×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

340 comments

Hypocrisy (5, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195400)

So Rockstar needed crackers help to release an old game in a digital download version? Maybe now it makes companies think that games without DRM are superior to DRM-laden versions, if even they need cracked versions to re-release the games whose developers are already gone.

On top of that they're using someones elses work and profiting from it.

Someone at kotaku's comments [kotaku.com] also noticed they're using cracked executables [tinypic.com] for the original Max Payne.

Re:Hypocrisy (2, Insightful)

dintech (998802) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195454)

Actually, I wholeheartedly and resoundingly agree with what they've done. They may as well get at least some benefit from piracy...

But it would be awesome if they got sued for copyright infringment on the modified bytes. In an alternate reality it could happen...

Re:Hypocrisy (2, Insightful)

meerling (1487879) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195994)

In this reality it can happen, they stole code, period. We are no't talking about a hobbyist, or joe blow on the street, but rather a software company that yells and screams whenever anyone else 'violates' their copyright or heavens forbid, actually make an unlicensed use of their code. So if violating someones copyright on software makes it ok to steal their code, then I guess we're all allowed to do whatever we want with Max Payne 2, since it incorporates stolen software. If you steal a pickpockets wallet, you're still going to jail for being a pickpocket. An eye for an eye just leaves a lot of blind people stumbling around.

Re:Hypocrisy (4, Insightful)

longacre (1090157) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196170)

If you steal a pickpockets wallet, you're still going to jail for being a pickpocket.

If you steal your own wallet back from a pickpocket, you're not going to jail.

Re:Hypocrisy (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196332)

Which would be an appropriate analogy if it was their own code to start with, but it wasn't. A better analogy would be "If you steal the wallet of some else becasue yours was also stolen, you ARE going to jail." They flat out stole someone's code, and are selling it for a profit. Kindly explain to me how that isn't illegal. Two wrongs don't make a right. (but 3 lefts do!)

Re:Hypocrisy (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196394)

This is large scale commercial piracy. This is exactly the kind of thing that copyright laws are supposed to protect against. It is very very illegal. This isn't just a civil crime, but the kind of thing that could involve federal prosecution as well.

Unclean hands (3, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196778)

This is large scale commercial piracy. This is exactly the kind of thing that copyright laws are supposed to protect against.

But the warez group won't bring suit because of its own unclean hands [wikipedia.org].

Re:Hypocrisy (1)

longacre (1090157) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196552)

Because you cannot claim legal rights on something that was illegal in the first place, i.e. a software crack.

For example, you can't sue a hitman for breach of contract if he fails to kill your wife.

Re:Hypocrisy (5, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196356)

If you steal your own wallet back from a pickpocket, you're not going to jail.

In this case, it appears that the "pickpocket" added a fair amount of value to the wallet before it was stolen back.

At very least, Rockstar should put an .nfo file with ASCII art giving props to the cracker(s).

Re:Hypocrisy (3, Informative)

InlawBiker (1124825) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196614)

But if you steal your car back from an impound lot, that is definitely a crime. Don't ask how I know.

Re:Hypocrisy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32196176)

An eye for an eye just leaves a lot of blind people stumbling around.

Except for most of us who still have one eye.

Re:Hypocrisy (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32196606)

Actually, I wholeheartedly and resoundingly agree with what they've done. They may as well get at least some benefit from piracy...

I hold an opposite opinion. I'd rather they incur the costs to remove their fucked up decisions of the past. Perhaps then they'd think a LITTLE harder before adding the DRM to begin with. As it is, this might make companies more willing to add the DRM since they know eventually if they want it removed for after-market sales, they can depend on the free efforts of others. Others they likely tried multiple times to sue into the poor house already.

Re:Hypocrisy (5, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195726)

On top of that they're using someones elses work and profiting from it.

I wonder if the pirate's code was published via a version of GPL? /sarcasm

I'm sure that if the original 'crackers' sued them Rockstar would be happy to meet them in court.

Re:Hypocrisy (1)

WNight (23683) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196692)

This assumes the person who cracked it is also the person who distributed the modified version. But if they weren't...

Had I been the one to modify a game I worked to make it play, and distributed the crack to friends via diff, before someone went and distributed it with the game, I'd step up and ask Rockstar to stop distributing my code. Modifying a game you own to make it work is totally reasonable - them to bitch about piracy while forcing people to crack their software to make it work and then resorting to piracy themselves isn't right.

Even if they could find problems with it, we won't end up with sane laws by hiding behind a lawyer.

Re:Hypocrisy (-1, Offtopic)

Megahard (1053072) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195988)

So Rockstar needed crackers help to release an old game

They used poor uneducated whites to remove the DRM? Is their rate also .25/hour?

Re:Hypocrisy (1)

Digicrat (973598) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196326)

In a way, this is just an extension of what some studios have done in the past. It's nearly always the publishers that push the DRM against the developers wishes. I remember a few games in the past where the unofficial word from the developers was to download a no-CD crack to bypass certain performance issues. Of course they would never say so through official channels, but the message (through Forums that the developers frequented) was quite clear.

Same story different players (5, Insightful)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195420)

Just goes to prove that DRM only hampers legitimate paying customers. Pirates simply laugh (usually with a jolly "yar!").

Re:Same story different players (0, Troll)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196006)

Is that like, a reflex response to anything DRM Related?

That doesn't even apply here! The DRM -HAS- been removed, for re-released. But rather then go through and remove the code themselves, Rockstar found it easier to just apply the crack to the installation.

Which - if ANYONE here has programmed before, should completely understand. You don't re-invent the wheel. You copy, cut, and paste code wherever you can. In some cases, you can write entire applications with nothing but the CTRL, C, and V keys.

So - to make things abundantly clear: this is not the "DRM scheme was cracked by pirates, works better than original" story. This is a story about how the Cracked Version was used for re-release. Two different cases here, as they decided to remove the DRM on their own terms.

Re:Same story different players (4, Interesting)

k8to (9046) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196064)

Not exactly.

The original DRM was removed, since steam is a central DRM provider, and having two DRM systems would be extremely undesirable.

It is a kind of snapshot of the waste that is DRM, but that's not really any different from any sort of licensing being non-productive overhead. It's a cost of doing business.

Re:Same story different players (3, Insightful)

MrLint (519792) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196448)

Someone needs to tell the Bioshock 2 ppl. Because thats what's making me not purchase it.

Re:Same story different players (1)

Zemran (3101) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196476)

???? I was under the impression that Myth had provided a NoCD crack and as the Steam version would be a download the CD check security would stop a download (without a CD) from working...

Re:Same story different players (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196572)

Steam is not (usually) a DRM provider in the normal sense, however - basic Steam DRM involves no rootkit or other invasive measures, nor much in the way of encryption. Sadly, many games distributed on Steam do also have their own DRM, but Steam itself is little more than an online (or cached) license key check.

Any Steam game that doesn't have its own DRM would be quite easy to "crack", yet it seldom happens - partly I guess because people want their achievements and updates and the like, but also because cracking a Steam game just isn't bragworthy. I'm in awe of how effective Steam "DRM" is at preventing piracy without hardly doing anything to prevent copying besides offering a distribution service woth paying for.

Pirates! Yarrr! (-1, Redundant)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195422)

What do swashbuckling pillagers of the high seas have to do with a software crack?

Re:Pirates! Yarrr! (2, Funny)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195490)

I'm sorry, we're talking about "software pirates" which are different from the high-seas privateers which were more prevalent in the 1800's or off the shores of Africa. It's the frame of context which makes the "software" implicit, as the swashbuckling variety would unlikely be patching executables in Rockstar videogames.

Re:Pirates! Yarrr! (4, Funny)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195534)

I prefer the term “Software Pillagers, Murderers, Rapists, and Generally Really Bad People”.

Re:Pirates! Yarrr! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32196174)

That's actually a good point.

Everyone hates to call copyright infringement 'theft' because it doesn't deprive anyone of anything -- a copy is made, nothing is being stolen.

Maybe it would be better to call it 'copyright rape'. After all, if I rape a man's wife but leave her alive, nothing material has been lost. It's a perfect analogue.

Re:Pirates! Yarrr! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32196228)

I think some people would object to the idea that injected malware and pregnancy are analogous.

Not to say that they aren't, but some people would object.

Re:Pirates! Yarrr! (4, Funny)

lgw (121541) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196402)

It's is technically possible that there is a Somalian pirate who is also a software pirate - sort of a double pirate.

Ye scury dog, we knows ye like plunder, so we put a pirate in your pirate so's ye can plunder while ye plunder! Arrrrrrrrr!

Re:Pirates! Yarrr! (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196034)

Yeah, "Piracy" has only been used to describe copyright infringement for hundreds of years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement [wikipedia.org]

But...? (1, Insightful)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195436)

Couldn't the pirates sue them for unauthorized use of their code?

Re:But...? (2, Insightful)

donaggie03 (769758) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195542)

The game with the crack is simply a derivative of the original game. The pirates have no copyrights concerning any derivatives of Rockstar's original work, so they have no grounds to sue.

Re:But...? (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195674)

That depends on the nature of the crack.

If it is an an X-byte patch, where X is some small number, then they might.

These days you usually see the WHOLE decrypted+patched .exed. In that case, no.

Re:But...? (2, Informative)

quantumplacet (1195335) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195792)

just because they usually distribute a new exe instead of a patch doesn't really change anything. Unless they wrote the new exe from scratch, which I highly doubt, it's still an unauthorized derivative work, and thus Rockstar owns the copyright to it.

Re:But...? (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195864)

However, there were some of their logos inserted, meaning their code was used to display those logos. That code would be the cracking group's property.

Re:But...? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195892)

The logos were in the form of ASCII artwork embedded in the executable. No code was involved in “displaying” the logos... someone just opened the binary file in Notepad++ and found them.

Re:But...? (1)

Racemaniac (1099281) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195908)

i'm just wondering. isn't the crack their work?
i'm willing to believe they can't release the exe legally, since it's mostly work by someone else, they have no rights on.
but their part is their work, and does rockstar have the rights to release it?
to me, it seems that the cracked exe has 2 owners, and neither could release it without permission of the other party?

but ianal ^^. just wondering :)

Re:But...? (1)

quantumplacet (1195335) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196280)

when you create an unauthorized derivative work, the copyright for your derivative is owned by the creator of the original. Assuming that Myth's crack was in fact an unauthorized derivative work, which it almost certainly was, no new copyright was created, instead the derivative work is still covered by Rockstar's copyright on the original, and Rockstar can do with it what they please.

That is wrong (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196558)

Rockstar most definitely does not own the copyright to the patch whether distributed alone or as a modified exe.

It is true that the pirates do not have the authority to create derivative works (except when it would be considered fair use), however, that does not mean that any infringing derivative works that are prepared are property of Rockstar. It just means that they are infringing, and that Rockstar can sue them. Furthermore, it does not mean that the patch is not protected under copyright law (assuming it is large enough to qualify for copyright). In the US all creative works that are eligible for copyright protection fall under copyright at the time they are created. In fact the authors of the patch probably could legitimately sue Rockstar for copyright infringement - they would just be counter-sued immediately.

This is the the same fallacy that people make when they say that linking code against GPL makes your code GPL. It doesn't. If you distribute the code, you can choose to make your code GPL to comply with the license or you can be sued for infringement. At no point can you be forced to make you code GPL, nor does the copyright of your code transfer to the author of the GPL code.

Re:But...? (5, Insightful)

Kaboom13 (235759) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195820)

The bigger problem is the game industry is always telling us game cracks are full of viruses and trojans. And while I generally don't believe them, I wouldn't use a 3rd party game crack on a pc that had any sensitive information on it. In this case, they are redistributing a binary that they didn't code, and without extensive analysis (ie more work then creating a new patch from scratch) have no way to tell it does not contain malicious code. The fact that Rockstar distributed a binary of unknown origin with no Q+A done on it is a bad, bad thing.

Re:But...? (4, Interesting)

denmarkw00t (892627) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196208)

Did anyone state that no QA had been done? I would assume (read: HOPE) that Rockstar had the brains to test the hell out of this binary before saying "Well, let's just release it and see what happens..." Granted, probably as much maybe a little more work than patching it themselves, but it would behoove them not to check the code or at least monitor the data paths of the executable before blindly putting it to market. Maybe they even worked WITH the cracking group to gain the source-code so they could ensure there was nothing malicious(er) going on.

Re:But...? (1)

mouseblue (1602125) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196706)

Buy a clue. The cracking group's logo and other fingerprints were all over it.

If Rockstar's staff did any sort of inspection, they would have at least tried to make it look non-warez. They obviously failed to do this. Just a simple slap-on job, patch it and put it out the door.

They didn't do a damn bit of testing besides running it once to make sure the game loads.

Re:But...? (1)

Kaboom13 (235759) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196794)

If that is the case, why pull it when they got "caught"? There is no "source" to compare too, the crack is made by decompiling the original exe into assembly, looking for the DRM checks, and removing them or replacing them with code that always returns the check as passed. The crack exe is normally much smaller then the original, because a lot of assembly has been stripped out. Given the nature of the work and the age of the game, it's doubtful the original group is even around, much less willing to assist an entity that spends most of it's time calling crackers like them the scum of the universe, responsible for every lost sale since the beginning of time.

At the time, it was normal to have working cracks within 24 hours of release, so it can't be that difficult. Given the only way to prove the binary is harmless is to go through it line by line in assembly, it would be easier to develop a crack from scratch then verify an existing one, especially considering they have access to the source to look and see exactly where the DRM would be called to start with.

I think the crack is probably harmless, 99% of them are. But every time you run an exe as admin(as most of the people who buy this on steam will), you are pretty much letting it do whatever it wants. And that means caution needs to be exercised, especially when the exe has been modified by a source that is inherently untrustworthy. Verifying a binary is harmless is pretty much impossible, even ones made without malicious intent can be dangerous because of bugs. So we are left to the source of the binary to give us our strongest indicator of whether or not it is safe. In this case Rockstar is claiming to be the source, because gamers will trust them, but the actual source is an unknown, unverifiable hacker group known only by an alias and an irc channel. Since the main technical benefit of purchasing the retail product (ethical implications aside) is NOT having to run binaries from shady hacker groups, this is a betrayal of their customers.

Re:But...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32196316)

They need more old black guys at rockstar.

Any old black guy knows that you can't trust crackers.

Re:But...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32195868)

The game with the crack is a derivative work of both the original game. It may also be a derivative work of the crack. If the crack just patched the game, none of the IP involved with the crack is being distributed. If the crack is a modified executable, Rockstar would be required to get permission from the authors of the crack to legally distribute the crack. But any lawsuit by the authors of the crack would be hit with a countersuit for the value of the number of copies of Rockstar's work that were distributed. That is the profit Rockstar would have made, not the profit the cracker made.

Re:But...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32196058)

The pirates have no copyrights concerning any derivatives of Rockstar's original work

Sure if "derivative" = "Rockstar's original work" + "pirates code", then the pirates have no copyrights over the whole thing, just part of it.

so they have no grounds to sue.

Your parent claimed the pirates would sue for their code only, not the combination.

I can see the headlines... (5, Funny)

thechemic (1329333) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195450)

"Pirates sue Rockstar for using and distributing unlicensed cracks."

Re:I can see the headlines... (2, Funny)

beefnog (718146) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195480)

"Pirates sue Rockstar for using and distributing unlicensed cracks."

As fun as this would be to watch, Rockstar's legal Cthulhu can beat up any software cracking group's legal Peewee Herman. Unless the EFF stepped in...

Re:I can see the headlines... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32195588)

Unless the EFF stepped in...

Oh, F the F'ing EFF. I'm so F'ing tired about hearing about the F'ing EFF. F you EFF, you F'ing F.

God, is that fun to type -- I mean to ill-will to the EFF, that just popped into my head. =)

Re:I can see the headlines... (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195930)

Uh-huh - sure it was fun.

In the F'ing aFterlife, the F'ing EFF will be F'ing you AND your F'ing Firstborn child, you F'ing heretic!

Re:I can see the headlines... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32195672)

Except the EFF would not step in, because Myth would have no case. Myth's crack was an authorized derivative work, and thus the copyright to it belongs to the original creator, Rockstar. The only possible recourse Myth could have is if they trademarked their logo, they could conceivably sue Rockstar for unauthorized use of it. However, it seems pretty unlikely that a group of hackers thought to trademark their logo.

Re:I can see the headlines... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32195736)

Read up on trademarks. If you use it, it's your trademark and you can enforce it.

Registering a trademark only makes it easier for future litigation.

An Easier Route (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195698)

"Pirates sue Rockstar for using and distributing unlicensed cracks."

There's another way you can sue them. Abondonware rights were added to the DMCA [joystiq.com] that made it legal to crack games that are "no longer being sold or supported" for your own personal purposes of archival. Now, it's still illegal to distribute those cracked games. So the people who cracked it might have a claim that they cracked these games for their own archival purpose after Max Payne left stores and did not distribute them. But the great part is that you don't need to sue them, you can write that up in a letter notifying the ESA [wikipedia.org] who will take them to court and, effectively, may sue the copyright holders for distributing a cracked game even though they own the copyright on it. After all, it just might fit the description of abandonware and set precedent one way or the other.

I hope the crackers seriously stick it to them. Copyright length, game DRM and licensing really don't make any sense to me. Honestly I really am upset that I paid for ~$40 for Contra on the NES back in 1990 only to have to pay $8 for it on the Wii today with no ability to transfer it from that device to another [wired.com]. How many more times must I pay for the Contra license to what is the exact same game?

Re:An Easier Route (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196110)

Must? 0.

You can certainly work legally to change the situation regarding your ability to transfer and reuse the first license you bought, but if you don't like the current situation, your best current choice is to not participate (i.e., if you don't give Nintendo your money, they won't have your money).

Re:An Easier Route (1)

fulldecent (598482) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196698)

>> How many more times must I pay for the Contra license to what is the exact same game?

Zero.

That was easy.

Just like hot coffee. (1)

Higaran (835598) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195598)

I'll laugh my ass off if there is some kind of back lash to Rockstar, and they claim it's the pirates fault not theirs, just like they did with the hot coffee incident. Yes I know the hot coffee incident was because of a mod, and not a crack, but it's really the same diffrence.

Expediency (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32195622)

Most likely they simply found themselves unable to build the old codebase. You'd need a seven year old version of whatever build environment they were using, tons of other severn year old bits and pieces and a seven year old OS version. You'd probably need a seven year old machine too, and all the peripherals that go with it. Bits rot when left alone..

Using a cracked version is expedient, and clever.

Re:Expediency (1)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195952)

Provided you know precisely what the crack does: did they have (and review) the source for the crack, or did the just apply a patch from a shady underground group to one of their files and release it?

more obvious explanation (5, Interesting)

SEAL (88488) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196004)

One of the Rockstar coders was a member of Myth.

(you think I joke, but crack / warez teams are often loaded with industry insiders...)

Re:Expediency (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32196044)

Okay... you've provided a good explanation for why they probably went that route.

But this just makes the hypocrisy all the more palpable. It is painful and inconvenient to have to deal with DRM, so it's easier to just use a crack. This applies both to legitimate purchasers of the game, and to the legitimate creators/distributors of the game! The game distributors didn't want to deal with their annoying DRM, so they violated copyright (redistributing someone else's binary code without permission) in order to get around that restriction. This undermines their whole argument for DRM: that it prevents copyright violation and is a minimal encumbrance to legitimate purchasers.

Their solution may be clever. But it is illegal and a hypocrisy of the highest order.

Re:Expediency (5, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196052)

Most likely they simply found themselves unable to build the old codebase. You'd need a seven year old version of whatever build environment they were using, tons of other severn year old bits and pieces and a seven year old OS version. You'd probably need a seven year old machine too, and all the peripherals that go with it. Bits rot when left alone..

Lol Wut?
They don't need the source code or anything else.
If you don't know, most DRM is only buried in the game exe and maybe a dll.

All they needed is a DRMed copy of the game + a debugger in order to
strip out the DRM exactly the same way the scene release groups do.

Re:Expediency (2, Interesting)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196488)

In which case, why bother messing around with a debugger when someone else has already done all the hard work for you?

Re:Expediency (2, Interesting)

Stiletto (12066) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196088)

B.S. Bits don't rot. Out of negligence, laziness, or stinginess, companies throw away/re-purpose machines that they should probably leave in the vault untouched.

If you have older products that are in the maintenance phase that you may have to re-support one day, you need to keep the environment that is required to build/support it.

Re:Expediency (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196210)

LucasArts packed Jedi Knight and Dark Forces on Steam with no-CD cracks. Of course back then all you needed to do was copy a single file to your hard drive from the CD.

This is actually Rockstar's little joke... (0, Troll)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195680)

They could have released their own clean version; but they decided that it would be more fun to pirate the pirates' efforts...

Re:This is actually Rockstar's little joke... (1)

Elbart (1233584) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196014)

And now they replaced the cracked 1.01 exe with a "proper" 1.0. Thanks for that "update", Rockstar and Valve. :(

Pirates should sue for IP infringement (1)

xenoterracide (880092) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195708)

The Pirates should go after Rockstar for illegally distributing there Intellectual Property. yes, I know it wouldn't work, but it'd be hilarious, and serve them right.

Re:Pirates should sue for IP infringement (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195866)

Actaully, it probably would work.

Rockstar would of course countersue them as soon as they came out and claimed it, but I fail to see why the pirates don't get the same protections as everyone else.

Re:Pirates should sue for IP infringement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32196184)

Actually, if the pirates didn't distribute anything except the cracking tools themselves...

When you break it down, this isn't news. (4, Insightful)

jacks smirking reven (909048) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195740)

Take the word "pirate" out of it and it's really a story of "programmers take code from somewhere else and use it for their own", and we know that never happens.

Re:When you break it down, this isn't news. (2, Insightful)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195986)

Well, the fact that the code is to circumvent DRM measures, and was written by people that said programmers treat as "the enemy," makes the story a bit more interesting, doesn't it?

Copyright infringement on the crack (1)

harl (84412) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195750)

This is clearly copyright infringement.

The group needs to sue. They're due money on every copy purchased.

Re:Copyright infringement on the crack (1)

sitkill (893183) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195800)

And who's copyright are they infringing?
The group isn't even around anymore

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_(warez) [wikipedia.org]
and I somehow doubt that they copyrighted their "product"

Re:Copyright infringement on the crack (1)

sitkill (893183) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195830)

Unless you were being sarcastic, and then you get just woooshhhh me :)

Re:Copyright infringement on the crack (1)

harl (84412) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196708)

Valve is located in the states. In the states anything you produce is automatically copyrighted. This was put into effect after studios started loosing copyrights due to paperwork errors.

Re:Copyright infringement on the crack (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196790)

It does not matter. All published works are copyrighted automatically. It is illegal for anyone other than the original authors/owning corporation to distribute for at least 70 years.

cheaper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32195760)

it is simply cheaper to use a warez copy

That ruins the usual argument ... (5, Insightful)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 3 years ago | (#32195888)

The usual argument is that cracked software is dangerous, because it contains malware of various sorts. Rather difficult to support that argument, when you then go out and ship the same "malware" as a legitimate part of a software release.

Waste not, want not.... (5, Interesting)

aapold (753705) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196020)

Back when Babylon 5 was still being produced, some licensing issue had held up making any models of the ships being produced as toys, which prompted some outfits to start making their own models and selling them illegally.

JMS even mentioned one of these being shut down, but being impressed by the quality of these models, apparently made with nothing more to go on than screen caps.

In an episode soon afterwards one of the characters on the show was shown using a very detailed model of one of their ships... when questioned whether these two events were related, JMS' only response was "waste not, want not..."

Re:Waste not, want not.... (1)

Gulthek (12570) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196296)

JMS admitted it more openly than that:

Where did the Starfury model Sheridan was looking at in the war room come from?

Actually, I think the Starfury model was an illegal one we confiscated.
Waste not, want not...

In Soviet Poland.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32196040)

...crackers add DRM back to game that belongs to YOU!!!!

Pissing of publishers everywhere (1)

coolsnowmen (695297) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196114)

This gives a rare credence to crackers, other game publishers must be pissssssed at this.

Rockstar engaging in copyright infringement? (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196180)

Wait a second, hold on here!

Are you telling me that Rockstar is using someone else's code in their product? Unless the work the "pirates"[sic'] produced was licensed under a BSD or similar permissive license, isn't Roskstar committing copyright infringement by redistributing said work (or derivatives) without prior written permission? I've always heard that "two wrongs don't make a right" and I try to live by it. Why is it okay for Rockstar and Steam to do it, when it is not OK for the "pirates?"[sic]

DRM is bad even for the companies that use it! (2, Interesting)

_bug_ (112702) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196314)

This seems to prove that DRM is bad even for the companies that use it.

DRM on old software no longer maintained could make it difficult for companies to redistribute their old software via new channels in the future. Imagine how many DRM'd CD/DVD games there are that may never be made available through online distribution systems like Steam because the copyright owner can't break the CD/DVD requirement mechanism and are unable to recompile the code to remove that restriction.

Do you think the people who implemented such DRM back in the 1990s and early 2000s ever thought about such a possibility?

What future distribution channels will be created that current software won't be distributed through because of limitations created through implementing DRM? Maybe there's a whole new industry about to be born around legally cracking DRM for copyright owners? Or does the DMCA make cracking DRM illegal even if it's done by or on behalf of the copyright owner?

That's probably what the update was for (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196502)

Yesterday I noticed that my Steam client downloaded a 1.8MB update for Max Payne 2. There was no news about the update on Steam , but the new Steam client did offer an article from Kotaku [kotaku.com] regarding the crack being present in the Steam version. So I guess the update was to remove the hacker's logo or something.

more proof pirates are providing a better product (2, Interesting)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#32196638)

Companies would be better off to dump DRM all together and realize that they would do better competing with pirates if they provided the product DRM free in a similar distribution model. Steam is more like a service so it is a good compromise.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...