But as computer technology evolves and becomes more complex, DRM measures seem to be causing more problems than they’re worth. Some, like the copy protection method Broderbund used in Carmen Sandiego games, were even kind of charming. Older DRM technolgies, like Nintendo’s 10NES chip, weren’t particularly problematic to consumers. The likely North Korean attack on Sony Pictures’ networks was far from the first major security problem the huge Sony conglomerate has had! Putting certain music CDs in a Windows PC, just to enjoy them in the way that Sony Music allowed, made those Windows PCs immensely more vulnerable to information security attacks. As much as P2P piracy is a problem in the music industry, the bad publicity and possible litigation wasn’t worth it. Sony Music admitted that the XCP DRM on some music CDs released in 2005 was rootkit spyware malware. Even when it affects something as seemingly superfluous as video games. As availability is a component of the CIA triad, when software can’t be used in the way it’s supposed to be usable, it’s an information security problem. DRM is supposed to keep pirates away, not paying customers. When it affects other corporations, many millions of dollars of productivity is lost. When it affects gamers, there are a lot of pissed off customers. Especially for games against AI that’s written in the code in a HDD-installed application, that “always on” necessity is for DRM, whether or not they’ll admit it.īut due to bugs, insufficient server capacity, or sometimes both, Microsoft, Adobe, EA, and Activision/Blizzard have all had incidents where users couldn’t use the applications they’ve purchased legitimately. In the second article, I mentioned how major video game publishers such as Electronic Arts, Activision, and Valve are also trying to get users to buy products that require connectivity to their servers, even for single player games. But Google operates an amazing number of servers and data centers, and they seem to be pretty profitable. More money than the added ongoing expense of having extra servers? Only time will tell. Which, like the first reason, leads Microsoft and Adobe to believe that they’ll make more money. Secondly, they can operate DRM from their servers, and implement new DRM software over time when older versions are cracked. One, they project they’ll make more money from Office 365 and Creative Cloud over the long term than from conventional Office and Creative Suite. Microsoft and Adobe are trying to get users to buy SaaS (software as a service) products. In my last article, I explained some of the problems millions of users have had with the most popular productivity applications.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |