{sidebar id=3}{sidebar id=1}Digital rights management (DRM) is one of the most famous acronyms for video game players all across the globe.  DRM was originally invented to curb an ever-present piracy problem, which was exponentially increased as the popularity of peer-to-peer software continued to develop.  The reason for all that hate is simple, DRM takes the control away from the owner of the software.

Software encoded with DRM has a constant need to contact verification servers before allowing the user to interact with the program.  This is incredibly frustrating for people who have legitimately purchased the game/software.

What if the servers go down?

What if I cannot get online?

What if I own more than one computer?

As it stands, those are all very legitimate questions for those who are not pirating software.  Now, a new article from http://arstechnica.com poses an interesting question: would DRM be acceptable if it was implemented differently?

"Digital content lends itself easily to the creation of identical copies, so crafting a system in which digital content can be "stolen" is trickier than it might sound. The idea is to make it a "rivalrous good," one that, after being taken, deprives someone else of something.

DPP hopes to do this by relying on two major pieces: a title folder and a playkey. The title folder contains the content in question, it's encrypted, and it can be copied and passed around freely. To access the content inside, however, you'll need the playkey, which is delivered to the buyer of a digital media file and lives within "tamper-protected circuit" inside some device (computer, cell phone, router) or online at a playkey bank account. Controlling the playkey means that you control the media, and you truly own it, since no part of the system needs to phone home, and it imposes no restrictions on copying (except for those that arise naturally from fear of loss).

The playkey, unlike the title folder, can't be copied-but it can be moved. To give your friends and family access to the file in question, you can send them a copy but must also provide a link to the playkey. Under the DPP system, though, anyone who can access the playkey can also decide to move it to their own digital vault-in essence, anyone can take the content from you, and you would no longer have access to the media files in question if they did so."

The idea is simple.  Most people who pirate software are able to do so because the mechanism that checks the validity of your copy of software can be blocked and tricked into believing the copy is legitimate.

If the people who buy the software originally will lose the software once given to somebody else, it would curb people from giving out their copies of whatever game has the DPP.

In addition, people would be less likely to steal software if the program did not have to check back with a server constantly.  After all, nobody minds paying for software and having to verify repeatedly that they actually bought it, as long as the game works, right?

Wrong

We do not want any type of digital rights management.  If you are that concerned about someone pirating your game, make it a subscription-based service.  Otherwise, I don't care what type of digital rights management or DDP or whatever you want to call it; if DRM is on a piece of software, it will never be as secure, stable, or fair, as the pirated versions.

We have all had more problems with software that we purchase legally with DRM then anything we could possibly download from the Internet.  The ones on the Internet are quality assured to be working without any fuss.

The types of programs with any DRM, by any name, will always be inferior to those programs where the developers understand that those who are going to pay for the program are going to do so no matter what type of management system is used.

Those people who want to get around the system are going to do so.  Guaranteed, if the system of DPP comes to fruition, hackers will be handing out copies of those games just as easily if not easier then DRM 1.0.