The Internet is supposed to be a tool for granting freedom, and yet, increasingly, it is being used as a restraint, a way of restricting and limiting freedom. In the latest volley against piracy, for example, Ubisoft has created an anti-piracy measure that requires users to be connected to the Internet anytime they want to play games like “Assassin’s Creed 2” on their PCs, the idea being that a legitimate copy will have no problem connecting to Ubisoft’s servers and launching as expected while a cracked or pirated version will be refused permission to launch. And while this system works just fine on paper, in the real world, it doesn’t take into account what happens when the game can’t reach Ubisoft because its servers are down. A few weeks ago, we learned exactly what happens: your legitimate copy won’t launch.
In an official statement from Ubisoft to Eurogamer.net, Ubisoft described what had happened in early March from their perspective:
“Servers were attacked and while the servers did not go down, service was limited from 2:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. Paris time.”
The statement continued, “95 percent of players were not affected, but a small group of players attempting to open a game session did receive denial-of-service errors. All players with an open session during the attack were not affected.”
Of course, this wasn’t a problem for cracked versions of the games “Silent Hunter 5” and “Assassin’s Creed 2,” which Ubisoft denies the existence of despite reports that each had been cracked less than 24 hours after release. As we’ve seen in the past, the only people who were actually affected by the anti-piracy measure were the people who bought legitimate copies of the games. Pirates don’t have to “check-in” with a server on the Internet before they can play; pirates don’t have to enter a CD key or keep the disc in the drive; they don’t have to sift through manuals to find keywords and pass codes. They can install the game on as many computers as they want and make as many copies as they’d like. Of course, they don’t have to pay for the game either, and that’s the problem.
I don’t condone piracy, because I like it when the people who make the games I like to play get paid to make more games I might like to play. And even though I don’t agree with some of the truly inspired, sleaze-ball tactics certain publishers resort to, I also don’t delude myself enough to believe I’m entitled to do whatever I want with a piece of software just because I feel like it. When you buy a game, all you really get is a disc and a promise — a promise that you’ll be able to play the game under certain terms and conditions. Those terms and conditions usually don’t include stripping the anti-piracy measure out of a game and distributing it via BitTorrent, no matter how you justify it.
Ubisoft did try to make the new system as attractive as possible by allowing users to access its games from anywhere they happen to find themselves with an Internet connection, and Ubisoft even store the “saved game” files on its servers, so you never have to worry about backing them up when switching computers or reinstalling the game.
And yet, none of this matters if you can’t get online, because you won’t be able to the play the game you paid good money for. To that end, I’d really like to see an end to this vile form of anti-piracy. Digital Rights Management has been more about restrictions than rights, and I fear it’s only going to get worse as it creeps into every form of digital media we consume. Publishers are finding themselves in a virtual Never Never Land, and the pirates are winning.
w
| Tweet | Follow @wkdr |
|
|
