>volunteers for Defective By Design assembled the cardboard bricks (and had some fun doing so!).

They are fighting DRM by sending Nintendo... bricks?

Wearing pink shirts wont get Bush thrown in jail. Wearing teabags off your hat wont get Obama impeached. And sending bricks will not get DRM removed. Protest culture in America is a hobby and will not be taken seriously, as a result.

You want to stop DRM, you have to stop buying things that have it. Most people will not consider it enough of a deterrent not to, neither will most consumers even know it exists.

HTC removed locked bootloaders because a large number of power users decried it, along with a large number of competitors offering similar devices. Nintendo is the only game in town when it comes to Mario. It's great to send in emails complaining about it, but the only thing that's going to stop them from putting DRM out is a necessary public outcry (not going to happen - you need every 6 year old to care), or just them just figuring out the futility of DRM (which i'm not sure the statistics on).

Honestly, I think Nintendo's policy was probably a CYA instead of a detailed record of what they are planning to do with your data. If that's the case, they will realize that they look somewhat evil, and reword their legal agreement. That's much more realistic than impeaching Obama.

Looks like they still have no clue how to actually accomplish anything.

Edit: here's a link to their call for the DOS: http://www.defectivebydesign.org/apple-challenge

Basically kids will never care. To them "personal info" is harder to understand than money. And money is already a problem. The only thing you can do is appeal to their parents. The parents won't care because they don't want kids messing with the toy anyways so it won't break. Its a problem.

The only way to win is to vote with your wallet. Just don't buy nintendo products. And make sure nintendo knows that you are boycotting them. That's all.

Anyway, how goes the campaign to eliminate DRM? DRM hasn't worked to suppress unauthorized distribution (which of course was a fantasy) and isn't ubiquitous ... except where it is, e.g., Netflix and many consumer devices.

As far as I can tell, the campaign is at best at a standstill. Consumer outcry even when directly harmed (e.g., useless purchases when DRM service shut down) is at best tepid. More speculatively, my default view is that DRM is a misfeature of proprietary software and culture, and will only be eliminated to the extent free software and culture win.

My default view is probably short-sighted. What will be the role of DRM in attempting to control devices that have little to do with content, e.g., automated vehicles?

That is so stupid.

oh come on, that's just silly. That isn't at all what DRM does, it can be a side effect of bad DRM but good DRM doesn't "intentionally cripple" products. Why would anyone support a campaign that starts off by spreading such silly claims.

That is the simple purpose of DRM. A digital file can be copied easily. DRM or any type of copy-protection introduces complexity to reduce this basic functionality. Reduced functionality makes a product less useful to the user.

You could also say that lower cost versions of Windows 7 are crippled from the user's perspective. Parts of the OS are disabled so Microsoft can sell multiple editions at different price points. Functionality that exists is purposely reduced (crippled).

To use your example of Steam: it still disallows certain types of copying. It provides additional functionality, but Steam without DRM would be more useful to the end user. I could create my own offline back up copies and share copies with people not on Steam, etc. Obviously, this might be considered bad behavior for economic/ethical reasons but the functionality provided to the user is strictly reduced by the DRM. That is the point.

Steam isn't useful because of DRM, Steam is useful in spite of DRM.

DRM, in all of its forms, limits what you can do with the product you paid for. That is - and always will be - intentional crippling and therefore defective by design. There is no justification for these limitations besides escapist claims of "protecting intellectual property" or similar nonsense. It's simply companies trying to control (and lock in) their customers.

I might add that I used to be a big fan of Nintendo for their awesome franchises. Mario, Link and all the others basically make up a good part of my childhood. To me, it's just sad to see them going down the same path as all the other publishers.

tl;dr: Convenience is not a justification for restrictions.

I have no problem believing that what you are saying is your opinion but I see no reason why everyone should be of the same opinion.

Why can’t I be perfectly fine with not owning the game and not being able to do with it whatever I want in exchange for the convenience of Steam? What’s wrong with that? I can understand that you believe that those terms are not acceptable but why do you want to force me to believe the same?

Even after understanding perfectly what Steam’s terms entail I still think that buying games there is a good idea. What now?

DRM is broken by design because (a) there is no DRM system that hasn't been cracked yet and (b) it punishes honest customers.

Not only that, but many DRM systems require online servers to be active. You don't own the copy you purchased anymore and as soon as that verification server gets shut-down, then your local copy won't work anymore; unless you knowingly break the DMCA to workaround the DRM restrictions (which is always illegal, even if you own the copyright of said content / being the freaking author).

For me, it is far more convenient to just start downloading a torrent from the dozens of trackers I have access to, than pay up for DRMed content and get punished.

That I pay for the apps or other content I use, that's just because the authors deserve getting rewarded and usually it's not their fault that the distribution medium is using DRM; but when it is, that feels like a dick-move to me and I feel no remorse turning to piracy or not using the product at all.

Those who download a 'pirated game' do not violate any laws, as far as who has been prosecuted.

Those who UPLOAD a pirated game can be busted for breaking copyright laws, as you made a copy to someone else.

My answer: I do not pay for DRM games. Its illegal for me to 'fix' them, so I pirate. And it saves me money. Start respecting my rights as a user and Ill acknowledge your rights as a creator.

You could save just as much money by not playing the game at all.

Again, I know that’s your position but why should I share that position? I’m alright with not owning the game, alright with losing access if the servers go down. It’s ok for me, I don’t care.

Even after understanding perfectly what Steam’s terms entail I still think that buying games there is a good idea

Either way, in general the justification for DRM is to reduce piracy, but it doesn't do a good job IMHO -- for instance, I can find DVD-quality pirated movies two weeks after it has been released in theaters, far faster than the availability of said movies on DVD or Blueray.

What would work better is to stop punishing honest customers and educate people about the need of the industry to have profits.

For instance I go out of my way to buy the music albums of my 3 favorite bands, just to keep them producing the music I like. And one of them has been in business since 1977, being able to survive for 3 decades, while dozens of others have died after 1 or 2 years, complaining about piracy (like the non-existence of piracy would make their music suck less).

So lets give this a try: To buy a specific game on steam, I have to 1) get steam 2) find the game I knew I wanted to buy 3) pay for it 4) download it. When I bought World of Goo, I did exactly the same steps, apart from the first one - but I got more out of it - I got a link for the binaries AND I can use them anywhere I want or keep them around in whatever way I want.

Why would you prefer to get less in more steps? Of course, many companies seem to try to make this process as painful as possible. That's not an argument for DRM though, but against stupid ways of distribution.

The original question stands.