On DRM, and the decline of physical media, in video gaming and software
By Edward Willis (http://encw.xyz and gopher://encw.xyz)
Published Oct/24/2023

I don't care whether my purchases come on physical media or download. What I
care about is specifically whether I can copy them. Good Old Games fulfills that
for me beautifully. I truly OWN my GOG.com games, so I'm a happy camper.

I equate the ability to make copies of digital media with ownership and control
(as fits my purposes as a consumer).

I think it is important to focus on the real enemy of consumer ownership, and
that's not downloads and the internet, but DRM itself.

I remember what it was like before services like Steam came along. Users of
on-line multiplayer games, like for instance, Counter-Strike, would have to
periodically go and manually download and install patches. This could be, if a
game required a specific series of patches, quite cumbersome. I've no doubt that
software management systems like Steam greatly expanded the market for PC games.
If the most popular games sold on Steam didn't come stuffed to the gills with
DRM, and better still if Valve allowed for the download of installers for backup
purposes, then Steam would be a victory for consumers like GOG is.

The core of the DRM problem as I see it is the conflict between consumers, who
want control over their software and computers, and software companies, who want
to ensure payment on a per-copy basis. Unfortunately for software companies
creating software the first time requires skilled labor and is very expensive.
Creating it the second time is simple, and requires pressing ctrl-c then ctrl-v.
Forcing consumers to pay for software on a per-copy basis requires the force of
law and government. Men with guns, are ultimately what protects the software
industry. It's not a natural free-market business model.

So it is the business model that has to change. My solution to the problem is
that companies would pitch their software/games to the public, and say "If
people pay us x dollars/euros/whatever, we will produce/finish this software."
Sort of like kickstarter is sometimes used, but when the software is released,
it is released on something akin to a BSD license or public domain. The company
gets the money they asked for, and society gets the software.

It has always irked me that people on kickstarter ask the public to pay the
capital investment required to make a product, especially a software product
where the cost of reproduction is so small, but then feel that they have the
moral right to then own and sell what others put forward the funds to make. At
that point the developers are truly just employees of the public and should act
like it.