Please warn us about what security software a game has

[Epsilon]

On the list of the various minimum and recommended specs required to run games, there needs to be a warning that shows what copyright protection software is included with the game. Like does the game include Denuvo or Star Force (which can seriously harm your computer).

[RiO]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Satoru:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von sungoddess14:

If you have to dig through the EULA, it is not on the front page.

The EULA is on the store page

They're alluding to the source of the requirement to list Denuvo (and all DRM; anti-tamperware; anti-cheat; etc.) on the storefront, which is EU 2011/83 Directive on consumer rights.

The EU requires traders to fulfill certain informational requirements for distance sale contracts, among which is, where applicable to digital content, the requirement to inform the consumer of the functioning of said content as well as the functioning (and by extension presence) of all technical protection measures included with said content.
In accordance with the official guideline of the EU Commission in how this legislation must be interpreted, those informational requirements carry the specific burden for the trader that they must actively ensure the consumer is informed, and therefore burying such statements in a EULA does not fulfill the legal criteria. (The guideline document actually lists mentioning in ancillary terms and conditions as an example of being insufficient to meet the legal criteria.)

[Crashed]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von RiO:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Satoru:

The EULA is on the store page

They're alluding to the source of the requirement to list Denuvo (and all DRM; anti-tamperware; anti-cheat; etc.) on the storefront, which is EU 2011/83 Directive on consumer rights.

The EU requires traders to fulfill certain informational requirements for distance sale contracts, among which is, where applicable to digital content, the requirement to inform the consumer of the functioning of said content as well as the functioning (and by extension presence) of all technical protection measures included with said content.
In accordance with the official guideline of the EU Commission in how this legislation must be interpreted, those informational requirements carry the specific burden for the trader that they must actively ensure the consumer is informed, and therefore burying such statements in a EULA does not fulfill the legal criteria. (The guideline document actually lists mentioning in ancillary terms and conditions as an example of being insufficient to meet the legal criteria.)

Amd here in the USA an emulator developer just settled big time and handed over their domain name. Bad time to be fighting against publishers trying to protect their intellectual property. Good chance IP lawyers and/or private investigators are reading this forum too.

[Epsilon]

I'm all for copyright protection but I just want to be informed of which program it is that is being used on a game I buy. Like old PC games that use SafeDisc cannot be played on current computers due to the huge security risk that SafeDisc is. So buying a game that might have it (I doubt Steam has any games that use SafeDisc) would be a waste because the game cannot be booted up on current OS. Or with the likes that StarForce damages computers, but I'm not sure there's any games that still use it.

[Crashed]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Epsilon:

I'm all for copyright protection but I just want to be informed of which program it is that is being used on a game I buy. Like old PC games that use SafeDisc cannot be played on current computers due to the huge security risk that SafeDisc is. So buying a game that might have it (I doubt Steam has any games that use SafeDisc) would be a waste because the game cannot be booted up on current OS. Or with the likes that StarForce damages computers, but I'm not sure there's any games that still use it.

Rumors that it damaged computers have so far been unsubstantiated. Only reason nobody uses StarForce anymore is because it tends to cause protected games to be locked to a specific Windows version.

[Lar Dass]

If it has access to my kernel, i want to know

[William Shakesman]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Crashed:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von RiO:

They're alluding to the source of the requirement to list Denuvo (and all DRM; anti-tamperware; anti-cheat; etc.) on the storefront, which is EU 2011/83 Directive on consumer rights.

The EU requires traders to fulfill certain informational requirements for distance sale contracts, among which is, where applicable to digital content, the requirement to inform the consumer of the functioning of said content as well as the functioning (and by extension presence) of all technical protection measures included with said content.
In accordance with the official guideline of the EU Commission in how this legislation must be interpreted, those informational requirements carry the specific burden for the trader that they must actively ensure the consumer is informed, and therefore burying such statements in a EULA does not fulfill the legal criteria. (The guideline document actually lists mentioning in ancillary terms and conditions as an example of being insufficient to meet the legal criteria.)

Amd here in the USA an emulator developer just settled big time and handed over their domain name. Bad time to be fighting against publishers trying to protect their intellectual property. Good chance IP lawyers and/or private investigators are reading this forum too.

Those IP lawyers are going to have a hell of a time arguing why they are entitled to exert full kernel level control over every user's system but are also somehow not liable for anything bad that comes from introducing such a totally unnecessary intrusion.

[Crashed]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von William Shakesman:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Crashed:

Amd here in the USA an emulator developer just settled big time and handed over their domain name. Bad time to be fighting against publishers trying to protect their intellectual property. Good chance IP lawyers and/or private investigators are reading this forum too.

Those IP lawyers are going to have a hell of a time arguing why they are entitled to exert full kernel level control over every user's system but are also somehow not liable for anything bad that comes from introducing such a totally unnecessary intrusion.

Full kernel level control? Any examples of current DRM schemes doing that?

[no154370]

Valorant initial version of Anti Cheat System have Full Kernel level control on every single Computers.

[Zarineth]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von no154370:

Valorant initial version of Anti Cheat System have Full Kernel level control on every single Computers.

It's not a DRM tho.

[RiO]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Crashed:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von RiO:

They're alluding to the source of the requirement to list Denuvo (and all DRM; anti-tamperware; anti-cheat; etc.) on the storefront, which is EU 2011/83 Directive on consumer rights.

The EU requires traders to fulfill certain informational requirements for distance sale contracts, among which is, where applicable to digital content, the requirement to inform the consumer of the functioning of said content as well as the functioning (and by extension presence) of all technical protection measures included with said content.
In accordance with the official guideline of the EU Commission in how this legislation must be interpreted, those informational requirements carry the specific burden for the trader that they must actively ensure the consumer is informed, and therefore burying such statements in a EULA does not fulfill the legal criteria. (The guideline document actually lists mentioning in ancillary terms and conditions as an example of being insufficient to meet the legal criteria.)

Amd here in the USA an emulator developer just settled big time and handed over their domain name. Bad time to be fighting against publishers trying to protect their intellectual property. Good chance IP lawyers and/or private investigators are reading this forum too.

Nobody's fighting against publishers over their right to protect their intellectual property.
Publishers are entitled to do that, just as much as consumers are entitled to know what tools the publishers are intending to use to do so and thus what those consumers are inviting onto their systems. In the EU that extends beyond a moral right to a legal right.

Furthermore, I don't very much like the insinuation you're spinning here that to be against DRM and other technical protection measures being sneaked onto end-users systems without open notice, somehow equates to being a software pirate.