Topic on Talk:Digital rights management (DRM)

This is a permanent link to the first version of this post. You can view later versions on the post history page.

It might have made sense when DRMs were almost all driver based, but for denuvo and steam (prolly arxan?) there's really nothing to remove in the first place. Unless we count license files, which is like an insult to consider.
Let alone "installed" with or without user consent. Which is not even the point then, nobody is asked invididually for physx, VC, flash, this or that update. It's implied.
The actual felony imo, is having "random stuff going on" even when protected games aren't running.
SecuROM is pretty emblematic for this then. It hasn't any pesky ring-0 code (running on startup, yes I'm looking at you safedisc).
But they still have a removal utility for supposedly "their library" (which for as much of a vague term, still is far from our whatever-it-means "software platforms")

With the assumption this is only called from games' paul.dll, I argue its "removal notice" should just be a normal

, rather than

Also, it's crazy we are totally missing what's likely the *most* common DRM these days, especially since we ourselves are hosting its most detailed documentation on the web (TODO: ask cyanic what stub/ceg version is a PITA with debuggers)

There are so much caveat though, that I'm wondering if it wouldn't be worth a separate page (something I'm asking myself for other DRMs info too)