The "lag" in legislation has so far been completely in favour of the consumer. Videogames are still ruled over by legislation made for books and records. Giving the consumer more rights than were ever intended. We adjusted to this exceptionally good position, and now, as the scales are equalling again, some feel cheated.

The simple idea that people who buy creative works own them shows how much the perception of reality is tilted.

"I want everything now and how I want it for next to nothing" is not a consumer right.

Given that copyright is an entirely artificial concept, I find that statement hilarious.

Not going to argue about it, tho. My weekend starts in one hour and 45 minutes. Not interested in using that time to discuss that. ;-)

Something tells me you are not a writer.

It's not the problem of "owning", it's the problem of not knowing what is owned.

I own a copy of the game/book/music etc., but it's not the same ownership as with the original work.

Aside from what's enforced by law, consumer rights are determined by the point at which you stop giving sellers money. It's not unreasonable for people who purchase a copy of digital media to expect to be retain their right to continue using it if they move to another country, or have to reinstall it in the future, etc. There are many other legitimate reasons for refusing to purchase things with heavy handed DRM aside from outright stubbornness, as you suggest.

As a consumer, businesses are not your friends, they will usually not look out for your best interests, and it's your responsibility to put your foot down when they begin to do things you disagree with. But many gamers are simply lazy or otherwise unprincipled consumers who don't care whether they're being treated fairly as long as they receive their product.

I won't buy another Steamworks game; I had major problems with Steam the last time I bought one and simply find the terms of purchase unacceptable. That's the bottom line for me. Doesn't matter to me who else agrees or whether I'm in the minority, it's my money and voting with it doesn't bother me at all.

Riiiight.....

That's not a very useful post.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not a "Pirate Everything!" kind of guy (my GOG library is ridiculous... just ridiculous... as is my DVD collection, music library, etc). But to claim that current copyright is skewed in favor of the consumer, and to further connect your train of thought with some kind of better perception of "reality" struck me as so f***ing ridiculous that I couldn't help but comment. Wasn't looking to truly offend you or anything of that sort, tho, so don't take it that way.

+1. Well put.

The reinstalling is covered by law and if a DRM causes you to not get a game running you get a refund. Simple as that. Eg, check the recent rise of legends thread were MS offered a refund after the patch servers went down. Companies do that.

The "moving across countries" is something very difficult, as the matter of licensing is very complicated. But in the end a regional restriction needs to be mentioned at least in the TOS to be effective. And country specific DRM is actually a good thing, as only then you can provide realistic and just prices for low income countries without opening this for abuse. And just look at the forums here were people gladly try to get games from low income countries, illegaly break apart bundles or even trade away the desura keys after using the steam key. A "pay what you want" DRM free option would be better in just about every regard, but it would ultimately fail due to the greed of the individual gamer. The industry is doing well, but they are not swimming in money, so I don't really feel exploited.

I'm not saying that the system is perfect, but we need a compromise between the content creators and the consumers. And the current system of DRMs is doing a good enough job.

Seeing the creators as "enemies" that want to cheat us out of every game is like saying every gamer is a pirate. Childish and stupid and not really worth my time.

I suddenly realise this has to have something to do with Obsidians KotOR 2 finally appearing on Steam just about a week ago.

Assuming I'm reading you right, you're saying it's acceptable for a business to maintain captive markets and sell their products at greater cost in richer areas, but unacceptable for consumers in those areas to seek better deals elsewhere. I'm sorry, but how can you possibly justify your reasoning? Do you think greed is okay for one group but not the other?

I didn't say they were your enemies, I said they were not your friends. The prerogative of a business, above everything else, is to maximise its own profit. Whether that's a good or a bad thing is entirely irrelevent, it's simply how business works. Businesses aren't football teams you need to barrack for, they're trying to get the best deal for themselves, and you as a consumer should be trying to do the same thing. The relationship between business and consumer is and always has been a tug-of-war. If you think otherwise then I'm afraid you're being naive.

Simple. I earn ten times a much a month as somebody from Bulgaria with my profession. I think it is only fair I pay more than he does for a game. Especially as those games are often still made in "high income areas" (Britain/Japan/US/Canada/Germany).

The only way for somebody from a low income regions to legally buy a game is to have prices that are fair for them. But thanks to people of your thinking this is only possible with DRM.

I'm not backing this game until DRM-free option is confirmed.

This is poor reasoning. There are plenty of low income earners in all of the regions you mentioned, as well as my own, for whom the prices of games are exorbident compared to the amount of money they earn. The poor of the world are not huddled into a handful of countries and looking for the best deals on things isn't necessarily a matter of greed rather than prudence just because you live in a developed country. So again, why is it acceptable for businesses to seek to maximise their profits by artificially inflating the prices of their product within a local marketplace, but not acceptable for consumers to seek to minimise their expenditure by purchasing the product elsewhere?