A few days ago I put up a quick post on problems resulting from Ubisoft's new DRM for PC games, which requires players to maintain a constant Internet connection in order to play, even for offline single-player games. The response from readers was a resounding thrashing of DRM in general, Ubisoft's new system in particular.
I understand that. I'm no fan of the restrictions that DRM imposes. Limitations on installations and needing to maintain a constant Internet connection in order to play makes me mad. It's an unfair penalty for those who don't infringe on copyright.
However, I don't buy the arguments some people put forward that suggest restrictive DRM systems somehow give them the right to pirate that product. This sense of entitlement is unsettling. It's as though pirates believe that all games are somehow inherently theirs to do with as they will rather than a product over which others have toiled and from which they hope to earn a living.
Put another way, it's like somebody saying to a clothing designer, "I don't like the pocket you put on that shirt, so I'm going to steal it, rip that pocket off, and wear it anyway, in spite."
Piracy is indefensible. The proper way to protest a product of which you disapprove is simply to not purchase it. It's called boycotting, and it works. Boycotts have changed entire industries, forcing companies to stop using child labour, cease animal testing, and quit using offensive ingredients.
The reason people don't use this tactic with games is because, while they hate the DRM, they still value and crave the product. Plus, they know they can usually steal modified software without any repercussions. It shows our base nature.
The one instance in which I might understand piracy is when it is used as a formal means of protest. But protest requires a public statement. Here's what would be involved: A declaration on behalf of the pirate using his real name in a public forum stating that he has pirated a particular product to show his disapproval of a restrictive DRM system.
Without this, piracy is simply stealing-the anonymous taking of a thing that doesn't belong to you for your own benefit. It's wrong, plain and simple.
And keep in mind that publishers hate DRM as much as we do. They didn't come up with restrictive copyright systems as a way to add to their bottom line; they came up with it to keep the bottom line where it's supposed to be, to try to ensure people pay for their products. DRM costs millions to develop and millions more in ongoing support. They'd much prefer to simply make a product free of restrictions that people could use as they like, provided they paid for it.
Of course, that will never happen. Piracy is here to stay. It would be nice if publishers simply learned to live with the 15 per cent of sales they believe they lose to piracy and move on, but that's an unrealistic-and, in all honesty, unfair-expectation. They're in business to make money.
That means we have only two ethical choices: Buy the product and live with the restrictions, or don't buy it. Perhaps if enough people boycotted DRM protected products, publishers would decide that DRM is costing them more money in lost sales than it's saving in potential piracy and get rid of it. It's the only hope for principled DRM protesters.
Follow me on Twitter: @ chadsapieha