BeenThere:

joemck:

Zylon:

Clearly, the only solution is to go back to distributing games on ROM cartridges.

Winner! Not just harder to pirate (there are writable cartridges, but they cost quite a bit), but zero load time.

 

Would it be all that hard to make an image of a ROM cartridge, and then create a virtual ROM loader that loads that image?


Not sure how a ROM cartridge is really any different than a CD-ROM, which used to be secure before people figured out how to write virtual CD image readers that acted (and mounted) just like CD drives.

Yeah, this is pretty much bullshit.  You know if someone release a cart-based game system again, there would be an accessory sold that plugged into the cart slot and either let you plug a USB thumbdrive into it or connect it to a network share.  ROMs are easy to rip and would be all over the Internet in no time.  The fact is, piracy just gets easier and easier.  The reason carts were hard to pirate is because everything was hard to pirate.  Even old-school PC games required you to mess around getting data of the floppies/CD and then required a way to distribute them (either an expensive CD burner or uploading them on your slow, expensive net connection). 

morbiuswilters:

BeenThere:

Every time a criminal finds another way to get their hands on a firearm illegally - should that mean we all have to jump through an ever deepening array of hoops to buy one?

Given the general political and historical knowledge of the forum, TDWTF might not be the best place to ask this.

 

I certainly didn't want to derail this thread into one of those, and am glad to see it hasn't.

The main point I was going for, is that whether someone agrees with civilian gun ownership or not, it should be evident that an ever escalading series of hurdles for legitimate use has near-nil impact on criminals that always make a point of bypassing the hurdles for legitimate use.  

A friend of mine (and no, the friend is not me) has fully working cracked copies of AutoCAD, 3DstudioMax, and Maya - these are not cheap titles.  The per-license loss for these items are substantially higher than a $50 game, and yet they are easily available via bit torrent.  The point being that if a company like autodesk (which I am sure has a lot at stake due to their high license fees) doesn't have the resources to protect those titles - who's going to?  They also have a far more "sticky" customer base - you really can't work in those industries without their products, so a draconian system will not scare away a lot of users. 

Yet, their titles are out there and cracked - hence cracked versions will probably always be out there.  EA is acting like "piracy" is coming from people "CD swapping" and trying to prevent that, largely because (I would guess) they are afraid to deal with the real source of piracy - cracked copies via the internet.


In fact, I bet a non-technical higher up decided to "beat back piracy" and had the techs come meet to "brainstorm" on solutions.  Knowing they can't touch cracked copies (the real issue) some tech eeked out "um, we can help stop CD sharing?" and the beast started to form from there.

 

Morb to your point about DRM. Even if ALL music was DRM protected, you can play the file and have an audio recorder listen. There will be some quality loss but some loss of a extremely high quality MP3 is still good for most people, if not then buy the f-ing music. You can NEVER stop piracy, pirates will figure out a way. However the current DRM scheme is like having to call Toyota every day to unlock your car. If Toyota closes that call center or goes out of business (lets say like Playsforsure), you can't get into your car without breaking some windows, and then it won't even start anyways.

Unfortunately I cannot think of ANY solution to stop piracy on software that is not intended to be used through a server. A server can check for legality (say WoW, though there are illegal servers they are not as good as the orig), while single player games, or mp3s don't need such checks and thus unless you can stop the average user from copying you are fucked. The point of good copy protection is to fool the average "dumb" user who is scared of the computer. Thats a good 90% of people so you got a pretty fucking good market share. If you market software to the ub3r l33t user like high-end games do (they market to people who upgrade their computer parts every 3 months) those people will use the pirated/cracked game because they have no money to spend on the damn game.

In the end all you have to do is make the user WANT to buy your software. But yet the dilemma remains, with physical objects you don't have to worry about people stealing by replicating what their friends have, with software that is the whole point of why computers and the internet are so great.

The only thing is, don't fuck with your LEGAL users, you mess with them and you will fail. I think we already saw what happened when the rootkit CD-authentication software was shipped with games. People simply refused to buy the games, or got cracked versions of their legally bought games.

morbiuswilters:

Yeah, this is pretty much bullshit.  You know if someone release a cart-based game system again, there would be an accessory sold that plugged into the cart slot and either let you plug a USB thumbdrive into it or connect it to a network share.

You mean like it's been done for Nintendo DS?

morbiuswilters:

Even old-school PC games required you to mess around getting data of the floppies/CD and then required a way to distribute them (either an expensive CD burner or uploading them on your slow, expensive net connection). 

The old-school Mac games usually required the "original" floppy to be used as a requisite for running the game. Some were copyable, some weren't.

The most advanced copy-protection scheme I remember was with a program called QualiTools. The 5.25" floppy disk had a small "scratch" that had been burned in by a laser. However, this über-protection was defeated by someone who copied the floppy, then proceeded to slash the same scratch with a razor. Hey, it had CRC errors, but the program actually worked!

Note: this was basically needed, because 5.25" floppies were really easy to damage, and no one wanted the "master disk" to fail, so we used the "slashed" version. 

danixdefcon5:

morbiuswilters:

Even old-school PC games required you to mess around getting data of the floppies/CD and then required a way to distribute them (either an expensive CD burner or uploading them on your slow, expensive net connection). 

The old-school Mac games usually required the "original" floppy to be used as a requisite for running the game. Some were copyable, some weren't.

The most advanced copy-protection scheme I remember was with a program called QualiTools. The 5.25" floppy disk had a small "scratch" that had been burned in by a laser. However, this über-protection was defeated by someone who copied the floppy, then proceeded to slash the same scratch with a razor. Hey, it had CRC errors, but the program actually worked!

Note: this was basically needed, because 5.25" floppies were really easy to damage, and no one wanted the "master disk" to fail, so we used the "slashed" version. 

The same thing is done with CD and DVD games today.  It's easy to bypass, you just need to use a hex editor to edit out the instructions that look for the damaged sectors, which is much more reliable than using a razor to slash the floppy disk. 

astonerbum:

Morb to your point about DRM. Even if ALL music was DRM protected, you can play the file and have an audio recorder listen. There will be some quality loss but some loss of a extremely high quality MP3 is still good for most people, if not then buy the f-ing music. You can NEVER stop piracy, pirates will figure out a way.

Wrong.  All you need is for all content to be digitally-signed and to prevent the player from playing unsigned content.  Your personal audio recorder would be required to use your own issued signature on the recordings and if you attempt to redistribute them someone will notice and revoke your cert.  It would also open you to civil and criminal prosecution.  Requiring all content to be signed by the creator would drastically reduce piracy as it would be equivalent the of forcing thieves to leave an ID will their name, address and social security number at the scene of every crime.  I'm not saying I advocate such a system, but it is certainly technically possible.

morbiuswilters:

Wrong.  All you need is for all content to be digitally-signed and to prevent the player from playing unsigned content.  Your personal audio recorder would be required to use your own issued signature on the recordings and if you attempt to redistribute them someone will notice and revoke your cert.

This would never work due to privacy laws, and because nobody would buy such devices, when devices without this enforcement are still on market. However, there have been experiments with watermarking - certified players would be required to check for watermarks on any non-encrypted content, and refuse to play it if watermark was found (all encrypted content would be watermarked; actually, IIRC, this already is the case with some SACD and DVD-Audio titles).

ender:

morbiuswilters:

Wrong.  All you need is for all content to be digitally-signed and to prevent the player from playing unsigned content.  Your personal audio recorder would be required to use your own issued signature on the recordings and if you attempt to redistribute them someone will notice and revoke your cert.

This would never work due to privacy laws, and because nobody would buy such devices, when devices without this enforcement are still on market. However, there have been experiments with watermarking - certified players would be required to check for watermarks on any non-encrypted content, and refuse to play it if watermark was found (all encrypted content would be watermarked; actually, IIRC, this already is the case with some SACD and DVD-Audio titles).

People would buy the devices if they were the only devices for sale or allowed for sale.  As far as watermarks go, if you can strip the encryption you can strip the watermark easily enough.  Finally, I'm not sure how privacy laws would play into this.  If all devices were required to have hardware-level DRM that checked for signatures and all recording/creative devices were required to have a unique digital signature that was applied to all created files, this dosen't really infringe on the privacy of the end-user.  The only time it would become an issue was if recordings of copyrighted material were found being passed around, at which point the user has committed a crime and their personal info would be available to a court. 

morbiuswilters:

People would buy the devices if they were the only devices for sale or allowed for sale.

Only if somehow all other devices were banned, and nobody would sell second-hand hardware without these requirements.

morbiuswilters:

As far as watermarks go, if you can strip the encryption you can strip the watermark easily enough.

If it's an analog watermark, it's pretty hard to strip. While I haven't experimented with audio watermarks, I did play with Digimarc picture watermarks, and those survived a lot (you'll see something similar if you ever scan a banknote - many editors will refuse to let you open/edit such scans because of a watermark embedded on most newer banknotes). Note that while audio watermarks are supposed to be inaudible to human ears).

morbiuswilters:

Finally, I'm not sure how privacy laws would play into this.

Many colour printers print their identification on every page they output, and this has caused some invsetigations on whether this is legal (in Europe at least - remember that privacy is valued much higher here). Now imagine if every (audio) file you'd create would always carry a definite "John Doe authored this" mark.

ender:

morbiuswilters:

People would buy the devices if they were the only devices for sale or allowed for sale.

Only if somehow all other devices were banned, and nobody would sell second-hand hardware without these requirements.

Other devices don't have to be banned, but they could be.  All it would take is for most content creators and manufacturers to agree on a standard.  At that point, anyone who wants to play this content will have to buy a compatible player.  Over time, secondhand hardware will become scarce and outdated and people will migrate to newer.  Of course, a law could be passed that just requires this, as it has been proposed before.

 

ender:

morbiuswilters:

As far as watermarks go, if you can strip the encryption you can strip the watermark easily enough.

If it's an analog watermark, it's pretty hard to strip. While I haven't experimented with audio watermarks, I did play with Digimarc picture watermarks, and those survived a lot (you'll see something similar if you ever scan a banknote - many editors will refuse to let you open/edit such scans because of a watermark embedded on most newer banknotes). Note that while audio watermarks are supposed to be inaudible to human ears).

I remain very doubtful that watermarks could not be easily bypassed.

 

ender:

morbiuswilters:

Finally, I'm not sure how privacy laws would play into this.

Many colour printers print their identification on every page they output, and this has caused some invsetigations on whether this is legal (in Europe at least - remember that privacy is valued much higher here). Now imagine if every (audio) file you'd create would always carry a definite "John Doe authored this" mark.

I don't think privacy is valued all that much in Europe at all.  Sure, lip service is given to it and convoluted laws are passed, but most Europeans countries have minimal respect for things like unrestrained free speech, private property and private gun ownership, just to name a few.  If anything, the privacy laws of Europe seem like more of a power-grab by the governments: by claiming to protect privacy they essentially put themselves into a position where they only possible way to enforce this is to have the power to violate everyone's privacy.  Yeah, that'll work.

 

Also, I wouldn't really consider anonymity to be privacy.  Being able to speak or write anonymously isn't a right that is protected in most countries as it would quickly lead to abuse.  I think requiring someone to stand by what they say publicly isn't a bad thing and isn't a matter of privacy at all.  However, I also envisioned that the signature would not contain identifying information and that tracking a particular signature back to an individual would be something that required a court order.  So even then it's not requiring people to put their name on what they author or distribute, but it is requiring them to put a mark that can be used to trace content back to a particular device and eventually a human, so it may not be that different, except that it is a lot more anonymous than having your name and address embedded with it.  Either way, it's certainly a complex topic and one that our existing laws and morality have no real answer for.

 

I've never seen color printers like that in the US, so perhaps they are illegal here or no company would try to sell them, I don't know.  However, by interfering the government isn't promoting privacy, it is fighting it.  If a person chooses to purchase a printer with this particular feature, that is a private transaction between the buyer and seller.  Nobody is forced to buy or use these printers.  However, having the government say that a company can't sell a printer with that feature would be a violation of the privacy of that company and of potential customers.  Not good. 

morbiuswilters:

I've never seen color printers like that in the US, so perhaps they are illegal here or no company would try to sell them, I don't know.

Here's a list (and more information on the issue).

morbiuswilters:

If a person chooses to purchase a printer with this particular feature, that is a private transaction between the buyer and seller.

Who says that the buyer is informed about this?

ender:

morbiuswilters:

I've never seen color printers like that in the US, so perhaps they are illegal here or no company would try to sell them, I don't know.

Here's a list (and more information on the issue).

Oh hell, I think we have one of those at work...  I guess in the future I should probably go to Kinko's when printing out anonymous death threats against high-ranking government officials.  Good to know.

 

ender:

morbiuswilters:

If a person chooses to purchase a printer with this particular feature, that is a private transaction between the buyer and seller.

Who says that the buyer is informed about this?

Isn't it up to the buyer to find this kind of thing out for himself?  If it's a concern when purchasing a printer, the buyer will research and be certain to purchase one without this feature.  The link you provided shows that at least one 3rd party is testing the printers and providing results publicly, so if buyers are concerned about it they will avoid those printers.  If enough people avoid them, the companies might stop making them, but that's wholly dependent on how important it is to the market.

morbiuswilters:

Being able to speak or write anonymously isn't a right that is protected in most countries as it would quickly lead to abuse.

 Fortunately, it's protected in the USoA and routinely upheld by the courts. Without it, freedom of speech can quickly become a complete joke.

 

alegr:

Fortunately, it's protected in the USoA and routinely upheld by the courts. Without it, freedom of speech can quickly become a complete joke.

Wrong.  There is a difference between blocking the government from outlawing anonymous speech and having the government actively protect anonymity.  There are no laws that making anonymity compulsory, which was the topic here.  What's more, the government can revoke your anonymity during the course of criminal or civil proceedings.  The concept is that it protects those with minority opinions from retribution, but in practice if your identity can be revealed as part of a court case, then it provides very little protection.

morbiuswilters:

ender:

morbiuswilters:

People would buy the devices if they were the only devices for sale or allowed for sale.

Only if somehow all other devices were banned, and nobody would sell second-hand hardware without these requirements.

Other devices don't have to be banned, but they could be.  All it would take is for most content creators and manufacturers to agree on a standard.  At that point, anyone who wants to play this content will have to buy a compatible player.  Over time, secondhand hardware will become scarce and outdated and people will migrate to newer.  Of course, a law could be passed that just requires this, as it has been proposed before.

I may be wrong on this, but I believe it has been tried before indeed. During the early drafts, the (in)famous "Trusted Computing" initiative pretty much tried this approach. From what I know, the basic idea was that all future computers would be required to include a "trusted platform module". This would check the hardware configuration and operating system of the computer on boot and only pass control to the actual boot loader if the hardware and OS had been digitally signed. Of course, manufacturers would only get this signature after they proved their devices complied to the "Trusted Computing" standard as well. Meaning, for example, they respected copy protection and that they would subsequently check subordinated software and devices for a digital signature as well.

The idea was basically the same, that soon all computers with out a TPM would become scarce and outdated and that, eventually, cracked hardware or unwanted software could be made unusable by simply revoking the signature.

Because of course this scheme would give the signature authority pretty much absolute controlabout which software ran where, it was soon met with a public outcry and quickly scaled down to a much more harmless version. From what I know, today, the TPM is actually integrated in most computers, but only functions as a "secure key store", where for example, DRM mechanisms can store their keys to tie them to the computer (or more precisely the mainboard) and to save them from being found by a RAM dump.

(Disclaimer: I read about those events in a german IT magazine (c't). This magazine is usually credible, still you may know more about all this stuff than I do.)

I think this incident shows pretty well, why, I think, all similar projects are doomed to fail just as well. If you'd actually manage to make ALL recording and/or playing devices to comply to a single copy protection standard, the authority governing this standard would get incredible power. Companies that were part of this authority would get a huge market advantage in contrast to those that weren't. And this situation would be against the interests of too many people and smaller companies. A law like this would never find majority, not because of ethics or Jon Doe's right for privacy, but simply because the interests of all affected parties would be too different.

morbiuswilters:

The concept is that it protects those with minority opinions from retribution, but in practice if your identity can be revealed as part of a court case, then it provides very little protection.

In practice the courts are refusing subpoena for revealing "John Doe the defendant" name, unless the plaintiff shows that it's very likely to prevail in the case. Thus, a lawsuit filed just for the purpose of finding the John Doe's name won't proceed.

 

I have mostly pirated games. I dont buy games because:

• Too expensive (Unless you buy second handed)
• Protected CD/DVD (Saw some protection destroy CD drives)
• Games usaly dissapont me by (Odd story, or too quick to finish it, not memorable)

But i did buy from Stardock entire collection of Galactic Civilization 2, because game is damm good and there isnt any protection. it was worth. And also i have a few PS2 games: FFX and FFX2, Breath Of Fire 5, Burnout (Original)

bsaksida:

I have mostly pirated games. I don't buy games because:

• I am a freeloading bastard, and I can get away with it.

Oh come on, really, there are demos, there are reviews and protections don't actually break drives nowadays.

wybl:

bsaksida:

I have mostly pirated games. I don't buy games because:

• I am a freeloading bastard, and I can get away with it.

Oh come on, really, there are demos, there are reviews and protections don't actually break drives nowadays.

Yeah they are like Blood 2 demos. Demo was the second level, I Like those levels. Bought a game, The most enyoable level were just level 2. With others i wasnt happy with it. Demos are for try, But often when playing demos and then you get dissapointing retails. Also it is hard to buy a game if you have minimum pay from job.

 

Edit: I also paid for games i realy enjoy it.