*The* DRM thread

[alanschu]

That's such a cynical standpoint. It assumes people posting on the Internet have an agenda to push or something.

 

By the way, did I tell you guys about the time I won the Math Nobel? True story!

 

 

Hahahaha.

[random n00b]

Well, if you really need proof I'm sure I could get some

 

Edited October 2, 2008 by random n00b

[Magister Lajciak]

...perhaps by using higher fidelity, but less efficient compression on video and audio files as I already mentioned.

 

I think you are underestimating the people who upload warez; the video and audio would, most likely, simply be compressed to be more efficient.

 

You are probably right - they might get around it by compressing it and providing a decompression tool to decompress it to the right format again...

 

I have to wonder, though, what is it that motivates all these obviously talented people to devote their time and creative energy to cracking/circumventing copy protection? They are obviously expending a lot of effort on this despite the moral and legal implications of their actions, yet they see no personal benefit from it and even risk arrest/fines/lawsuits. What is it that motivates them - just simple infamy or the challenge of cracking the software? I must admit that I am mystified.

[alanschu]

I had a funny idea once wonder if cracking would see a small decline if the protection was virtually non-existent and/or simple enough that crackers would be bored to crack it.

 

I doubt it, but it made me laugh when I thought about it.

[newc0253]

hey, what the frak happened to my earlier post?

 

this is a DRM thread, and i posted about DRM: a heart-rending tale about how DRM can ruin lives...

[Tigranes]

Magister: the basic logic is, if the industry people have a way to create a certain thing, then the warez people will find a way to undo it. Because they're all basically working with the same building-blocks. Ain't like manufacturing where only the industry has big specialised tools.

 

DRM .exe? Crack the .exe. Superior cd check? Produce 1:1s too. etc, etc. If the devs can do it, chances are the warez people can do it too, eventually.

 

I had a funny idea once wonder if cracking would see a small decline if the protection was virtually non-existent and/or simple enough that crackers would be bored to crack it.

 

I doubt it, but it made me laugh when I thought about it.

 

I do wonder, too.

 

It would probably actually take a while, because the culture won't be able to keep up.

[Magister Lajciak]

Magister: the basic logic is, if the industry people have a way to create a certain thing, then the warez people will find a way to undo it. Because they're all basically working with the same building-blocks. Ain't like manufacturing where only the industry has big specialised tools.

 

DRM .exe? Crack the .exe. Superior cd check? Produce 1:1s too. etc, etc. If the devs can do it, chances are the warez people can do it too, eventually.

 

Well, you are probably correct, but you can still make it harder on the users of the pirated versions by increasing the complexity of what they need to do to get it to work. Also, you can increase the time it takes pirates to crack the game - every day of sales unburdened by piracy is important, because most games sell the best at release and immediately thereafter. On top of that, you can perhaps target the groups themselves, by inserting unique identifiers into each game disc (and keeping a database) that will enable you to track any early leaks of the game. Basically, you cannot stop piracy, but you can perhaps have some moderate effect on it without overly inconveniencing the legitimate user.

 

I had a funny idea once wonder if cracking would see a small decline if the protection was virtually non-existent and/or simple enough that crackers would be bored to crack it.

 

I doubt it, but it made me laugh when I thought about it.

 

I do wonder, too.

 

It would probably actually take a while, because the culture won't be able to keep up.

 

Well, as I said, I am very much uncertain about what motivates these groups... the challenge, the infamy, or simply sticking it to the corporate world? Unravelling their motivations could be useful, as policies could then be designed to target them more efficiently.

[Tigranes]

but you can still make it harder on the users of the pirated versions by increasing the complexity of what they need to do to get it to work. Also, you can increase the time it takes pirates to crack the game

 

On paper, every word you say is right. But unfortunately, most methods the industry have chosen to increase that 'complexity' has simply spawned more complex and annoying problems for legit users as well as pirates. And while pirates know what they are getting into, legit users may not.

 

On top of that, you can perhaps target the groups themselves, by inserting unique identifiers into each game disc (and keeping a database) that will enable you to track any early leaks of the game

 

I'm pretty sure at least one game tried this in the last 3-4 years. Can't have worked too well, I guess.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

This was posted in one of the dead threads, but I thought I would re-post it now that I've found a quote from one of the developers.

 

Bethesda: No Nasty DRM for Fallout 3

PC gamers can rejoice.

 

Bethesda spokesman Pete Hines has told Shacknews that the PC flavor of the hotly anticipated Fallout 3 will use a simple DVD check for verification:

 

[Fallout 3 will be] pretty similar to what we did for Oblivion, which was--we basically don't do any [DRM]--we do the mildest form possible. I actually don't know if I even want to get into what it is that we exactly do, but we try to be really noninvasive when it comes to that stuff.

 

And it is a pain in the ass--it is a pain in the ass that we have to do it at all in the first place. But when you spend tens of millions of dollars, we don't think it's right to just put something out there and let everybody do whatever they want and pass it around...

 

But no, we're pretty mild about how we do it, and we try to do it in a way that prevents folks from exploiting and distributing our games that we worked very hard on... It's very important for us not to ruin the experience for the person who did buy a copy, so we try to be very careful... We want to remove anything that is a hindrance or an annoyance to the player, we're trying to just get to the game and have fun...

 

Shacknews also notes that Fallout 3 will have no install limit. You listening, EA?

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/10/02/bet...y-drm-fallout-3

[alanschu]

I am a big fan of the Op Flashpoint and Earthbound solutions haha.

 

I remember Opposing Forces (Half-Life expansion) had a bug that only occurred in the pirated version (by mistake I think) and people were asking for help on forums about it.

[Magister Lajciak]

but you can still make it harder on the users of the pirated versions by increasing the complexity of what they need to do to get it to work. Also, you can increase the time it takes pirates to crack the game

 

On paper, every word you say is right. But unfortunately, most methods the industry have chosen to increase that 'complexity' has simply spawned more complex and annoying problems for legit users as well as pirates. And while pirates know what they are getting into, legit users may not.

 

On top of that, you can perhaps target the groups themselves, by inserting unique identifiers into each game disc (and keeping a database) that will enable you to track any early leaks of the game

 

I'm pretty sure at least one game tried this in the last 3-4 years. Can't have worked too well, I guess.

 

The thing is that I am one of those people that really, really despise DDRM that requires online activations and forces install limits, but I am also very concerned about piracy, so I keep of thinking about methods to combat piracy yet not require DDRM (which fails spectacularly at combatting piracy anyway). I know there is no magic bullet here, but am still hopeful that piracy can be attacked on the margin at least, without attacking the legitimate users, which DDRM does today.

[Dark_Raven]

Bethy scores big by not using DRM. At least they listen to their fanbase and customers. Stupid EA doesn't.

[Gorth]

Thread pruned a bit. Let's try and keep this about DRM, no more, no less.

[Magister Lajciak]

Bethy scores big by not using DRM. At least they listen to their fanbase and customers. Stupid EA doesn't.

 

By Bethy you mean the developers of Fallout, right?

[Strix]

Bethy scores big by not using DRM. At least they listen to their fanbase and customers. Stupid EA doesn't.

 

By Bethy you mean the developers of Fallout, right?

 

No, Bethy is not an abbreviation for Black Isle - what would make you think that?

[Magister Lajciak]

Bethy scores big by not using DRM. At least they listen to their fanbase and customers. Stupid EA doesn't.

 

By Bethy you mean the developers of Fallout, right?

 

No, Bethy is not an abbreviation for Black Isle - what would make you think that?

 

Well, I initially misunderstood and thought - who/what is Bethy, but then realized what she meant. In any case, she is correct - Fallout 3 will not use DDRM.

[Magister Lajciak]

Posted 10/03/08 22:16 (GMT) by Matthew Rorie

I just checked - it's a cd key install. No installation limits or anything weird like that.

 

http://nwn2forums.bioware.com/forums/viewt...um=128&sp=0

 

It's now officially confirmed: Storm of Zehir will not have DDRM!

 

Kudos to Obsidian!

Kudos to Atari!

 

Hurray, hurray, hurray!

 

... Sorry about that - I am just very happy about this!

[Dark_Raven]

Obsidian is smart by doing that, otherwise they would be recieving hate mail for using DRM.

Edited October 5, 2008 by Dark_Raven

[Magister Lajciak]

I don't think they would have received hate mail had they implemented DDRM, but they would have lost some customers. In any case, yes, I agree they are smart and I am thankful for how they dealt with this issue.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Software which claimed to provided a legal way to copy DVDs taken down after legal action.

[Hurlshort]

Software which claimed to provided a legal way to copy DVDs taken down after legal action.

 

Yeah, that was pretty unsurprising. I'm in support of this legal action. While it might be a hassle to need to carry your DVD's with you if you want to watch them on a laptop, there is too much room for abuse in allowing full copies on the hard drives like this.

[Deraldin]

Software which claimed to provided a legal way to copy DVDs taken down after legal action.

 

Yeah, that was pretty unsurprising. I'm in support of this legal action. While it might be a hassle to need to carry your DVD's with you if you want to watch them on a laptop, there is too much room for abuse in allowing full copies on the hard drives like this.

 

How is this different than software that allows you to rip your CD's to your hard drive? No one likes carrying huge numbers of CD's around just so they can listen to all of their music.

[random n00b]

Software which claimed to provided a legal way to copy DVDs taken down after legal action.

 

Yeah, that was pretty unsurprising. I'm in support of this legal action. While it might be a hassle to need to carry your DVD's with you if you want to watch them on a laptop, there is too much room for abuse in allowing full copies on the hard drives like this.

Sorry, but violations of copyright must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. This is just assuming that everyone using this is a pirate, which is against presumption of innocence. Things are not banned based on the "potential for abuse", or stuff like cars and rat poison would be banned.

 

The problem is that the Courts are still bending over and protecting the MPAA's "copy rules". I'm not sure if this is upholding the DMCA or simply the result of lobbying to safeguard their corporate anti-copy policies. The legal arm of DRM?

[Gorth]

Never underestimate the power of lobbying. Lobbying is not necessarily related to anything just or ethical, only related to self-interest. Why wouldn't everybody try it?

[random n00b]

You trying to get cynical on *me*?