[loup-vaillant]

If the vendor requires a license to let you run software on a powerful multi-media (sound, image, input, network) device they sold you, then I can tell you they put restrictions on what would otherwise be a general purpose computer. In my opinion, such crippling should be illegal.

For instance: the iPhone. It would definitely be general purpose if you didn't have to go through the App Store™.

Your microwave oven is different: minimum input, minimum display, one main purpose (heat food). Properly constructed ones can easily be bug-free on the first try, no need for patches. The firmware may even be fused into a strictly read-only chip. Clearly single purpose.

Personally, I'd tentatively set the limit at programmability: if there's any way to reprogram a machine, the user should be able to do it without authorization from the vendor. (We could make exceptions, for instance break control software in cars: such software should probably be tested to death and vetted by regulation. Preventing users from rolling their own may be justified to avoid untimely deaths on the road. Though "preventing" here could mean "legally disallow" rather than "use DRM". Not sure which is best.)

[dleslie]

> In my opinion, such crippling should be illegal.

But I want that, as a consumer. For example: part of the benefit, perhaps one of the greatest benefits, is knowing that everyone using the device is subject to the same constraints. This makes cheating in online games on consoles much harder on consoles. It still happens, but it's much harder.

Why should it be illegal to sell me a device that limits the use of arbitrary code? I _want_ that in the product I'm buying.

[loup-vaillant]

Ah, yes, cheating. Yet somehow, we have competitive games on the PC. So no, I don't buy that argument.

[dleslie]

PC competitive games are rampant with cheating; the cost of keeping cheaters off games is so astronomical that only major studios can afford to do it, and even still, cheating remains rampant. It's why cash prizes are fought over in hardware controlled venues.

While on consoles... It's much better.

[loup-vaillant]

Oh, I totally get that it's harder. At some point though, if you're serious about competition, you organise a LAN. (Too bad games gradually moved away from LAN altogether.)

More generally, locked down hardware means you have to trust a central third party. The cypherpunk in me doesn't like that. There has to be a better way (though I don't know what).

[dleslie]

LANs are just a way of locking down the hardware and software of the competitors; they also aren't a viable option if you're unable to be physically near to your opponents.

The better way is to buy a general computing device if that's what you prefer, and let others buy their locked down devices if that's what they prefer.

[loup-vaillant]

Here's the thing: I'm not sure we can, in the long run, have it both ways. Not naturally anyway. The current tendency seems to go towards generalised lock down. It started with game consoles. Then iOS. And now even on the desktop, we see scary warnings from Windows and bypassing signature verification in MacOS is actually difficult if you don't know the procedure already. And soon, maybe those warnings will turn into hard errors?

For me to chose an open device, that open device has to exist in the first place. Where is the open equivalent of the PS5? I don't see any. And even if it did: I bet many competitive game would exclusively found in the locked down version. Or, more insidiously, there would be two arena: the locked down one with fewer (or no?) cheaters, and the open one with (presumably) all the cheaters. There would be a strong incentive to get the locked down version for this reason alone, and one isn't going to waste money & resources on a redundant piece of electronics just so they can play without cheats and access the homebrew market.

Now that I think of it, there might be a way: how about optional signatures? You'd take the same hardware, and run it in two modes: the open mode, and the signed mode. The signed mode would be thoroughly locked down by the hardware vendor, and run only signed code. This could affect networking too: just sign the encryption keys with the secure chip, and pass that along with a certificate from Nintendo or whoever. That way one would know the communication was initiated in "signed mode", thus guaranteeing the integrity of the game's binary, just like we would in an actually locked down console.

Heck, we could go even a step further: have the hardware security module be swappable. That way we can separate the hardware vendor from the certificate authority. Of course, they'd be one and the same by default, but we could still switch for another if we need to. (You could have a tournament specific CA, or the hardware vendor could revoke it's own HSM and send a new one to people.)

DRM for the people. Never thought I'd say that.