When the games you think you own, really aren't yours to own

This has to be the most obscenely anti-consumer piracy prevention measure to date. This one has to be making the RIAA and MPAA blush. According to Ubi-Soft, the solution will require an internet connection to play your legally paid for and legally "owned" games. No internet connection? Tough ****.:roll:

Ubi-Soft's selling points:

• You can access your saved games anywhere!
• You don't need the disk in the drive!
• You can play from any computer with an internet connection!

:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:

Um, no thanks Ubi, I'd prefer to hold onto what's left of my consumer/fair use rights, thanks.

Way to stick it to you're remaining loyal customers, Ubisoft.It took me YEARS before I finally broke down and bought the Orange Box because I read you had to be online to play Half Life 2. I never intended to actually buy it because of that, but with DSL it became a bit of a moot point and I just couldn't turn down the Orange Box.

Bit I digress. Ubisoft's DRM is definitely crossing a line. There has got to be a better way of plugging the holes rather than resorting to a bucket.

A cracked version will be put up quickly for these games that don't require an internet connection, and the only people that will affected by this DRM will be the honest consumers. There is nothing good coming from this.

A cracked version will be put up quickly for these games that don't require an internet connection, and the only people that will affected by this DRM will be the honest consumers. There is nothing good coming from this.

gamer_10001

All it takes is one person to upload it and its over. All Ubi-Soft will have to show for it in the end are even worse sales before implementing this train wreck and angry customers.

Yeah, I'm sure those servers will always remain up. Totally.:roll:

One of the reasons I like console gaming...muthsera666

Don't think for a moment that such a system isn't already in the works in the home console market. DLC is just the tip of the iceberg.

[QUOTE="muthsera666"]One of the reasons I like console gaming...MarcusAntonius

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"][QUOTE="muthsera666"]One of the reasons I like console gaming...muthsera666

And piracy will again be wrongfully used as a scapegoat to justify more draconian, anti-consumer protection schemes.

[QUOTE="muthsera666"][QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]Don't think for a moment that such a system isn't already in the works in the home console market. DLC is just the tip of the iceberg.MarcusAntonius

This is disgusting. They'd better not do this with console games-- requiringXBox Live or Nintendo Wi-Fi. Especially not with games coming out like Splinter Cell: Conviction, and I don't have an internet connection at my place.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"][QUOTE="muthsera666"] I'm not that naive. Piracy happens with console games as well.muthsera666

Blaming piracy for declining sales is like a sports coach using injuries as an excuse for their team's poor performance, in other words, it's looked at as a BS excuse. So we get crocodile tears about content creators needing more protections, hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs, blah, blah, blah.

DRM and other security measures would continue with or without piracy. Why? It's about making sure that dying business models can stay profitable in the face of changing technology and competition. It's about control. Look at home entertainment. You have content providers practically dictating the manufacturing process (you'll be hearing more about selectable output controls in the near future). How about making a simple backup copy of your DVD movies or ripping them to other devices? Nope, illegal. Better repurchase what you already own for another platform.

I'm all for people making a profit off of their content creation, but when their property rights interfere with technological advancement and consumer/fair use rights, that is where I have a problem. Things have to be kept in check.

[QUOTE="muthsera666"][QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]And piracy will again be wrongfully used as a scapegoat to justify more draconian, anti-consumer protection schemes.MarcusAntonius

Blaming piracy for declining sales is like a sports coach using injuries as an excuse for their team's poor performance, in other words, it's looked at as a BS excuse. So we get crocodile tears about content creators needing more protections, hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs, blah, blah, blah.

DRM and other security measures would continue with or without piracy. Why? It's about making sure that dying business models can stay profitable in the face of changing technology and competition. It's about control. Look at home entertainment. You have content providers practically dictating the manufacturing process (you'll be hearing more about selectable output controls in the near future). How about making a simple backup copy of your DVD movies or ripping them to other devices? Nope, illegal. Better repurchase what you already own for another platform.

I'm all for people making a profit off of their content creation, but when their property rights interfere with technological advancement and consumer/fair use rights, that is where I have a problem. Things have to be kept in check.

[QUOTE="muthsera666"][QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]And piracy will again be wrongfully used as a scapegoat to justify more draconian, anti-consumer protection schemes.MarcusAntonius

If you don't think that piracy eats into the revenue stream of a company to a great degree, I don't believe that you understand the scale on which piracy occurs.

muthsera666

If they're incalculable damages, then how can we put a price tag on it? What is the actual amount? Again, how does one calculate losses from customers they never had? If you produce a product people want to buy, they're going to buy it.

When I tape recorded songs off the radio or played a game over at a friend's house when I was a kid, I'm quite sure no one was losing any real money over it. Punishing consumers with more restrictions doesn't do anything to enhance protections or profits, this is pretty obvious by now. Again, it's about control, and that's all.

[QUOTE="muthsera666"]If you don't think that piracy eats into the revenue stream of a company to a great degree, I don't believe that you understand the scale on which piracy occurs.MarcusAntonius

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"][QUOTE="muthsera666"]If you don't think that piracy eats into the revenue stream of a company to a great degree, I don't believe that you understand the scale on which piracy occurs.muthsera666

I call it on the publishers for a reason. Your post exemplifies one of my points. Piracy is overblown. How can content providers be making more money than ever and still scream about piracy at the same time?

Are people still buying game consoles? Didn't MW2 sell over 10 million copies? This while piracy is so easy and convenient?How could such a thing occur?Are all X360, Wii, PS3, and PC gamers pirates? Goes back to my original claim, piracy is overblown. Produce a good product, and people will buy it.

Big content will make an issue of piracy to squeeze every last bit of profit that they can from antiquated business models while dictating draconian methods of distribution. Making life miserable for consumers is far easier than stopping file sharers.

This has to be the most obscenely anti-consumer piracy prevention measure to date. This one has to be making the RIAA and MPAA blush. According to Ubi-Soft, the solution will require an internet connection to play your legally paid for and legally "owned" games. No internet connection? Tough ****.:roll:

Ubi-Soft's selling points:

• You can access your saved games anywhere!
• You don't need the disk in the drive!
• You can play from any computer with an internet connection!

:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:

Um, no thanks Ubi, I'd prefer to hold onto what's left of my consumer/fair use rights, thanks.

MarcusAntonius

Honestly? The writing is on the wall for this kind of solution. Piracy is the elephant in the room if you're a software developer. Development costs are escalating out of control and you end up with your full game ripped on the internet before you can even release it to stores.

We might not be ready for it yet, but when internet access becomes ubiquitous and absolutely reliable, this sort of solution will become more common.

I realize I'm in the minority here but I develop software professionally. When I'm absolutely assured that I'll always be able authenticate my purchased software I would be OK with that sort of security model.

[QUOTE="muthsera666"][QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]If they're incalculable damages, then how can we put a price tag on it? What is the actual amount? Again, how does one calculate losses from customers they never had? If you produce a product people want to buy, they're going to buy it.MarcusAntonius

Are people still buying game consoles? Didn't MW2 sell over 10 million copies? This while piracy is so easy and convenient?How could such a thing occur?Are all X360, Wii, PS3, and PC gamers pirates? Goes back to my original claim, piracy is overblown. Produce a good product, and people will buy it.

Big content will make an issue of piracy to squeeze every last bit of profit that they can from antiquated business models while dictating draconian methods of distribution. Making life miserable for consumers is far easier than stopping file sharers.

I call it on the publishers for a reason. Your post exemplifies one of my points. Piracy is overblown. How can content providers be making more money than ever and still scream about piracy at the same time?

MarcusAntonius

You can't say that piracy isn't a problem though. It's the honest consumer who is ultimately paying the price for someone else's lack of scruples.

While I don't support Ubisoft's choice, I think it's important for gamers to be in on the debate as to what can be done to protect a product that we have come to enjoy so much. (Hence why this topic is swiftly becoming one of my new favorites.) Whileweare scared that we're being taken advantage of by the game companies, the reason they're taking this action is because they're scared ofus. We can't point a finger at any one group and say they're to blame for the current state of things. As consumers we either do part of the work ourselves, or pay the company to come up with solutions

Because Ubisoft has got to realize that all they're doing is likely to create more unsatisfied customers who will just be tempted to use unsupported means to get the product they think they should have had from the beginning.
Then again, they hire people who went to college to study this stuff. They've got to have figured the numbers before they announced it, so in all likelyhood they know the dollar value of the risk and still see it as a reasonable compromise.

Forcing an internet connection is going across the line, and I for one despise this kind of globalisation. Steam, and others like it, are the most convenient solutions to piracy. Besides, most Ubisoft games have never been THAT good, have they?kdawg88

Not only does steam do nothing agaisnt piracy, it also requires an internet connection to install, and restricts you.

Piracy is the elephant in the room if you're a software developer. Development costs are escalating out of control

Dire_Weasel

Too bad. Making a good and marketable product ought to be the elephant in the room.

[QUOTE="kdawg88"]Forcing an internet connection is going across the line, and I for one despise this kind of globalisation. Steam, and others like it, are the most convenient solutions to piracy. Besides, most Ubisoft games have never been THAT good, have they?warmaster670

[QUOTE="Dire_Weasel"]

Piracy is the elephant in the room if you're a software developer. Development costs are escalating out of control

MarcusAntonius

Too bad. Making a good and marketable product ought to be the elephant in the room.

I have a library full of good and marketable products, that I paid for. Some people have the same library, except they decided that they didn't need to pay for any of it.

but anti-piracy measures really are made as a result of....piracy.kdawg88

But why do game companies insist on DRM even after it's been proven time and time again that it just doesn't work? I believe that the key to diminish piracy (because there is no stopping it) is to entice people to go for the legal copy. DRM measures only serve to make the pirated copy look more appealing. The truth is that most publishers aren't interested in combating piracy, they're just interested in inflicting more control on legal customers.

While I think this is completely unnecessary and pointless, at least it's not intrusive DRM such as SecuROM or StarForce. I'm online all the time regardless so signing into their stupid website isn't that big of a deal for me - and no disc and stored game saves are great features. This is definitely better than what 2K and Rockstar are doing. Still, EA seems to be the only one who got the message and they're now treating PC gamers better than any other major publisher. Maybe it'll take another cIass-action lawsuit to convert Take-Two and Ubisoft, too.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

[QUOTE="Dire_Weasel"]

Piracy is the elephant in the room if you're a software developer. Development costs are escalating out of control

Dire_Weasel

Too bad. Making a good and marketable product ought to be the elephant in the room.

I have a library full of good and marketable products, that I paid for. Some people have the same library, except they decided that they didn't need to pay for any of it.

I have a library full of games that I paid for that didn't require ridiculous, invasive protection schemes. Services like gog.com got it right.

[QUOTE="kdawg88"]but anti-piracy measures really are made as a result of....piracy.UpInFlames

But why do game companies insist on DRM even after it's been proven time and time again that it just doesn't work? I believe that the key to diminish piracy (because there is no stopping it) is to entice people to go for the legal copy. DRM measures only serve to make the pirated copy look more appealing. The truth is that most publishers aren't interested in combating piracy, they're just interested in inflicting more control on legal customers.

While I think this is completely unnecessary and pointless, at least it's not intrusive DRM such as SecuROM or StarForce. I'm online all the time regardless so signing into their stupid website isn't that big of a deal for me - and no disc and stored game saves are great features. This is definitely better than what 2K and Rockstar are doing. Still, EA seems to be the only one who got the message and they're now treating PC gamers better than any other major publisher. Maybe it'll take another cIass-action lawsuit to convert Take-Two and Ubisoft, too.

So, how do you entice people to go for the legal copy? What's the carrot?

If you simply remove all copy protection, then you're basically asking your customers to give you money on a strictly volunteer basis. The volunteers would then subsidise the pirates. I guess that's how it is now, anyway.

So, how do you entice people to go for the legal copy? What's the carrot?

If you simply remove all copy protection, then you're basically asking your customers to give you money on a strictly volunteer basis. The volunteers would then subsidise the pirates. I guess that's how it is now, anyway.

Dire_Weasel

I personally would opt for limited edition DLC for those who pre-ordered or bought the game new, like they did with Dragon Age: Origins and they're (apparently) going to do with Mass Effect 2.

Then again, that may piss off customers as well, but that sort of thing has worked for lots of downloadable MMORPG's and Gaia Online. As long as it's a bonus and not an extract from content that would have been included if they hadn't come up with the idea for DLC.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="kdawg88"]but anti-piracy measures really are made as a result of....piracy.Dire_Weasel

But why do game companies insist on DRM even after it's been proven time and time again that it just doesn't work? I believe that the key to diminish piracy (because there is no stopping it) is to entice people to go for the legal copy. DRM measures only serve to make the pirated copy look more appealing. The truth is that most publishers aren't interested in combating piracy, they're just interested in inflicting more control on legal customers.

While I think this is completely unnecessary and pointless, at least it's not intrusive DRM such as SecuROM or StarForce. I'm online all the time regardless so signing into their stupid website isn't that big of a deal for me - and no disc and stored game saves are great features. This is definitely better than what 2K and Rockstar are doing. Still, EA seems to be the only one who got the message and they're now treating PC gamers better than any other major publisher. Maybe it'll take another cIass-action lawsuit to convert Take-Two and Ubisoft, too.

So, how do you entice people to go for the legal copy? What's the carrot?

If you simply remove all copy protection, then you're basically asking your customers to give you money on a strictly volunteer basis. The volunteers would then subsidise the pirates. I guess that's how it is now, anyway.

You mean purchasing a product isn't voluntary already? Shoot, that's a new one to me. Last I checked, people still have to pay for a product they want to own. Just a thought. The very idea that removing all copy protections would make the purchasing of any product voluntary is baseless.

Think of the millions that could be saved that are wasted on protection schemes that are proven failures. Those costs could be passed down to the consumer and would likely spur more first day sales.

Your last point is sheer nonsense. Last I checked, people were buying games en masse. Hollywood is enjoying bigger box office receipts than they ever have. Oh yeah, and you still have a job. Tell how this voluntary system is a disaster again? You know, the same system of peddling goods that has been around since the dawn of time?

[QUOTE="kdawg88"]Forcing an internet connection is going across the line, and I for one despise this kind of globalisation. Steam, and others like it, are the most convenient solutions to piracy. Besides, most Ubisoft games have never been THAT good, have they?warmaster670

Not only does steam do nothing agaisnt piracy, it also requires an internet connection to install, and restricts you.

So, how do you entice people to go for the legal copy? What's the carrot?Dire_Weasel

Stardock and Valve are on the right track. Meaningful post-release support that continually adds value to the game. Also, not making the legal copy more of a hassle than pirating a game is an absolute must (all games that employ intrusive DRM fail at this - see Spore and Grand Theft Auto IV). I also think EA is doing well in combating piracy on PC and the used console game market by giving free content such as the additional Sims 3 town to legitimate users who only need to register on the website.

If you simply remove all copy protection, then you're basically asking your customers to give you money on a strictly volunteer basis.Dire_Weasel

You made that statement under the assumption that DRM works - it doesn't. So it's exactly the same for pirates - DRM or not, they're going to pirate it. DRM only affects legitimate buyers. Pirates got the hassle-free copy of Spore, BioShock and Grand Theft Auto IV. I payed good money for the strings attached.

I sit somewhere firmly in the middle of all this because I think piracy is a legitimate concern among developers and publishers yet I also think these types of overbearing copy protection measures are a slapin the face to consumers.

On one hand I'm pissed that pirates out there take for free what I shell out good money for but I'm also aware that what publishers really wantis a model in place for games, movies, and software that affords them full control over a product even after I as a consumer have paid for it.

They don't want a model in place that allows me to loan out a copy of my latest DVD to a friend or sell a game when I've tired of it. I think many companies are using the issue of piracy to backdoor practices which we as consumers may come to regret in the coming years.

And as much as I love Ubisoft, I will flatly reject any model that forces me to authenticate a purchase already made anytime I wish to play the game.

You mean purchasing a product isn't voluntary already? Shoot, that's a new one to me. Last I checked, people still have to pay for a product they want to own. Just a thought. The very idea that removing all copy protections would make the purchasing of any product voluntary is baseless.MarcusAntonius

[QUOTE="Dire_Weasel"]So, how do you entice people to go for the legal copy? What's the carrot?UpInFlames

Stardock and Valve are on the right track. Meaningful post-release support that continually adds value to the game. Also, not making the legal copy more of a hassle than pirating a game is an absolute must (all games that employ intrusive DRM fail at this - see Spore and Grand Theft Auto IV). I also think EA is doing well in combating piracy on PC and the used console game market by giving free content such as the additional Sims 3 town to legitimate users who only need to register on the website.

If you simply remove all copy protection, then you're basically asking your customers to give you money on a strictly volunteer basis.Dire_Weasel

You made that statement under the assumption that DRM works - it doesn't. So it's exactly the same for pirates - DRM or not, they're going to pirate it. DRM only affects legitimate buyers. Pirates got the hassle-free copy of Spore, BioShock and Grand Theft Auto IV. I payed good money for the strings attached.

I will never agree with piracy, but it's measures such as these that make me think twice. Treat your consumers like criminals, and that's exactly how they'll behave. When are they going to realize that those who want to pirate are going to find a way no matter what they do? Christ. And as much as pirates claim their activities don't hurt the industry, they are infringing on my rights as a consumer through their actions that cause measures such as these to be enacted. But hey, enjoy your free game. Thanks a lot, guys.

Are people still buying game consoles? Didn't MW2 sell over 10 million copies? This while piracy is so easy and convenient?How could such a thing occur?Are all X360, Wii, PS3, and PC gamers pirates? Goes back to my original claim, piracy is overblown. Produce a good product, and people will buy it.

MarcusAntonius

[QUOTE="Dire_Weasel"]

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

But why do game companies insist on DRM even after it's been proven time and time again that it just doesn't work? I believe that the key to diminish piracy (because there is no stopping it) is to entice people to go for the legal copy. DRM measures only serve to make the pirated copy look more appealing. The truth is that most publishers aren't interested in combating piracy, they're just interested in inflicting more control on legal customers.

While I think this is completely unnecessary and pointless, at least it's not intrusive DRM such as SecuROM or StarForce. I'm online all the time regardless so signing into their stupid website isn't that big of a deal for me - and no disc and stored game saves are great features. This is definitely better than what 2K and Rockstar are doing. Still, EA seems to be the only one who got the message and they're now treating PC gamers better than any other major publisher. Maybe it'll take another cIass-action lawsuit to convert Take-Two and Ubisoft, too.

MarcusAntonius

So, how do you entice people to go for the legal copy? What's the carrot?

If you simply remove all copy protection, then you're basically asking your customers to give you money on a strictly volunteer basis. The volunteers would then subsidise the pirates. I guess that's how it is now, anyway.

You mean purchasing a product isn't voluntary already? Shoot, that's a new one to me. Last I checked, people still have to pay for a product they want to own. Just a thought. The very idea that removing all copy protections would make the purchasing of any product voluntary is baseless.

I think you missed the point. Many people decide to own the product. A percentage of those consumers actually pay money for it, the remainder get the product for free by pirating. That's how it is now. Removing all copy protection would simply decrease the percentage of owners that pay for it. I'm not going to estimate how much that percentage would change.

Of course making the decision to own a product is voluntary. That's not what I was I implying at all.

[QUOTE="warmaster670"]

[QUOTE="kdawg88"]Forcing an internet connection is going across the line, and I for one despise this kind of globalisation. Steam, and others like it, are the most convenient solutions to piracy. Besides, most Ubisoft games have never been THAT good, have they?kdawg88

Not only does steam do nothing agaisnt piracy, it also requires an internet connection to install, and restricts you.

How can you not see it? steam required games get pirated just as much as non steam required games, its not like there magically not pirated, its a fac tthat they are, heck people were playing pirated MW2 on steam with people who bought the game.

There really are two sides to this very heated argument.

Steam does a fairly good job, with most of its piracy kept down by offering a download exclusive model, while other publishers don't have the funds to support such a model, and lose profits via piracy.

Piracy is going on, and there is very little that any developer can do about it. The only concrete way to monitor this is to have accounts tied to internet servers programmed by the publisher to weed out hackers and pirates. Obviously, this isn't as ideal as we'd like it to be, but its the way I anticipate many publishers are going to be heading, at least on a computer.

Video games, while not impossible to hack by any means, are far more challenging due to restrictions on internets basis on these systems. This, coupled with CD's and DVD's on these consoles being more difficult to copy naturally, have been a large draw for publishers and developers.

Which is my answer for why we are seeing a surge in the direction of developers and publishers towards the console market. Why make a game where there is a large, almost guaranteed, chance of pirating when you can get a far more secure grip on profits on a console?

But this is just my thoughts on the issue. I don't think we are ready to fully embrace this due to having wildly differing capabilities with internet connections and speeds, but it is going to happen here eventually. As long as people can do it, pirating is still going to occur. The only thing any company can do is attempt to defend itself with anti-pirating software or online attachments. I don't like it but It's inevitable.

Removing all copy protection would simply decrease the percentage of owners that pay for it.Dire_Weasel

From what I understand, the piracy ratio is fairly constant whether it's a high-profile game, a small indie title, DRM protected, or not. DRM just doesn't work. Case in point, Spore had draconian DRM and it was the most pirated game of 2008. The Sims 3 had no DRM whatsoever and it was the best-selling PC game of 2009.

So I strongly disagree with such a notion.

Ubi-Soft's selling points:

• You can access your saved games anywhere!

Ubi-Soft's selling points:

You can access your saved games anywhere! You probaly lose your saved games when your Internet got cut in a middle of a game DarkblueNinja

MW2 sold over 10 million copies because with a pirated copy, you can't go online. You have to create a private server, and it's not like people come to that server often, so with a pirated copy, you lose the ability to play multiplayer.

And not everyone will buy a "good" product. Many people want to get their games for free. Just see how many sites are hosting free PC downloads, PS2 downloads, X360 downloads, PSP downloads, etc.

XXI_World

Nothing you have stated proves me wrong in the slightest. Your first point alone contradicts your entire post. It has been generally agreed upon itt that piracy is done with relative ease. So why are people still buying games more than ever in the middle of an economic downturn when its easy to get it for free and the websites are just a Google search away? The numbers don't lie. The Wii and X360 are still moving software like crazy and have been hacked all the way. Oddly enough, the titles for the not yet fully cracked PS3 haven't enjoyed as long of a stay at the top of the software sales charts however. Again, the numbers don't lie.

Infinity Ward has provided a wonderful example of striking a balance between covering themselves without causing the customer too much grief.

Removing all copy protection would simply decrease the percentage of owners that pay for it. I'm not going to estimate how much that percentage would change.

Dire_Weasel

You can't estimate the percentage because your claim is baseless. Notice my sig? How do you account for the launch of a successful business dealing in DRM free downloads? These games are easy to pirate, so why would any developer allow a site like gog.com to sell their products without any copy protection?

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]You mean purchasing a product isn't voluntary already? Shoot, that's a new one to me. Last I checked, people still have to pay for a product they want to own. Just a thought. The very idea that removing all copy protections would make the purchasing of any product voluntary is baseless.muthsera666

Where is your evidence to back up your claim?

Way to stick it to you're remaining loyal customers, Ubisoft.It took me YEARS before I finally broke down and bought the Orange Box because I read you had to be online to play Half Life 2. .Teekal

[QUOTE="Dire_Weasel"]Removing all copy protection would simply decrease the percentage of owners that pay for it.UpInFlames

From what I understand, the piracy ratio is fairly constant whether it's a high-profile game, a small indie title, DRM protected, or not. DRM just doesn't work. Case in point, Spore had draconian DRM and it was the most pirated game of 2008. The Sims 3 had no DRM whatsoever and it was the best-selling PC game of 2009.

So I strongly disagree with such a notion.

[QUOTE="muthsera666"][QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]You mean purchasing a product isn't voluntary already? Shoot, that's a new one to me. Last I checked, people still have to pay for a product they want to own. Just a thought. The very idea that removing all copy protections would make the purchasing of any product voluntary is baseless.MarcusAntonius

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"][QUOTE="muthsera666"] If you have the option to pay $50 for something, or you can get the same product for free, most people are going to take it for free. Piracy is the free method. In this situation, proffering the money to the publisher is a voluntary position, because it is just as possible, even easier, to steal a copy than to buy it.muthsera666

So then why are so many people still buying games when piracy is so simple? The music industry has gone DRM-free for the most part which the RIAA feared would lead to an explosion in file-sharing. And sure enough, that didn't actually happen. In fact, music piracy is on the decline while it is increasing in the gaming and movie industries where DRM is becoming ever more restrictive. The correlation between DRM and increased piracy shouldn't be a revelation to anyone.

EA's Spore was a case of draconian DRM, and guess what? Last I checked it was the most pirated game in history. EA has since reversed course on this while finding more consumer friendly ways of protecting themselves and it has paid off for them.