Heh. And Ubisoft responds with "You bought the game, you might get to play."
Legally, that is barely inches above being a scam.

Piracy is piracy. It is not justifiable by law. Ever. No argument presented to date can change that.

To quote a (butchered) old proverb.
"If there is poison in the wound, it must be cut out before it spreads."
Vote with your money if you think DRM is wrong. Don't buy. Don't pirate. Let them die in obscurity.

Yeah, I knew all that already. I don't pirate anything, I just don't play it at all. I'd love to play Command and Conquer 4, but what's this? Always online DRM scheme? Suddenly I don't want to play anymore.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I came to grips with this before Pachter ever opened his mouth.
Ubisoft wants to force DRM down my throat? Fine. I don't do business with Ubisoft. If it says "Ubisoft" on the package as either publisher or developer, I don't even look at it.

Vote with your wallet.

Exactly. For those wanting to send a message to Ubi, this is the only way to do it. Don't like how they're running things, then don't play their games, period.

When Ubi sees you pirate their games all they are seeing is people who want their games. The jury is still somewhat out on just how many extra copies would be sold if piracy was literally impossible, but Ubi doesn't see it that way. All Ubi sees in pirates are people who are playing their games who didn't pay for them and all they want is to make those people pony up.

 

[midpipps]

Example is not in place and not nearly of what I am saying, He did steal money that you in one time had. Developers never had that money and under no circumstances they wouldn't have that money.

You people just can't fit in your heads the logic. Next time read all my posts on this subject and when you come near of the point, then answer, until then you are just wasting time of both of us.

I think they point they were going for here is "If you didn't pay for the game, you don't have the right to play it."

You can try to justify your piracy all you want, but if you didn't buy a copy, you shouldn't get to play.

Agreed

I came to grips with this before Pachter ever opened his mouth.
Ubisoft wants to force DRM down my throat? Fine. I don't do business with Ubisoft. If it says "Ubisoft" on the package as either publisher or developer, I don't even look at it.

Vote with your wallet.

Exactly. For those wanting to send a message to Ubi, this is the only way to do it. Don't like how they're running things, then don't play their games, period.

When Ubi sees you pirate their games all they are seeing is people who want their games. The jury is still somewhat out on just how many extra copies would be sold if piracy was literally impossible, but Ubi doesn't see it that way. All Ubi sees in pirates are people who are playing their games who didn't pay for them and all they want is to make those people pony up.

Also this

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Don't know if anyone mentioned it yet, but there was any article on this site a few days ago that mentioned what some pirated copies of Arkham Asylum used as a way to deter pirating: it removed a small game mechanic, but this made a portion of the game near impossible to beat. It took out the ability for Batman to jump/glide. Regular bought copies of the game functioned as normal. I think doing something like that would target the people the companies are trying to target without hurting those of us who purchase the game.

Thoughts?

Pirates can undo that kind of thing too. It's inventive, I like it...but it's a stall at best.

I think it's sad that pc gaming is heading this way. I already have steam and games for windows live and...god knows what else installed. I don't want it to get to the stage where every company has their own form of protection that requires a login and a constant net connection.

As for "100% correct"...when is any position ever 100% correct? He may have touched on truths, but he was meant to be answering a question from a fan, who asked specifically if the online DRM was a good idea, not whether it was morally right...Mr Pachter vaguely addressed the issue of DRM and otherwise completely missed the point of the question. He may have made a decent point or two, but in the context he sounded like an asshole.

If the implication is that we should expect Mr Pachter to go off on a tangent and adjust our understanding accordingly, maybe he shouldn't mislead us by posing a fan question to himself and then ignoring it. Context matters...


"Games developers don't care if you resell it, or give it away"
Wrong. They care very much.

 

[poiuppx]

I remember back in the day, when PC gaming mattered. It doesn't. Not anymore. And DRM helped cause that, big time. You don't hear about the cool new RPGs or first-person shooters made special for the home computer like you would in the 90s, because that market is becoming more restrictive while other avenues have opened up. Instead of seeking ways to bring in new gamers, companies focus on punishing existing offenders. This is not a strategy that leads to long term viability.

I wouldn't be surprised if this arms race keeps going. Ubisoft and the like aren't going to be shutting down their PC development wings for some time, and so long as they keep going, the hackers and crackers will keep going, releasing both direct digital copies and CD cracks intended to circumvent this sort of DRM on legally obtained copies. No, digital piracy isn't right. If you enjoy something, then logically, you should pay for the enjoyment. Just because you think a movie is going to suck doesn't mean you can walk into the theatre and have a seat in the back row without paying. In doing so, you'e not sticking it to the man; you're hurting everyone involved in the process, from the guys who made the movie down to the guy at the front selling tickets.

But what Ubisoft and their ilk don't get is that they're poisoning the watering hole to kill the bandits. Long term, this WILL end the PC gaming market as anything but a platform for casual, indie, and MMO games. And even then, those three are starting to look to home consoles as brighter waters with better sales figures. Gamers are looking for ways to avoid restrictive DRM schemes so they can play what they bought with their own money; consoles provide that out of box.

And to all those who harp on about PC games being unresellable, there's a website. It's called eBay. No, it's not a perfect fix, but if you're so damn desperate to sell your games, you DO have options, regardless of what the companies or GameStop or any of that ilk might say.

 

[Sabrestar]

My problem with Pachter in this article is not so much his stance on DRM but his closing attitude of "If you disagree with me, you're a bloody pirate and you should be in jail."

Questioning this stance doesn't make me a pirate. I did not buy Assassin's Creed 2 and I am not going to. Nor am I going to pirate it. I'm going to choose to avoid it altogether because I refuse to accept the terms required for it.

Sure, lots (hell, maybe even most) of the people who disagree with Pachter here are going to pirate the game. But that doesn't mean everyone will and it doesn't make everyone who thinks differently a criminal. The implication of criminalising dissent is definitely not a place he wants to go.

 

[geizr]

I've noticed two basic things in my surfings of forum posts, both on the Escapist and elsewhere.

The first is that no matter how one rationalizes piracy, there are really only 3 prime reasons I can see why someone does it: being lazy, cheap, and a self-centered douche-bag; I've heard other reasons, but those reasons turn out to be just covers for this same set of 3. If it's not a necessity of life, like food, air, water, and shelter, you can just live without it.

The second is that nerd-rage always seems to center on a skewed childish sense of entitlement--"I want this; I want that; I want everything. Give me anything, cause that's what I want and that's what I like, and you better give it to me now!"(Hell, many adults are like this.)--which, of course, blinds them to any sort of reason or rationality. Their shrill posts often bare this attitude out when a situation is presented in which they can't get what they want or can't get it easily.

I've mentioned elsewhere that I agree Ubisoft is 100% in their legal, and even moral, right to act as they have, creating the DRM system that they have. However, at the same time, customers are 100% in their right to not purchase a product they deem is devalued(or inconvenient) as a result of such an aforementioned system(or for any other various reasons, such as it being made by Apple, Microsoft, Google, The Favorite to Hate This Week Company, etc.). This does not give license, right, or entitlement to pirate in any way, shape, or form; it is merely a choice to be without the product or find alternatives that can be purchased. This is not a question of right and wrong; it's merely a question of customer choice of values and sound business strategy. Inconveniencing your customers unnecessarily, treating your customers poorly, and devaluing your product, in the judgement of your customers, while continuing to charge a significant price does not lead to a sound business strategy, in my assessment.

 

[poiuppx]

My problem with Pachter in this article is not so much his stance on DRM but his closing attitude of "If you disagree with me, you're a bloody pirate and you should be in jail."

Questioning this stance doesn't make me a pirate. I did not buy Assassin's Creed 2 and I am not going to. Nor am I going to pirate it. I'm going to choose to avoid it altogether because I refuse to accept the terms required for it.

Sure, lots (hell, maybe even most) of the people who disagree with Pachter here are going to pirate the game. But that doesn't mean everyone will and it doesn't make everyone who thinks differently a criminal. The implication of criminalising dissent is definitely not a place he wants to go.

I'd argue criminalizing dissent is EXACTLY what the industry would like to accomplish. If you can't argue against it, you can't fight it. You can only accept it.

 

[thepj]

Actually I think the problem is that Michael Pachter didn't focus much on the effects on legitimate users. Their rights to own and use their own games as they see fit, which is where he fails. What a company like Ubisoft is doing does not just protect their property, but infringes on the rights of those who purchused the games legally.

Let me put it this way, if Ubisoft goes out of business, meaning no servers and online verification, how do I play the game I paid a bunch of money for? I as a consumer have the right to MY property indefinatly. Some of us do play old games, some of which are a decade or more old, and I feel that is our right.

As far as Ubisoft being legally right, I am not entirely sure about that one. I suppose it can be argued legally, but only because I feel the goverment has yet to seriously pay attention to the games industry and what it does. All of this junk about EULAs and the like are legally dubious because they are something that you run into AFTER you've paid money and can't return the product. That's a key element that all of these arguements seem to miss entirely.

I think to some extent the games industry has gotten away without signifigant legal investigation or action, that it has developed something of a god complex when it comes to their "rights" to abuse customers. Things like price fixing, arranging release schedules to avoid direct competition, and similar things are all illegal at least in the US. Heck they publicly admit to large scale "game developer conferances" which exist to more or less set industry policy and standards. Before someone questions this, consider that this is pretty much what gas companies have been under investigation/in battle over for years now, over fixing prices at the gas pumps and coordinating price hikes accross the spectrum (which is what the games industry did a few years ago when they raised game prices by $10 accross the board). It's just that nobody yet cares.

To me, I think DRM is immoral, hurts legitimate buyers (which some people do mention), and when it's draconian and affects what you can do with your property is not properly presented like a contract should be before you pay money for what is more or less an unreturnable product.

Stop and think about this some time. Pirates aren't right, but neither is the game industry. Neither has a moral high ground here. Legitimate customers are the ones getting hurt by what amounts to two groups of criminals duking it out.

Such is my opinion.

I do beleive that you are 100% right, at the very least someone in the courts (not just in the US but in Europe and other places needs too) take a serious look at the game develpoer's policy and actions.

as for the Ubisot thing the consummers I think need to get their colective acts together and get them to provide some form of provision for when they go out of buissnes. A petition maybe?

All in all I think Valve's steam stystem is as stated in the article, something of a holy grail when it comes to this kind of thing, monitering games via user acounts and passwords (which as i'm sure everyone hooked up to steam in any way knows) allows you to install steam on multiple computers and just re download your games onto multiple machines. Barring ilegal hacks and account sharing there seems to be little worng with that system. Although I must admit having no DRM whatsoever and trusting to goodwill seams like it would keep everyone happy =D.

 

[thepj]

I remember back in the day, when PC gaming mattered. It doesn't. Not anymore. And DRM helped cause that, big time. You don't hear about the cool new RPGs or first-person shooters made special for the home computer like you would in the 90s, because that market is becoming more restrictive while other avenues have opened up. Instead of seeking ways to bring in new gamers, companies focus on punishing existing offenders. This is not a strategy that leads to long term viability.

I wouldn't be surprised if this arms race keeps going. Ubisoft and the like aren't going to be shutting down their PC development wings for some time, and so long as they keep going, the hackers and crackers will keep going, releasing both direct digital copies and CD cracks intended to circumvent this sort of DRM on legally obtained copies. No, digital piracy isn't right. If you enjoy something, then logically, you should pay for the enjoyment. Just because you think a movie is going to suck doesn't mean you can walk into the theatre and have a seat in the back row without paying. In doing so, you'e not sticking it to the man; you're hurting everyone involved in the process, from the guys who made the movie down to the guy at the front selling tickets.

But what Ubisoft and their ilk don't get is that they're poisoning the watering hole to kill the bandits. Long term, this WILL end the PC gaming market as anything but a platform for casual, indie, and MMO games. And even then, those three are starting to look to home consoles as brighter waters with better sales figures. Gamers are looking for ways to avoid restrictive DRM schemes so they can play what they bought with their own money; consoles provide that out of box.

And to all those who harp on about PC games being unresellable, there's a website. It's called eBay. No, it's not a perfect fix, but if you're so damn desperate to sell your games, you DO have options, regardless of what the companies or GameStop or any of that ilk might say.

Agreed

Ubisoft needs a serious slap round the face, but so do the pirates.

 

[bismarck55]

I expect to be banned for this post but it has to be said so here goes.

Anyone who thinks piracy is theft is a FUCKING MORON!

If walk into my local game shop and STEAL a copy of Dragon Age (for example) then said game shop (and potentially the publisher and developer, more on that in a moment) has just lost money because they will never be able to sell that copy and get a return on their investment. however, if I download a torrent then game shop, publisher and developer have only potentially lost money (depending on whether I was ever actually going to buy it). Piracy is wrong, theft is wrong, but they are two different things and one is the lesser of two evils. just because someone will play your game when they have access to it for free, does not mean that they are willing (or able) to pay to play it.

 

[Andy Chalk]

Actually I think the problem is that Michael Pachter didn't focus much on the effects on legitimate users. Their rights to own and use their own games as they see fit, which is where he fails. What a company like Ubisoft is doing does not just protect their property, but infringes on the rights of those who purchused the games legally.

This is pretty much exactly what I'm talking about. Where do you get the idea that you have a legal right to own and use videogames as you see fit? It's a completely false assumption from which a lot of seriously misinformed opinions flow.

 

[Andy Chalk]

I don't think publishers have the right to do whatever they want to stop piracy, there is a line in the sand and that line is making things difficult/annoying/restrictive for PAYING customers. Ubisoft crossed it, which is why i haven't bought the latest Settlers game in spite of being a huge fan of the series.

Okay, well, you're wrong. That said, assuming your response to Ubi's nonsense is to just not buy the game, then well done, you've made the right move.

That's really kind of the point. Ubisoft has the right to use any DRM system it wants. We have the right to call bullshit and not buy. Full stop. That's where a real dialog about piracy should begin, but it can't because people insist on clinging to selfish, sometimes idiotic ideas about what they're entitled to.

 

[Andy Chalk]

You like gabbing off about legal rights (directed at the OP), and "actual" rights, but the fact of the matter is that many times DRM, in addition to not affecting pirates at all, infringes on the LEGAL RIGHTS of legitimate customers.

Such as?

Before you bring up the Sony thing (as someone else already did) do bear in mind that I specifically stated that companies have the right to employ whatever DRM methods they like "within the confines of the law." (Something like that, anyway.) Obviously they can't come over to your house and kneecap you if they catch you downloading their stuff.

But this is all missing the point. This isn't even about DRM, it's about talking about DRM. And the point is that it's impossible to have a meaningful conversation about DRM and how we, collectively, can come up with effective, consumer-friendly methods of copy protection because everyone involved is just way too hot and ready to jump into the action with both guns blazing, no matter how misinformed or wildly off-base their opinions may be.

Case in point: Read up.