The Entertainment Consumers Association is a non-profit started by industry professional Hal Halpin to help consumers understand their rights, while also being a voice for those who buy and play video games in the industry. When the FTC held a conference to discuss DRM, the ECA was there, and at GDC 2009 we chatted with Halpin about that conference and the future of PC gaming. Ultimately, the ECA has two main positions on gaming and copy protection: 1) DRM needs to be disclosed, and 2) End-User Licensing Agreements need to be both simple and standard.

"We suggested a few things to the FTC, one of which was we'd like to see DRM disclosed," Halpin started. "So when people go to the store and buy the packaged good, the PC game, they'll see something on the front of the box saying there is DRM inside, and to what degree it will be invasive."

"The second thing that we recommended was that EULAs get standardized, so again, rather than have 30 or 40 types of agreements, there would be one standard one for all different types of computer games. People go into the store, buy the game, open it, and they can no longer return it... by standardizing the EULA, consumers will have the confidence to know what it is they're agreeing to before they buy the product."

"That didn't go over so well. There was a room of attorneys that kind of gasped when we suggested standardization. One panelist commented that the EULA really were there as consumer information, and that was the one and only time that the FTC jumped in and said 'wait a second, this has nothing to do with consumer information, this is purely IP protection.' I pointed out that when we ran the IEMA (Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association) we were able to get the size of the boxes standardized, and to get the PC CD-ROM logo on the box. These were not herculean undertakings, and they didn't require legislation. So if we can do those things, then certainly we can do these."

How do you tell consumers what kind of DRM is included in the game? Simple: use existing ideas that consumers are comfortable with. "One panelist suggested icons on the front of the box, some sort of logo. You know, you copy what's successful, which is the ESRB: everyone understands than an "M" represents Mature, and if you flip the box over there are descriptors." Someone suggested that the image of a lock be used, so if you see a padlock that's fully closed, you know there is some serious DRM being used in the game. Descriptors on the back could give you more specific information. Halpin's take? Keep it simple so that everyone can understand what's going on with the DRM being introduced to their system.

How do you tell consumers what kind of DRM is included in the game? Simple: use existing ideas that consumers are comfortable with.

I asked Halpin if these moves will be possible without legislation. Microsoft sure doesn't want you to think about their technology in terms of DRM, and it has become a dirty word for EA, so how much pressure can be put on these companies to include the information on the box?

"Well, that's certainly my hope. That's why we brought up these two ideas that went over well with the audience, that the transition from disc-based media to digital media over the course of the next three five or seven years... it's essentially going to remove the purchase to own out of the equation, replacing it with purchasing a license. That's how PC games are now, when you go to the store and buy a game, you technically don't own it. That paradigm shift, it's very important for us to get out ahead of it, so with DRM and EULAs, so we can say these are what consumer's rights are, and have an easy way to identify that in the purchasing process."

I bring up services like Steam, but Halpin disagrees with me when I say that buying online may make DRM less of an issue. "No, it's a bigger issue. One of the reasons it's important to get EULAs standardized and DRM disclosed is that when you talk about different systems like Steam, as your example, there are still controls in place. While it's not SecuROM, it's another form of DRM, it's just in a different way. Consumers need to understand that."

So what if these companies no longer are able to support the games? One intriguing bit of news Halpin heard from the FTC meeting was the idea that any company who uses DRM must give keys and access codes to the Federal Trade Commission to hold onto. "In the event of a company going under, the FTC would step in," Halpin told me, keeping the games open and playable. In other words, if you're worried about EA shutting down the servers for Spore, you could trust that the FTC would make sure your game remains playable.

But do you own your games? Not really

The big question with licensed goods, such as PC games, is whether or not reselling the property is a basic right. "The area that you're in is the first-sale doctrine, which doesn't apply to computer software," Halpin replies. "Why? They're using the license model rather than the package-to-own packaged good model... my personal preference is that if you buy something and you own it, you should be able to play it whenever and wherever and on whatever device you want. This is a personal stance, not one the association has."

Halpin didn't seem optimistic about the ongoing ability for consumers to resell their PC games, although the official statement somewhat clarified the association's stance. "The Law, in the area of EULAs in particular, is not as clear as it once was. And the software industry's potential side-stepping of the First Sale Doctrine's protections—by terming their products as 'licensed' rather than 'sold' — leaves us concerned about the future of interactive entertainment, generally."

Halpin doesn't think this stance will stay limited to PCs however; consoles may also begin to offered licensed products. "It may not be next generation, but the generation after that almost certainly will be physical media-free. This next generation of consoles will be way more dependent on digital distribution than it is currently, and it's growing greatly now... I think it's a trend that we'll absolutely see continue, and again when it moves from purchase-to-own to purchasing a license, you're in a whole different area of case law."

What's odd is that this creates an issue for the hardware: without money from software sales, why would retailers choose to sell the systems at all?

"It's totally razors and razorblades, so they have to overcome that first. I wouldn't be surprised if major retailers haven't already discussed this and have something locked down... that's certainly the first major obstacle. The second is: are these first parties so confident in the fact that they can reach the same mass-market numbers that we have in this generation, or more, by not having those retail partners and that availability of physical media. That transition will have to happen over a period of time. This next generation is just too soon."

These are issues we should all be talking about, but we're not. Education is key

"One of the panelists in our discussion was sort of a proponent of DRM being something that everyone understands, that everyone is aware of because of Apple, because of EA, and I had to stop him and say I totally disagree. I think that along the spectrum some publishers are certainly more conservative, and feel that the vocal minority of consumers who spoke up about Mass Effect and Spore represent the 'pirates' and in doing so fanned the flames for a much larger percentage of consumers who now feel like they're not being listened to. A dismissive attitude from the industry probably came back to haunt them in sales," Halpin said. Ars Technica readers make their voices heard when it comes to DRM both in buying decisions and discussions, and the topic was huge at GDC, but for the average consumer? This may be a silent war.

That's why DRM information needs to be front and center. "Disclosure is of paramount importance. People need to know what it is they're buying! We were joking before about information on food [Editors note: we referred to the proposed labels on gaming as "nutritional information" in a previous discussion] but some DRM is so invasive that you're buying a product and you need to know what's inside it, what impact it's going to have and how it may or may not be limiting the rights you believe you have, because there's now way to return it. That's the basis on which the FTC and your readers agree: disclosure, first and foremost."

This is important issue, and I asked Halpin if there are any other goods you can buy, not knowing what the product may do to other goods (your computer) when you use it, and that you can't return. "Not that I can think of. Anything else, if it's defective you can return it." That doesn't work at most retailers, where the employees won't take returns simply because of invasive DRM, if they even know what that term means.

"One of our primary goals, core to our mission, is education," Halpin tells Ars, and he strongly believes that if the FTC and the ECA is able to get this information onto game boxes, along with easy-to-understand, standardized licensing agreements, he can get the necessary information into the hands of consumers so that they can make better buying decisions and know their rights.

Ars Technica would like to thank Halpin for his time, and to encourage you, if you agree with these arguments, to join the ECA. The $20 a year cost (less if you're a student or in the military) gives you many benefits, and shows that you support disclosed DRM, more consumer rights, and a better experience when it comes to buying games. Read about the new Amazon discount as well: the ECA could save you money while fighting for these issues.