[Karunamon]

Because DRM can't be good.

This is a philosophical position, not an infallible universal truth.

The problem with DRM, in general, boiled down to it's most salient point, is that it destroys value. It gets in your way, treats you like a criminal, and generally makes your life miserable so the people who made the attached product can feel like they're flipping off those eeeevul pirates.

Every system I can think of meets that definition, with one exception: Steam.

What's the benefit to me of SecuRom? There isn't one.

What't the benefit to me of Steam? I get all my games in one place, my save files synchronized across an unlimited number of machines, user-generated DLC automatically brought in (and synchronized the same way), in-home streaming, library sharing, the whole social network, in game overlay providing same and web access, some unheard-of-elsewhere sales, and quite a lot more.

What's more, if despite all of that you're still not interested and would prefer to go back to the dark ages, Steamworks is trivially defeated with an emulator program.

[shmerl]

> This is a philosophical position, not an infallible universal truth.

Not more than the claim that police state is evil. We aren't talking about moral relativity here however.

> The problem with DRM, in general, boiled down to it's most salient point, is that it destroys value.

Somehow ethical problems of DRM you try to devalue, while practical problems of DRM (like being infective against piracy and punishing legitimate users) you promote as the main issue with it. I don't think that's proper. However both are enough of a reason to never use DRM.

> What't the benefit to me of Steam? I get all my games in one place, my save files synchronized across an unlimited number of machines

Benefits of Steam have nothing to do with it having DRM. They could all be provided in a DRM-free fashion. Yet they chose not to.

[Karunamon]

We are talking about why your moral stance should be applicable to me, complete with comparisons to a police state (of all things..)

You haven't convinced me yet.

The fact that you feel there are ethical problems is again a philosophical position.

[shmerl]

The premise of DRM is the same as police state ideas, that doesn't require convincing, it's the very definition of it. Whether you find it acceptable or unethical is another question however.

See also updates above about other points.

[Karunamon]

You'll forgive me for regarding your implication that "Log in to play your games" is somehow equivalent to a police state, as utter nonsense.

[shmerl]

If that wasn't clear, here is a simple explanation.

DRM is built on the presumption of guilt and overreaching preemptive policing. These are quite standard features of some abusive police state ideology. It was well spelled out by one Sony exec: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_rootkit#Background

> "The industry will take whatever steps it needs to protect itself and protect its revenue streams... It will not lose that revenue stream, no matter what... Sony is going to take aggressive steps to stop this. We will develop technology that transcends the individual user. We will firewall Napster at source - we will block it at your cable company. We will block it at your phone company. We will block it at your ISP. We will firewall it at your PC... These strategies are being aggressively pursued because there is simply too much at stake."

Concise and to the point. That's what DRM is about. I.e. assuming everyone potentially criminal, and policing everyone preemptively in abusive fashion which violates one's privacy (because DRM is found in your private digital space). This core idea applies to any DRM by its definition.

I hope this makes the analogy with police state approach more clear.

[freehunter]

I think what you mean is that DRM is like the police, and bad DRM is like a police state. The police are there to enforce what you can and cannot do. Do they stop 100% of people? No. Bad people can get away with bad things that good people can't, just like pirates can break pretty much any DRM system. But in a normally functioning society, good (normal) people don't really notice that the police are there. They understand the rules and they try to stay within the rules. The rules mainly prohibit things they wouldn't have done anyway, like cheating in a multiplayer game or distributing the game to hundreds of other people for free. That's not infringing their rights in any way, I'm sure you can agree. This is how Steam works.

However, bad DRM exists. You have to authenticate to their servers every time you play, you have to stay online all the time even in a single player game, if their server goes down you lose your games, they can take your games away from you whenever they want. The DRM is noticeable from the beginning because of the bureaucracy the lack of trust that comes with it. You're being punished just for the fact that you exist. You have to install rootkits or shut down/uninstall programs on your computer. There's no benefit to you other than the fact that, after they have been satisfied, they let you play the game. That DRM is like a police state. That DRM, however, does not describe all DRM. This DRM describes Sony's DRM, or SecuROM DRM, or Games for Windows Live.

See the difference (probably not)? I know I'm wasting my time, you've made it clear that your opinion won't be changed, but just know that not everyone agrees with you. Steam is DRM, and that's not a bad thing. You can have a local police department without existing in a police state.

[enraged_camel]

He's not comparing the two. He is not saying "DRM is like a police state."

He's saying that both DRM being a bad thing and a police state being a bad thing are self-evident truths.

(I'm not taking sides, just hoping to clarify.)

[shmerl]

To clarify - I am saying that DRM shares core ideas with police state methods. Some of them. I explained that above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8070304