"That being said, digital marketplaces and DRM have there place to prevent piracy and allow developers and creators to make a living.
If someone has a solution to prevent piracy without a root of trust that would be ideal.'
This is the equivalent statement to inspecting everyone's bag at any point because they might have something illegal. It's not an acceptable move from google.
> If someone has a solution to prevent piracy without a root of trust that would be ideal
and that someone is named Gaben, and the solution is called Steam. He has done more to solve piracy than any media empire who proportedly spent billions in law suits, lobbying and anti-circumvention ever did.
And Steam implements its own DRM and takes 30% from game publishers. Also, they don't stop game developers from providing their own DRM which require root-of-trust, like CoD or BF6 which require Secure Boot.
> And Steam implements its own DRM
Which is entirely optional. In fact there are plenty of games on there without DRM at all.
> and takes 30% from game publishers.
They could always use other stores. And they do, however their customers use Steam because it is so much easier than other stores, and big picture mode is so much easier than piracy.
Those are mostly to prevent cheating (which is pretty bad for an online game) rather than piracy.
Which is the same as root-of-trust attestation.
Which is better:
- Having applications provide kernel-level software to provide attestation.
- Or having the OS provide root-of-trust attestation, but also requiring signed binaries, and preventing global root privilege escalation.
The third option would be neither, but players want some sort of anti-cheat.
What about Ubisoft with ubisoft connect
Ubisoft Connect is separate from the DRM on their games as I understand it, it's a game launcher, achievements tracker, friends system, advertising method, etc.
How is that steam's fault?
Gaben like all of us isn't going to be around forever, nor Steam is guaranteed to keep being what it is without his leadership.
Don't ask lawyers for what the best solution should be, because its always "lawsuits!"
I think it's more equivalent to when game consoles check the license on disc media.
It used to be via hardware in the disc reader, then online license checking. And now it's fully digital, media and license.
The fucked up part is the fact that we can't transfer digital ownership of purchases. But at least I can use my purchases across multiple devices. Maybe this is what we should use blockchains for, but it would still require a locked device with root-of-trust.
---
> It's not an acceptable move from google.
By all means, you can have an unlocked Android device with a non-Google sanctioned OS and not use Google Play. That way you can use any app that doesn't require Google Play Protect.
Companies are OK with it because it makes them money. The majority of users are OK with it because they can use those companies' apps.