I mean steam has a few restrictions that might make it (for some families) not really sharable

https://i.imgur.com/d3fRmdW.png

Sure you can share with five people which is swell if everyone has two devices each. But your library can't be played with for instance two of your nephews at the same time. Obviously this doesn't apply to DRM-Free games.

I thought you where going to be one of those people that swear that you can play 2 different games at the same time with SFS.

A better analogy would be that I was forced to have bodyguard at the front door of my home, to check that I am who I claim to be and only then let me enter my home.

And if that particular bodyguard was not at his post for some reason (in a lunch break, sick, or even retired for good), then I couldn't enter my home at all.

AS far I I know and understand (remember I did work for a legal software company, so have better than average understanding of legal parlance) "Personal" and "personal use" are not legal terms and is open to interpretation. The most common interpretation is "Non commercial". So even if a EULA was a legally binding document, I'm not using the software for commercial gain, and have not broken that clause.

Unfortunately that question is too open, who are others?

Can I share a book with others?
If others are Family members and friends, absolutely Yes.
If others are Complete strangers, then legally no (but hard to enforce).

It games are software, then the legal precedence of the Oracle vs Usedsoft case applies and I have the legal right to lend my license to any private individual I wish.

My biggest annoyance with software is after nearly half a century there is no legal framework dedicated to the licensing of software. It sits in a vague legal limbo between copyright and contract law, and until its sorted publishers can claim what ever they want, and enforce it with DRM, leaving consumers pretty much powerless.

As I've said. DRM lets companies enforce their restrictions with out the need to follow any legal due process.

i would say its quite the opposite

DRM actually lets devs enforce terms of agreements they couldnt do before

You cant wawe customer rights as a magic wand for everything in life

also in response to that usedsoft case, you may wanna read this: http://gameslaw.org/the-end-of-the-usedsoft-case-and-its-implications-for-used-software-licences/

Terms of sevices cannot bypass basic rights, thats true. However usually most of those terms of services and restrictions by the law ARE legal.

If you dont agree with the Tos you are free not to use said service, but you lost your ground to complain when you agree to said conditions by clicking on agree regardless.


TL;Dr some people painfully need a reality check as I have a feeling you are living in some dreamland

I agree, most of what is written in a EULA does even have to be there since it is Law.

There isn't a 20 page EULA when buying a book to say the characters belong to the author and you can't make a film based on those characters. Because its written into law.

On my android tablet I've not seen a single EULA.

The problem is EULA's look like legal contracts, and companies can put anything they want into a contract whether its legally binding or not. Then bluff that's its binding.

For over 10 Years VAVe operated a "NO REFUNDS EVER" policy. And while it can not trump local laws, almost all which say you are entitled to a refund on faulty items VALVe has been able to deny people of those refunds by pointing to the clause in the SSA. Unless you knew better, you would have taken that as a legal absolute. Even if you did know better you'd have to fight VALVe.

As you said, MOST of a EULA is legally true (not binding as a EULA is not a contract). But MOST isn't all, and its what's left that DRM helps enforce. It is also worth noting, until denuvo came along DRM has never stopped piracy, so the only people its controlling are legitimate and law abiding users.

Can I tell you a huge secret? companies knows painfull intrusive DRM like Denuvou doesnt stop piracy 100% percent and its not even the main purpose

However it does recomforts investors and more importantly delays the time till the game gets cracked aka making sure the salea are there in the first critical period of sales.

Thats the whole idea: making sure that the game doesnt gets open wide, at least till a huge chunk of early buyers didnt went by.

I read this and think I might be getting a considered and thought out argument...
Only to be disappointed.

Until denuvo, and with only a few very rare exceptions, DRM is cracked with in minutes of release.

A game using Steam's DRM are cracked and uploaded on the same day.

That golden window of protection is a complete fallacy.

However consider this.
Online account based DRM removed the PC second hand game market.

What do you think is more profitable knowing you get a cut of every copy of a game sold for the rest of existence, or forcing a handful of pirates to actually buy the game.

No resale clauses came with online DRM, and could not exist with out the DRM to force the clause.

Has anyone a good overview of how effective Denuvo really is?

Like which games with Denuvo got cracked after which time and which games maybe never got cracked?

Two years ago everyone thought it is a very tough DRM, but it's not that difficult to break anymore, or is it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denuvo

If you want the short version :

- First there was some games using Denuvo that took a long time to be cracked using a flaw in Denuvo

- Then there was the announcement by some group (3DM) that in two years piracy would be over followed by an announcement that they will stop cracking for one year to see the impact on sales.

- That was the start of the Denuvo craze, more and more games using it and no crack in sight for months.

- Then an Italian group finally managed to crack some games. At first it was "older" (i.e. a couple of months old) games until RE7 that they managed to crack a week or so after release.

- Recently some guy also managed to crack some recent Denuvo v4 (which apparently is easier to crack than v3)

- And even more recently some group created a "serial generator"-like that doesn't remove or crack Denuvo but instead generate a valid "signature" that can trick Denuvo into believing that your version is genuine. You can expect that to be patched soon and not work for newer games.


So in even shorter, while Denuvo is still the most """efficient""" DRM out there it's no longer as """secure""" as it used to be.

Apparently Denuvo v4 (as the crackers have begun categorizing the different versions of Denuvo they've stumbled over) is easier to crack than older versions, for whatever reason.

Found this yesterday

https://crackwatch.com/

Supposedly a crucial part of Denuvo DRM was some kind of vm they were using but they lacked the proper license for it, so they can't use it anymore and the replacement they used (for the latest version) *sucks*.

(cobbled together from posts and conjecture about the latest version, not sure if more info came out since)

*if* that's still the case though, the *effective* version of Denuvo may be a thing of the past because of the loss of that vm.

I think you are mixing up EULA and TOS. They are different things.

EULA (End User License Agreement) is regarding the license you have to use the piece of software, and that is an agreement between you and the software publisher (IP rights holder).

TOS (Terms Of Service) is about the service, which may be needed somehow by the software, if not for any other reason but to purchase and download it. This is between you and the service provider.

While these both usually affect you as an end user, they are not the same thing and should be considered as separate things. For instance, if GOG closed its doors and stopped its service for good, then the TOS between you and GOG would be null and void. However. you would still have the license to use the games you have bought from GOG, so keep on playing anything you've downloaded earlier from GOG. The closure of the GOG service didn't terminate your licenses.

Now, the intesting case is when the closure of the service does stop you from using your software anymore. So, you still have a license for your (DRM'ed) games... but in practise you can't use the said software anymore because it depends on the service that doesn't exist anymore. Same thing of course for GOG games you haven't downloaded previously, you'd still need the service to get them delivered to you (by downloading them).

To me maybe the biggest problem is that it goes beyond the agreement. Like if the service ceases to exist or is terminated, I can't use the software anymore (if it is tied to that service). I have legal right to use the software (license)... but I just can't because it depends on the service which is made inaccessible to me.