Spore/Mass Effect Requires A Virgin Sacrifice on Western Coast of Easter Island

[Lantyssa]

So since this is the epic thread that established that piracy is always evil, all the time, no exceptions EVER and that all pirates will boil in hell, I'm curious about this claim that Ubisoft pirated a no-cd crack from pirates to patch a game that they broke by adding copy protection to stop the evil pirates.

I want it to be true so I can laugh and laugh and laugh...

[Stormwaltz]

So since this is the epic thread that established that piracy is always evil, all the time, no exceptions EVER and that all pirates will boil in hell, I'm curious about this claim that Ubisoft pirated a no-cd crack from pirates to patch a game that they broke by adding copy protection to stop the evil pirates.

The same guys who put Starforce on everything for a while?

Delicious.

[Samprimary]

You keep saying you can't be bothered by society's laws, the rights of others, and paying for what you recieve, which makes you both a criminal and a sociopath.

The behavior and rationalizations I'm seeing here are all described under the ICD-10 Criteria for Dissocial Personality Disorder

oh my god do people really still do this?

[Trippy]

Slight Necro.

So since this is the epic thread that established that piracy is always evil, all the time, no exceptions EVER and that all pirates will boil in hell, I'm curious about this claim that Ubisoft pirated a no-cd crack from pirates to patch a game that they broke by adding copy protection to stop the evil pirates.

It's not clear they actually "pirated" anything. It's more like they were redistributing a no-cd crack they didn't write. Also the situation is more complicated than them trying to "fix" any copy protection scheme they added since this involves Direct2Drive which has it's own problems regarding copy protection and patching. It's the D2D patching issue which apparently caused somebody at Ubisoft to redistribute the no-cd crack as a workaround for those poor people who actually buy games through D2D

http://torrentfreak.com/ubisofts-no-cd-answer-to-drm-080718/

[Lantyssa]

Even if that assessment is more accurate, it's still a great illustration of why heavy-handed DRM is stupid and going to cost more customers than save sales.

[Engels]

It's not clear they actually "pirated" anything. It's more like they were redistributing a piece of sofware they didn't write.

...

[Murgos]

All software is covered by copyright.  Period.  Unless you get permission from the author you may not re-distribute it for profit or deprive others of the fruits of their labor.

Hence piracy.

The haXors in this case modified a copy of the software so as to bypass the copy-protection and then distributed that modified code.  As long as they don't charge for it and as long as it's used by legitimate owners of the software, the no-cd crack is in a pretty grey area.  As far as I know you are allowed to modify stuff that you own, for your own private use, as much as you want.

I think distributing the crack, officially, so that UBI can profit from anothers work is very iffy.

[Trippy]

All software is covered by copyright.  Period.  Unless you get permission from the author you may not re-distribute it for profit or deprive others of the fruits of their labor.

Hence piracy.

No-cd cracks are already freely redistributed. No-cd cracks are also derivative works of the original (i.e. the game). I.e. it's the no-cd crack writers that are infringing on copyrights not Ubisoft. In addition profit has nothing to do with copyright infringement.

Edit:

All software is covered by copyright.  Period.

Unfortunately you are totally incorrect. Without even getting into this situation there is plenty of software out there that's in the public domain -- i.e. have no copyrights at all.

[Murgos]

Just because it's in the public domain now, doesn't mean it always was.  By default, software is a protected work.

No-cd cracks are already freely redistributed. No-cd cracks are also derivative works of the original (i.e. the game). I.e. it's the no-cd crack writers that are infringing on copyrights not Ubisoft. In addition profit has nothing to do with copyright infringement.

No, it can be easily shown that UBI profits from the distribution of the no-cd crack which is another's work.

edit:

Computer programs are protected as literary works within the meaning of Article 2 of the Berne Convention. Such protection applies to computer programs, whatever may be the mode or form of their expression.

[Trippy]

Just because it's in the public domain now, doesn't mean it always was.  By default, software is a protected work.

That's not what you said.

No-cd cracks are already freely redistributed. No-cd cracks are also derivative works of the original (i.e. the game). I.e. it's the no-cd crack writers that are infringing on copyrights not Ubisoft. In addition profit has nothing to do with copyright infringement.

No, it can be easily shown that UBI profits from the distribution of the no-cd crack which is another's work.

That doesn't matter.

[Krakrok]

In addition profit has nothing to do with copyright infringement.

Specifically when profit is involved it is called vicarious copyright infringement. And you can have a no-cd crack that doesn't contain any copyright infringing code. Reverse engineering is legal. Specifically it can just patch the existing EXE file that the user already has. If a modified EXE file is being distributed then it would be infringement.

Not that it matters though. It's not like RELOADED is in a legal entity that would sue anyone. Unclean hands.

The irony is delicious though. Any bitching by Ubisoft about copyright infringement from here on out is null and void just like it is when it comes from Blizzard.

[Trippy]

Specifically when profit is involved it is called vicarious copyright infringement. And you can have a no-cd crack that doesn't contain any copyright infringing code. Reverse engineering is legal. Specifically it can just patch the existing EXE file that the user already has. If a modified EXE file is being distributed then it would be infringement.

Distribution of copy protection circumvention tools is illegal under the DMCA unless expressly allowed by the copyright holder.

[Azazel]

The irony is delicious though. Any bitching by Ubisoft about copyright infringement from here on out is null and void just like it is when it comes from Blizzard.

What did Blizzard do?

[Aez]

The irony is delicious though. Any bitching by Ubisoft about copyright infringement from here on out is null and void just like it is when it comes from Blizzard.

Last time I checked, "looking like fucking tool" never stopped a company from acting.  It's always good when they do it.  One of the biggest plague of humanity is "do as I say, not as I do".

[Sir T]

I've used a no CD crack twice. Once for earth universe assault and once for Black and White 2, Battle of the gods. Both time it was the game decided I didn't have the game disk in my DVD drive because the copy protection was blocking it from seeing it. If I hadn't used the No-CD crack I would not have been able to play the game I bought legitimately.

(not that it would have mattered wuth EAU as I havent played it since, but still)

[Murgos]

Just because it's in the public domain now, doesn't mean it always was.  By default, software is a protected work.

That's not what you said.

No, there is a specific reason when a piece of software is not not protected, usually due to action by the original copyright holder, by default all rights are held.  You do not need to reserve them, they are rights.

Circumvention of a copy-protection mechanism may be illegal, but that's absolutely not what's being discussed here.  What is being discussed is the redistribution of someone's work without their permission.  Two wrongs don't make a right and etc...

Maybe a court would rule that FAIRLIGHT or RELOADED released that no-cd code into the public domain when they distributed it via bit-torrent, but maybe not.  Allowing free redistribution of material held in copyright (and by default all software is held in copyright) does not invalidate a copyright.

[Krakrok]

Distribution of copy protection circumvention tools is illegal under the DMCA unless expressly allowed by the copyright holder.

You're right. In the United States.

---

Copyrights can be selectively enforced, Murgos.

[Trippy]

Just because it's in the public domain now, doesn't mean it always was.  By default, software is a protected work.

That's not what you said.

No, there is a specific reason when a piece of software is not not protected, usually due to action by the original copyright holder, by default all rights are held.  You do not need to reserve them, they are rights.

Circumvention of a copy-protection mechanism may be illegal, but that's absolutely not what's being discussed here.  What is being discussed is the redistribution of someone's work without their permission.  Two wrongs don't make a right and etc...

Maybe a court would rule that FAIRLIGHT or RELOADED released that no-cd code into the public domain when they distributed it via bit-torrent, but maybe not.  Allowing free redistribution of material held in copyright (and by default all software is held in copyright) does not invalidate a copyright.

And yet you are still wrong. Your belief of how copyrights works is analogous to the erroneous belief that the First Admendment protects *all* speech absolutely -- it doesn't.

You believe that writing software automatically grants you copyright on that piece software -- it does not. To be eligible a work must be an "original work of authorship". E.g. I can't just copy somebody else's code, put my name on it and claim I have a copyright on that code. If you could do that there would be no point in having software copyrights at all.

These No-CD cracks are typically distributed as modified EXEs (download one from the usual sources to see for yourself) and hence are derivative works under copyright law. You can only claim a copyright on that portion of a derivative work which is different from the original if it is "different enough from the original to be regarded as a new work or must contain a substantial amount of new material." I would argue that patching out the copy protection code does not qualify as "different enough" or "substantial amount of new material". Hence not only is the No-CD crack an illegal derivative work (cause Ubisoft didn't give them permission to create it) even if it was legal it wouldn't have it's own copyright since it's not different enough from the original.

So at best (for Ubisoft) they were distributing a piece code they own the copyright to and at worst they were distributing a piece of code where the patched out copy protection code has no copyright at all There is no piracy on the part of Ubisoft involved here.

And just for fun here's what the latest Vegas 2 No-CD 1.03 note says post-incident (excerpt):

              Rainbow Six Vegas 2 1.03 Cracked (c) Ubisoft
     ßß ÜÜÜÜ                                                     Ü
  þ Ü     ßßßßßßßÛÛÛÜÜܱÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ                              ÜÜ°ß
   Þ ²                     ßßßßßßßßßßßßßßß²ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÛÛÛÛßßß
    ²
    ÞÝ  Release Date: 17/07/2008        Protection: Safedisc    Ý
     Û                                                          ²
     ²Ý Cracked By..: BAT-TEAM          # of Files: few         Þ
     ÞÝ                                                         Þ
  ÜÜÜ Ý ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ Þ ÜÜÜÜÜÜ
                                                                Þ
      þ  ²ÛßÛ ²ÛßÛ ²Û  ²ÛßÛ ²ÛßÛ ²ÛÜÜ ²ÛßÛ   ²Û ²ÛßÜ ²Ûßß ²ÛßÛ  Þ
         ÛÛ   ÛÛÜÜ ÛÛÜ ÛÛÜÜ ÛÛßÛ ÜÜÜÛ ÛÛÜÜ   ÛÛ ÛÛ Û ÛÛß  ÛÛÜÛ
      
         Check readme.txt for a list of updates.

         Oh and by the way, Ubisoft, feel free to use this
         cracked update on your official technical support again.

         Have a nice summer, cheers.

[Murgos]

You're still hand waving about illegality of the crack.  That's not a discussion that anyone, other than you, is having, you don't get to redistribute illegal code either.  Judge Trippy does not get to declare from the bench what portion of the crack code constitutes 'different enough from the original' and neither does UBI Softs lead counsel.

As far as the quote from the read.me?  Well, great!  Let's get it out there, I hope UBI Soft starts redistributing, with permission, lots of no-cd cracks, once they realize how popular they are with their, paying and registered, customers maybe they'll stop dicking around with all this ineffective, damaging, copy protection.

[Trippy]

You're still hand waving about illegality of the crack.  That's not a discussion that anyone, other than you, is having, you don't get to redistribute illegal code either.  Judge Trippy does not get to declare from the bench what portion of the crack code constitutes 'different enough from the original' and neither does UBI Softs lead counsel.

Actually I do get to say that. The crack is clearly illegal unless Ubisoft has stated that the crackers are authorized to create that derivative work, and it is a derivative work since they are distributing the entire EXE.

I agree there is some handwaving with regards to whether or not the modified code would be eligible for it's own separate copyright. However ignoring the unclean hands doctrine mentioned by Krakrok above (which makes this all moot since there's no way they could possibly claim a valid copyright on a derivative work that was created illegally/unethically) I'm sure Ubisoft would be more than happy to meet the crackers in a court of law to determine that part.

[Sir T]

You know. technically me scrawling "this game sucks" on the splash screen of EVE was illegal according to the EULA as it was modifying a client file.

Ahh lforget it. maybe I'm just into handcuffs. 

[MournelitheCalix]

Does anyone know if a Crack has been successfully engineered yet to get past this three installation garbage?  I am wondering if this version of SecuROM has actually worked on the video game crackers or if all it has succeeded at doing was pissing off Bioware's one time loyal customers and simultaneously inflating EA's profit margins.

[MournelitheCalix]

Distribution of copy protection circumvention tools is illegal under the DMCA unless expressly allowed by the copyright holder.

You're right. In the United States.

---

Copyrights can be selectively enforced, Murgos.

I don't know about how anyone else feels but if I was asked to sit in on a jury prosecuting a person who produced software to circumvent this DRM my answer would be I refuse to find them guilty and I don't care what the hell the letter of the law does say.

[Calantus]

And that is why juries suck.

[Reg]

On the off chance that someone missed the news... Spore has gone gold and is due to be released September 7.

[Yoru]

On the off chance that someone missed the news... Spore has gone gold and is due to be released September 7.

I believe it's out Sept. 4th in the EU.

[Azazel]

So I picked up the creature creator, to install on my work laptop to have a fool around with the kids in my class, on one of those big interactive whiteboards we got recently. I got around to installing it today. It wants to activate itself online. Apparently I'm not connected to the internet, so it can't verify my legit copy.

As far as work firewalls go, I can connect to WoW, and I'm the only person here who plays any kinds of games, so it's not like EA is specifically blocked.

Anyway. Screw EA and their shitty DRM.

On the bloody creature creator demo.

[Hawkbit]

Ok, sorry to necro, but this is relevant (to me ).

Is there a watchdog community out there that is posting up about which games use intrusive DRM practices?  I've come to realize how big of a deal this rootkit shit is after the fact.  But I want to start putting my foot down about it from here on out.

You all do a good job of pointing out which games have it, but I was wondering if there's a homebase for it. 

[schild]

No, there's better. Although it's totally related to privacy, for PC games I always check NFOHump.com as release groups always list the copy protection site in the NFO. If you look there, all the way on the right is a little button for a clean NFO. It opens up as a text page in browser and will tell you the Copy Protection type. Since it's a piracy site, they tend to have the information before release as well.

[Hawkbit]

Very cool, much appreciated.  That makes a whole bunch of sense. 

Along with Securom, are there any other big DRM offenders?

[Jade Falcon]

Starforce is probably the worst since it's been said it eats components.

[FatuousTwat]

Great mention, but I'd like to point out that the site has really been going down hill since it changed from nforce.nl to nfohump.com. Seems like releases are showing up later and later.

[Hawkbit]

The Spore/Amazon debacle is now showing up on the front page of Google News, so EA is getting some terrible press right now.  They've already modified C+C RA3's DRM policies... not good enough standards, but I think they are realizing this isn't going to work. 

One site is reporting 171,000 downloads of Spore by torrent so far.  If even 25% of those are legitimately pirated due to DRM then EA lost some cash due to their stupid policies.  I can't imagine having a 1 star rating at Amazon helps. 

[Yegolev]

I just took some time to look into this Spore DRM thing.  My wife (!) brought it up to me last night, and when I said I hadn't looked into it she gave me that "I thought you were a gamer" look she does.  I did some research just today and the things I am digging up quickly are pretty interesting to me.

Forbes article about Spore DRM and how the draconian DRM spurred Spore to be the Titanic of torrent.
http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfrastructure/2008/09/12/spore-drm-piracy-tech-security-cx_ag_mji_0912spore.html

The copy protections on "Spore" were equally detested by a less piracy-prone crowd at Amazon.com. By Thursday evening, the game had received more than 2,100 reviews, nearly 2,000 of which had given it a rating of one star out of five. Most negative reviews--including messages titled "No way, no how, no DRM" and "DRM makes me a sad panda"--cited the game's restrictions as a sore spot.

It also has expectedly-intelligent commentary from Brad Wardell.

"PC games are massively pirated because you can pirate them," says Brad Wardell, chief executive of Plymouth, Mich.-based gaming company Stardock. Wardell argues that the driver for piracy is user-friendliness--not price. Instead of digital locks, Stardock requires users to use unique serial numbers which it monitors, in conjunction with IP addresses.

"Our focus is on getting people who would buy our software to buy it," Wardell says, rather than trying to strong-arm people unlikely to pay for the products into become paying customers.

DRM only limits the ability of consumers who wouldn't typically pirate media to make copies or share it with friends and family, agrees [peer-to-peer research firm] Big Champagne's [Chief Executive Eric] Garland. But because encryption is so easily broken by savvier--and more morally flexible--users, it does little to stop the flood of intellectual property pirated over the Internet, he contends.

"DRM can encourage the best customers to behave slightly better," he says. "It will never address the masses of non-customers downloading your product."

Here's a quote from a Sept 13 article on torrentfreak.com about how well the DRM is working out.

Since September 2nd when Spore first appeared on BitTorrent, it has been downloaded a little over 500,000 times across various BitTorrent sites according to our most recent statistics. This download rate exceeds that of any other pirated game in history, and in a week or two from now it will be the most pirated game ever on BitTorrent.

It's possibly ironic to note that The Sims is currently the most torrented game.

There is also an interesting idea in a ZDNet blog post that Spore has opened the eyes of hundreds of people who had no idea you could obtain any software for free on the innertubes:

What keeps people in line is a sense of honesty and fair play, and an unconscious incompetence about what’s available for nothing. Not only has the DRM in Spore put people off buying the game, it’s exposed a wider audience to, well, the fact that you can get pretty much anything that’s in digital form for nothing in a few clicks of the mouse.

That last one is particularly interesting to me and I had not thought of it beforehand.

[Murgos]

Since September 2nd when Spore first appeared on BitTorrent, it has been downloaded a little over 500,000 times across various BitTorrent sites according to our most recent statistics. This download rate exceeds that of any other pirated game in history, and in a week or two from now it will be the most pirated game ever on BitTorrent.

It's been said before but it is worth saying again.

DRM does not affect pirates.  DRM only affects legitimate users.

The pirate crowd had a DRM free spore EARLIER than the stores had the DRM version.

The pirates can download Spore as often as they wish as long as 1 person in the WORLD is willing to host a seed.  Legit users are restricted to, what?  3?  Until EA decides to not host the key checker any longer?

DRM does not do what you think it does.