Slashdot Mirror


Ubisoft Steals 'No-CD Crack' To Fix Rainbow 6: Vegas 2

Ariastis writes "UbiSoft has long been against No-CD patches. Referring to them on their forums would get you warned or banned. But now, they have just officially released a patch for Rainbow 6: Vegas 2, which, when opened in a hex editor, can easily be identified as coming from the RELOADED scene group, not from UbiSoft programmers. A picture of hex analysis is shown in the story. See? Piracy isn't that bad! It saves you from having to code fixes for your own games! (Watch the drama on the Ubi Forums before it gets scrubbed clean.)"

434 comments

  1. So... by Spad · · Score: 5, Funny

    Presumably the patch has been nuked for Stolen.Crack?

    1. Re:So... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Last time I ever download anything -Ubisoft!

    2. Re:So... by kestasjk · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ubisoft stole a program released by a group who help others to steal theirs?

      The monsters!

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    3. Re:So... by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Two wrongs don't make a right, dude.

      What cracks me up (pun intended) is the fact that Ubisoft have been UTTER BASTARDS in the past. If you posted complaining about Starforce on their forums, their employees would accuse you of being a hacker, a pirate etc... People get banned for posting links to cracks. HAVE been banned for posting links to THIS VERY CRACK.

      This priceless, and utterly UTTERLY hilarious. A major software company relying on a cracking group to fix their stupid issues that their choice of DRM caused.

      The only way this could be ANY funnier is if it was Electronic Arts instead, and even that would be pushing it as Ubi's attitude toward their consumers in regards to DRM is a hundred times more offensive than I've ever seen EA be.

    4. Re:So... by tchiseen · · Score: 1

      Lol, I knew Ubi were P2P kiddies.

    5. Re:So... by ozmanjusri · · Score: 5, Informative
      Ubisoft stole a program released by a group who help others to steal theirs?

      CD cracks aren't just for stealing games.

      One of the first things I do when I buy a game is download the CD crack so I don't have to keep track of where the install disks are.

      I bought the game, it's mine. I can do whatever the fuck I like with it, including disabling annoying shit like DRM.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    6. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ubisoft stole a program released by a group who help others to steal theirs?

      CD cracks aren't just for stealing games.

      One of the first things I do when I buy a game is download the CD crack so I don't have to keep track of where the install disks are.

      I bought the game, it's mine. I can do whatever the fuck I like with it, including disabling annoying shit like DRM.

      Unfortunately, you only bought a license to use the game according to the terms of the EULA, not the game itself.

    7. Re:So... by joaommp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Regardless of what support the company has given its costumers, remember that the crack was made to circumvent anti-piracy schemes.

      There wouldn't be any need for anti-piracy schemes if people were trustworthy and didn't steal software.

      People use pirated software -> companies lose money -> companies invest in trying to avoid illegitimate usage of their software -> copy-protection schemes are put in place -> problems with copy-protection schemes arise -> people who don't give a shit about the fact that the software was a result of an investment in both equipment, marketing and man hours still keep finding ways to pirate the software.

      So everyone uses cracks to go around copy protection schemes when they're not supposed to, and then when that company uses that crack to fix a problem, everyone is outraged. So it's OK if you steal from a company, but it's NOT OK if a company uses, to fix their own product and provide the support everyone cries for, something that was made specifically to target that company's product making it easier to pirate.

      You know, people have worked to develop the product. Money has been invested. It's a company, it's supposed to make a profit, not to create software out of pure charity.

      And no, two wrongs don't make it a right, you're right when you said it. And everyone should have thought that even if the company sucks at supporting its users (first wrong) that doesn't forgive anyone for pirating software (second wrong). I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to fully use the product you bought. But does anyone here honestly believe that only the guys that bought the product are the ones using the crack? I don't think so.

      This sounds like hypocrisy to me.

      Just be glad that now that there is an "official" fix for your problems.

    8. Re:So... by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That aspect of EULA's has never been tested in court. It's quite possible that it would be deemed null and void.

    9. Re:So... by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I Would love to see the group of crackers follow a Lawsuit against Ubisoft!!

      Now, THAT, would be Poetic Justice.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    10. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how they come all packed up in zillions of RAR's that I have to extract.

      Wait... Nevermind!

    11. Re:So... by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Insightful
      you only bought a license to use the game according to the terms of the EULA

      No, when I took the game off the shelf and gave the checkout chick the cash, the game became mine.

      In Australia a contract for sale is complete when both the contractor and the contractee agree to the same terms. Both parties must be fully aware of all relevant terms before acceptance. Additional terms cannot be imposed after acceptance.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    12. Re:So... by uniquegeek · · Score: 1

      Unless maybe you're a cell phone or internet company...? How does that work over there?

    13. Re:So... by c6gunner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There wouldn't be any need for anti-piracy schemes if people were trustworthy and didn't steal software.

      Yeah, and people wouldn't need locks and car alarms if there were no car thieves. I'd still find it more than a little funny if every time you locked your keys in the car, you had to call up a car thief to open it for you. In fact, I'm pretty sure I'd be laughing my ass off, just like I am at Ubi.

      How's that for a car analogy? :)

    14. Re:So... by repvik · · Score: 1

      So it's OK if you steal from a company, but it's NOT OK if a company uses, to fix their own product and provide the support everyone cries for, something that was made specifically to target that company's product making it easier to pirate.

      The product comes from a "trusted source" while the crack does not. That should be reason enough.

    15. Re:So... by colmore · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exposing themselves as a legal entity would *probably* backfire.

      I'm just guessing.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    16. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I bought the program (I have a couple of Ubisoft games), applying a no-CD hack isn't "stealing", it's feature enhancement. And if the DRM is buggy, as is sometimes the case, it isn't even an enhancement, it's restoring functionality that the vendor sometimes has no inclination to fix.

      It's like modding your car. It's YOURS. You paid for it. While I admit that it could be a breach of the EULA, I really don't care. If I was using it to make illegal copies, that would be bad, but I don't.

    17. Re:So... by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Here in the US, buying cell phone service (at least at a physical Sprint store) requires signing a contract at point of sale. Yes, actually signing (granted, on one of those credit card machines) an actual contract.

      Internet service, I recall having to sign a contract when the installer came (I couldn't do self-install because the jack wasn't hooked up at the cable box, so an installer had to come out.)

    18. Re:So... by Mattsson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A copy-protection must never stop a legitimate customer from using the product they've bought, though.
      If that sometimes happen and the company responsible doesn't come up with a fix, that legitimize the creation of 3'rd party fixes, or cracks.

      So even though the copy-prevention schemes arose from piracy, today, piracy is sometimes necessary due to copy-prevention schemes.

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    19. Re:So... by Mike89 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd mod you up but I have no mod points.

      To the parent poster, the copy-protection shit to "prevent" piracy CLEARLY DOES NOT WORK. In fact, to me, it's a deterrent. I bought the Sims for my family and tried to burn a backup copy because I knew they'd scuff up the CD. Wouldn't burn due to protection on the CD.

      What'd I do? Took it back to the store and downloaded a copy. Fuck you, EA / Maxis. They're grateful they don't need the CD to play anymore and I'm grateful I don't need to worry about it getting wrecked like the previous one.

    20. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you can mod your car. Do it in a specific way, and they will impound your car, and/or won't allow you to drive it on public roads.

    21. Re:So... by thpr · · Score: 4, Informative

      That aspect of EULA's has never been tested in court. It's quite possible that it would be deemed null and void.

      Really? Because I seem to recall having this discussion with someone else on Thursday, and pointing to a number of court cases where it has been decided.

      You should also read the informative response to my post (since I was only directly answering a specific point and not attempting to cover the entire issue).

      In other words, it HAS been tested in court, but courts are disagreeing on how to interpret the issue.

    22. Re:So... by morari · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I use no CD cracks on all of my legally bought games. Having to put discs in and take them out is kind of cumbersome when I have them all safely stored in a metal CD binder. If I wanted to switch through game discs all day I'd play my console instead.

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    23. Re:So... by Blublu · · Score: 1

      That's not a valid example, because the reason they don't allow any crazy modded car on public roads is because it could be unsafe for other cars. You could still mod your car any way you wanted and drive it on your own private road on your private land.

      --
      meh
    24. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I go further than that. I look for the NO-CD crack BEFORE buying the game! Do you hear that developers? The NO CD CRACKERS are helping sales!

      Mmmmmm, no-cd crackers..........

    25. Re:So... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      EULAs can't abridge rights that are beyond their reach. Namely, your right to do what you want with your private copy of it.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    26. Re:So... by xtracto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      . I'd still find it more than a little funny if every time you locked your keys in the car, you had to call up a car thief to open it for you. How's that for a car analogy? :)</i>

      Quite close, but it is even worse. In this case it is not YOU would have called the car thief. In this case you would have gone to "Ford" or wherever you bought your car, and the people at the "Ford authorized service" had to call the thief to open your car...

      har har... I can just say that what Ubisoft did is amazing

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    27. Re:So... by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Ok. It hasn't been settled by the courts.

    28. Re:So... by Skye16 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, I bought the game. If you had me sign a contract before I paid money for the game, then I signed the EULA. I can't sell you a hamster and, as soon as you get it home and put it in its cage, demand that you do *anything* else.

      Copyright law states that you can't copy the disc or distribute it, but it does not tell you that you can't modify it. I realize the 9th circuit just bought into that, but I wouldn't be surprised of an appeal. And even if there is no appeal, I'd happily argue the case again in court.

      You can't make me agree to a contract after the fact, and forcing me to spend money on gas (and that's no trivial matter anymore), and waste my time (which also costs me money) because I disagree with the contract you've given me after the sale occurred. The onus is on you to have me agree before the purchase is completed; once you do that, you're absolutely correct.

      Maybe that's what game vendors need to do; provide an industry standard kiosk with the EULA present before the purchase transaction can be completed; that way if I find the terms too cumbersome, I just don't purchase it and don't waste the money or gas on the event.

    29. Re:So... by xtracto · · Score: 1

      One of the first things I do when I buy a game is download the CD crack so I don't have to keep track of where the install disks are.

      Not only that, I always apply a NO-cd crack to the games I buy after installing them in my notebook. I like playing games without having to carry a 20 CD wherever I happen to travel

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    30. Re:So... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Funny

      In Australia...

      What do you expect from a nation founded by thieves and other criminals?
      Hell, you guys made region-locked DVD players against the law, clearly your entire justice system is in league with teh pirates.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    31. Re:So... by Megane · · Score: 4, Funny

      You misspelled "9th circus". Notice the first result? Even Google knows it.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    32. Re:So... by nautsch · · Score: 1

      People use pirated software -> companies lose money -> ...

      So you are telling me, that you would buy every piece of crap the publihsers throw out, when you cannot break the copy protection??
      This is stupid.
      When the price is zero the demand is infinite.

      The whole story about companies loosing money because of piracy is just plain wrong. Do you think everyone who uses illegal copies of software/music would buy the stuff if there were no illegal copies of it? I don't think so, Tim.

      --
      If you find a typo, you may keep it.
    33. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically the First Sale Doctrine US is the same thing, but copyright cartels have been pushing and pushing to change that. Don't worry, they'll get to you guys next after they get done raping our laws.

    34. Re:So... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Informative

      remember that the crack was made to circumvent anti-piracy schemes.

      And there always is a crack. Any even remotely popular game -- even quite a few indie games -- have their copy protection cracked wide open within weeks of release, if not days.

      There wouldn't be any need for anti-piracy schemes if people were trustworthy and didn't steal software.

      That isn't going to happen, so we have to deal with the reality that people will steal software.

      Now the question becomes, what is the point of an anti-piracy scheme if it doesn't work? (See above.)

      So everyone uses cracks to go around copy protection schemes when they're not supposed to, and then when that company uses that crack to fix a problem, everyone is outraged.

      You're assuming that this is the same "everyone". You know there's more than one person on the Internet, right? More than one group?

      Ubisoft is apparently notorious for cracking down (so to speak) on the mere mention of the possibility of using a crack, even when it's not in the context of piracy. Even when it's in the context of, say, playing the game you legally bought.

      There are many legitimate reasons for wanting a crack.

      Now, I don't know that anyone is actually outraged that Ubi is "stealing" the crack, or providing a better experience for their users. I think it's mostly the hypocrisy that they have censored the very mention of this exact crack, only to turn around and release it for their users.

      something that was made specifically to target that company's product making it easier to pirate.

      There's another fallacy -- do you actually know that it was created with this purpose in mind?

      To my knowledge, most No-CD cracks are made -- that's right -- to allow you to play the game without a CD.

      This allows piracy, yes. It also allows shocking things like playing the game on a machine without a working optical drive. Or taking multiple games on your laptop without having to bring all the game discs. Or play the game even if the original disc is scratched. Or, for some games (not sure about Ubisoft), to reinstall your OS, or buy a new computer, and still be able to play your game.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    35. Re:So... by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      Do you think everyone who uses illegal copies of software/music would buy the stuff if there were no illegal copies of it?

      Nobody credible thinks that. However, to proclaim that everyone who uses pirated software wouldn't have bought it if they couldn't pirate it is lazy, stupid thinking. So, yes, the publisher does lose money.

      This "fuck that guy and his expenses, I want it for free" mindset that many posters here have (not you, nautsch, just in general) is pretty sickening. Companies spend a mind-boggling amount of money making these computer games, and should be compensated for it if you want to play it. Instead, people brag about giving them the finger and using their software without renumeration. It's pathetic.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    36. Re:So... by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      No, but if you think that your claim has any real leg to stand on, I hope you have a Wookiee Defense at the ready.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    37. Re:So... by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      No, I bought the game.

      Nope. You bought a box containing physical media and one license to use the game. It's just like a copy of Windows coming with a set of CALs.

      (Not that I don't agree with you; EULAs should be on the back of the box, every time.)

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    38. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for adding nothing useful to the conversation. Amazing how you did it as if you were presenting answers..

    39. Re:So... by icsx · · Score: 1

      Hear hear. For some reason, i don't find it troublesome to swap disks into my Wii - but i find it most unconforting to change CD/DVD in drive to play a PC game that is installed already into the computer - especially since i know that the CD/DVD in the drive is useless and idn't even being used since all of the content is on the PC already.

    40. Re:So... by icsx · · Score: 1

      Atleast in this country, LAW goes over EULA anytime. EULA says you cannot lend your DVD to friends but LAW says that it's your right as a consumer, that EULA is useless. That is, atleast in Finland.

    41. Re:So... by Snaller · · Score: 1

      "In Australia a contract for sale is complete when both the contractor and the contractee agree to the same terms."

      What they were selling you was a license to use the software. Regardless of what you convince yourself.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    42. Re:So... by TheLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some people might trust RELOADED more than they trust Ubisoft or at least whoever Ubisoft outsources their DRM to.

      I'd personally trust many of these "scene" hackers more than I'd trust Sony to not to try to pwn my machine.

      That's not to say I'd trust them that much ;).

      --
    43. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ubisoft stole a program released by a group who help others to steal theirs?

      In case it isn't already obvious by Ubisoft's actions - No-CD cracks are useful for a lot more than piracy.

      Just about every piece of legitimately purchased software on my computer has a no-CD crack applied to it. I own a lot of games and I get sick of rummaging around to find the disc every time I play one of them.

    44. Re:So... by jdevivre · · Score: 1

      I am with you, bud. Every game I play is bought and payed for, and every one that is installed is No-CD/DVD patched (if required). And I have shelves full. The simple fact is that it is beyond easy to bypass these media-based protection schemes, so they should just not bother at all.

    45. Re:So... by quantumplacet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd still find it more than a little funny if every time you locked your keys in the car, you had to call up a car thief to open it for you.

      Well, the more accurate analogy would be if locksmiths used tools developed by car thieves to unlock your car when you locked the keys inside. And guess what? They do.

    46. Re:So... by mxs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There wouldn't be any need for anti-piracy schemes if people were trustworthy and didn't steal software.

      You crack me up. No, really, you do.

      Do you know who gets hit by those anti-piracy "measures" ? Not the pirates, that much I can promise you. It's the regular customers who have to deal with this, I'm sorry to say, shit. Pirates get a pre-cracked bug-fixed ISO downloads that just work. They also get game updates working sooner than those sorry fools who bought the game at an online download store (the legitimate kind, that is).

      This anti-piracy bullshit does absolutely nothing to prevent, you know, piracy. It is not necessary.

      People use pirated software -> companies lose money

      BS argument #1. Let me bring a BS argument of my own ! People share software -> other people like it and buy that software, having had the opportunity to test it -> company makes more money than it is allegedly "losing". This argument is just about as full of holes as yours is.

      -> companies invest in trying to avoid illegitimate usage of their software

      By being good corporate citizens, offering excellent support for their legitimate customers, offering a better experience than "pirates" ever could and focusing on their legitimate customers instead of wasting countless development and testing hours on stuff that provably does not work and only annoys regular customers ?

      -> copy-protection schemes are put in place

      And usually cracked a few days BEFORE the game hits store shelves. Excellent.

      -> problems with copy-protection schemes arise

      PREDICTABLE problems. KNOWN problems. You don't think the QA department knows about these problems ? CARES ?

      -> people who don't give a shit about the fact that the software was a result of an investment in both equipment, marketing and man hours still keep finding ways to pirate the software.

      Why do you care about these people ? They are not gonna buy your software anyway. They might if they get a better experience for a reasonable price, they might not. In the meantime you are losing gazillions of customers to DRM issues, fixes for direct2drive issues that only exist because nobody bothered to check that the protection doesn't blow up on those releases, etc. -- good going.

      People are gonna copy your stuff. You cannot make them not do it. This is a known fact, a fact that has been known for over 20 years. There is no copy protection scheme that has not been utterly broken.

      So everyone uses cracks to go around copy protection schemes when they're not supposed to,

      And scratching their heads asking "why did I pay for this shit, again ?" And making a mental note not to buy it the next time. Or, if they really want to play it and really don't want to deal with this ... shit ... Pirate it straight away. At least you know the scene guys have quality control -- when their releases don't work, they get nuked.
      That is a very sad state of affairs. Pragmatically, you are better off using a pirated version.

      and then when that company uses that crack to fix a problem, everyone is outraged.

      Not so much that they are using the crack, moreso that they are banning people who previously talked about that same crack, should not actually be NEEDING that crack if they had ANY developers left (you see, disabling this "copy protection" is as easy as, you know, not applying the copy protection installer to the executable you get out of the compiler), etc.

      So it's OK if you steal from a company,

      Who said that ?

      but it's NOT OK if a company uses, to fix their own product and provide the support everyone cries for,

      Credit where credit is due, huh ?

    47. Re:So... by ivucica · · Score: 0

      > You know, people have worked to develop the product. Money has been invested. It's a company, it's supposed to make a profit, not to create software out of pure charity.

      You know, crackers have worked to develop the crack. Time has been invested. They're crackers, they're supposed to make fame for themselves, not to create software to have their credits stolen from them.

    48. Re:So... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Yes, a small number of people who pirated a given piece of software would have bought it if a pirated copy was not available...
      But also a small number of people who would have bought the game chose not to (or pirated it instead) because it had a hindering copy protection scheme.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    49. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real hypocrisy in this case is from Ubisoft. They've been extremely heavy handed with their attitude toward software cracks, and now they're using cracks anyway. Guess they're not just for pirates!

    50. Re:So... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      And being able to play without the CD means you can keep the original media locked away, and thus decrease the risks of the media being damaged or lost.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    51. Re:So... by hjrnunes · · Score: 1

      Yeah, breaks my heart with sorrow... Poor media corporations... Losing money and all... If the game is good, people buy it. Period. See piracy as a mass advertising campaign that doesn't need ad agencies and specialists. But instead of paying millions in cash, you lose a few sales. It's much more effective and cheaper anyway. Now, what I would like to know is how most games would turn popular without piracy...

    52. Re:So... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      What about when you buy a boxed piece of software in a store, and nothing about that is printed on the outside of the box?
      They can't hold you to something that was contained on the inside of the box that you couldn't see prior to sale.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    53. Re:So... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Actually you can copy it, you just can't distribute the copies. Installing it onto your hard drive is a form of copying too, btw.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    54. Re:So... by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Furthermore, the commercial software companies are in competition with the pirates, and price is not the only factor. (For many not even the main factor) If it is easier to use the pirate version, or the pirate version is more stable, or the pirate version does not turn off parts of your system, it becomes more attractive, regardless of price.

      Look at the music industry... Pay a lot of a drm'd music file that won't play in your car's mp3 player, or get a high quality mp3 for free? And what would you choose if both were free? What if the DRMd junk was free, and the mp3 was not? Amazing how the better product usually wins regardless of price.

    55. Re:So... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      And it's not the car vendor that imposes those rules, it's the government. It's not like ford care how you modify their car...
      There are plenty of heavily modified cars doing the rounds on race tracks, drag strips etc that wouldn't be legal on the roads.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    56. Re:So... by tolan-b · · Score: 1

      Actually no-cd cracks aren't just to circumvent anti-piracy schemes. Most anti-piracy measures in games go far beyond no-cd cracks, yet there are often still no-cd cracks available for these games. The reason is that people just don't want to have to dig around in a pile of CDs/DVDs before being able to play a game that's already installed on their hard drive.

      I've used no-cd cracks for plenty of games I've owned legally over the years, and many of them still wouldn't have worked if they were pirated even with the no-cd crack.

      There is a perfectly valid, legal, reason for no-cd cracks, so what gives Ubisoft the right to pirate the work of the people who wrote it?

    57. Re:So... by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      I use no CD cracks on all of my legally bought games. Having to put discs in and take them out is kind of cumbersome when I have them all safely stored in a metal CD binder. If I wanted to switch through game discs all day I'd play my console instead.

      It is sad that this is considered insightful. Everyone in the wold knows this except for the content producers. Even your local grocer knows that convenience is king.

    58. Re:So... by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When the price is zero the demand is infinite.

      The price is never zero. My time has value. Figuring out that the tools I use for work are what is causing the game to ungracefully exit is a cost. Cleaning up the parts of the system that the game modified is a cost.

      On the other side, finding a crack that works is a cost. Cleaning up the spyware from the websites that host cracks is a cost. Troubleshooting the buggy game with a boggy crack and no support because you have a no-cd crack is a big cost.

    59. Re:So... by NitroWolf · · Score: 1

      It also makes the game load faster in many cases. When you're playing FPSs, this can be especially important so you either gain or at least do not lose a tactical advantage in the first round. The suckers with the CD's always load last, the people with the NO-CD cracks are already at their flags and taking them home by the time they load in.

      Not to mention the fact that often times, I find I need the CD/DVD drive for something useful while I'm playing the game. Burning a dual layer DVD at 2.4x takes a bit of time, so playing a game while that's going on is something that happens often. If I have to have the CD in the drive for useless copy protection, I'm not able to do that.

    60. Re:So... by asc99c · · Score: 1

      If the EULA was on the back of the box (or a notice saying you must agree to an EULA available elsewhere - not inside the box) telling you what you were buying, before you agreed to pay the price, then that might be correct.

      If it is not, then no, you haven't bought a licence to use the game as defined in the EULA. You've bought the physical media for the game and are only constrained by copyright laws and any other applicable laws.

    61. Re:So... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      What if the DRMd junk was free, and the mp3 was not? Amazing how the better product usually wins regardless of price.

      See "iTunes Plus". I'm perfectly happy to pay more to get unencumbered audio files.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    62. Re:So... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Atleast in this country, LAW goes over EULA anytime. EULA says you cannot lend your DVD to friends but LAW says that it's your right as a consumer, that EULA is useless. That is, atleast in Finland.

      Even better in Germany. Most forms of EULA are unenfocable over here because the unilaterally restrict the customers rights without even being valid contracts (if they weren't the restriction wouldn't be unilateral, of course). As a result "a license to use the game according to the terms of the EULA" essentially translates into "a license to use the game".

      It is, though, not sure whether no-CD cracks are legal in Germany - the circumvention of "effective technical copy protection measures" is illegal ( 95a UrhG), but that paragraph is explicitly not applied to software ( 69a.5 UrhG). Also, the creation of such cracks is perfectly fine; decompiling legally acquired software in order to create interoperability is explicitly allowed ( 69e UrhG). Following that logic, it might* be fine to apply a no-CD crack if the copy protection renders the game unplayable on your system (see Bioshock). And, of course, people still aren't really sure what makes a technical copy protection measure effective.

      IANAL, but the paragraphs I referred to are refreshingly easy to understand.


      * Giving your crack to someone else is illegal - except if he needs it to create interoperability on his system ( 69e.2.2 UrhG). I can't find anything on acquiring a crack.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    63. Re:So... by imbaczek · · Score: 1

      except that recent blizzard vs. glider case was actually won by blizzard, who state that having an unauthorized, modified copy of the game in RAM is a breach of contract...

    64. Re:So... by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1
      What they were selling you was a license to use the software. Regardless of what you convince yourself.

      I don't need to convince anyone.

      Unless they specifically state that on the box or the point of sale, the game is mine to use as I see fit.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    65. Re:So... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2, Funny

      What do you expect from a nation founded by thieves and other criminals?

      To be fair, that only happened because England's other penal colony had a revolution.

      I suppose the Australian government should be more grateful of the US and follow their lead a bit more when it comes to content industry initiatives?

    66. Re:So... by Torvaun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When the price is zero the demand is infinite.

      Maybe, but the price is never zero. Even if there's no monetary cost, there will be some cost or effort involved. For example, I have free fertilizer for the taking. The cost is that you don't want to drive out here for the sole purpose of picking dog crap off my lawn. There is not infinite demand for my "free fertilizer".

      Want a better example? There's a bunch of music out there on the interwebs that I could go download for free, but I don't, because you'd have to pay me to listen to that tripe. There's also a bunch of software I don't pirate because I neither need nor want it (and also because I'm ethically against that sort of thing, but lets not cloud the issue).

      Want an example that'll really hit home for the /. crowd? If demand is infinite when price is zero, why doesn't everyone run Linux?

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    67. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody cares if your puns were intended.
      http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=puns

    68. Re:So... by dontmakemethink · · Score: 1

      There's this... guy I met once... (yeah, that'll do) who would use pirated audio plug-ins to test them for performance and system stability, and he would purchase them before using them on any profitable project.

      In some cases the legit copy was less stable than the pirated one (usually the other way around though), and in those cases he still uses the pirated copy and keeps the legit hard copy around for proof of purchase.

      And getting caught using pirated software in professional circles is a lot more perilous to reputation than cracked games.

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    69. Re:So... by phulegart · · Score: 1

      Your statement...
      "So everyone uses cracks to go around copy protection schemes when they're not supposed to, and then when that company uses that crack to fix a problem, everyone is outraged. So it's OK if you steal from a company, but it's NOT OK if a company uses, to fix their own product and provide the support everyone cries for, something that was made specifically to target that company's product making it easier to pirate." ...lacks some relevancy. It's not just that UBISoft used a no-CD crack developed by software pirates, to fix an issue with one of their games. If that was the only issue, this would not have been nearly as big a deal as it is.

      As it turns out, UBISoft has taken a very aggressive stance in the past against people who mentioned cracks in their forums, and specifically people who have mentioned THIS particular RELOADED no-cd crack.

      Let's try it this way.

      Forum User: Hey, if you've got issues with Direct-2-drive and Rainbow 6:Vegas, try using that RELOADED No-CD crack.
      UBISoft: I'm sorry, we do not allow discussions about using pirated software on our forums. You have now been banned from our forums, and your online account is suspended.
      UBISoft: (aside) hey, wait.. that kids Idea actually works. Ours doesn't. Let's get that RELOADED crack thingy, change the name of the executable, and release it as an official patch. Noone is going to be smart enough to examine the Hex to see if RELOADED left their tags in it.

      It's like going to the police station and walking into a cloud of Ganja smoke, cocaine in lines on the desk blotters and hookers servicing the cops in the aisles. I'm not saying that cops don't do these things in private, but if cops do it blatantly in public they get punished.

      UBISoft has taken a very public (and very loud) stance against the EXACT same no-cd crack that they just released as a patch. I don't mean the concept of a no-cd workaround. I mean the same damn file, made by the RELOADED.

      This is what makes the event so wrong.

      --
      "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
    70. Re:So... by chrisd · · Score: 1
      You guys are assuming that Ubisoft didn't write the crack that they based the subsequent patch on in the first place.

      Just saying....the game business is weird sometimes.

      Chris

      --
      Co-Editor, Open Sources
      Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
    71. Re:So... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I am not much of a console gamer and don't even own any new consoles other than what I got for my children and, well, those are with them at their mother's house. But... With all the major systems out there with potentially massive storage amounts are people looking into loading their console games to the game's hard drive and playing it there without the media disk involved? If not then, why not? I'd think that it'd improve the game's speed and the enjoyment of the game. I know it usually does for me on a PC at any rate.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    72. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So everyone uses cracks to go around copy protection schemes when they're not supposed to, and then when that company uses that crack to fix a problem, everyone is outraged. So it's OK if you steal from a company, but it's NOT OK if a company uses, to fix their own product and provide the support everyone cries for, something that was made specifically to target that company's product making it easier to pirate.

      Using a no-cd crack != stealing from a company. When the CD is still sitting on my desk, because I used it to install the game, that isn't piracy. It's a violation of the DMCA, probably. But the revenue a company loses from my performing that operation is precisely zero.

    73. Re:So... by corbettw · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that Ubisoft did anything wrong by taking an illegal modification to their program and publishing it as their own. They're the original copyright holders, and if the license under which they published their game doesn't allow for cracks like this (which it almost assuredly doesn't), they've done nothing wrong in taking the code and repurposing it.

      It's especially laughable for someone (the crackers) who broke someone else's copyright protection to complain that someone is now "abusing" their rights. IP rights either exist, or they don't. If they do, the crackers should've done what they did in the first place. If they don't, then Ubisoft isn't doing anything wrong by taking someone's else software as their own. You don't get to have it both ways.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    74. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The authors of the crack should sue UBI for copyright infringement... hahaha

    75. Re:So... by Enlightenment · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Because Windows is free. Here's some evidence.

      Briefly: People mostly get it with a new computer, so they don't actually shell out anything for it and they don't know about the (often hidden) option to omit installation of Windows for cash. Or they pirate it instead of getting Linux, because that's what they are used to.

    76. Re:So... by shark72 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "When the price is zero the demand is infinite."

      That's a commonly expressed opinion, but it's incorrect. Just about any product out there has finite demand. If Ubisoft were to give away all their software starting tomorrow, I still wouldn't want any of it. If Apple were to lower prices on the iTunes store to $0.90 or $0.80 or even $0.50, I wouldn't buy any more of it. If Chevrolet or Ferarri cut their retail prices in half, I wouldn't buy one.

      Piracy enthusiasts like to use this statement in an effort to point out that commercial software vendors don't understand pricing theory. "If PhotoShop costs five million bucks to produce, they should just sell it for $1 a copy and sell a five million copies, and they'll break even! If they sell another five million copies, that's five million dollars of profit, or 50% margin! It's so simple that I'm shocked that the pirates have figured it out and software vendors haven't! Durr on those stupid stupid software vendors!".

      Although piracy enthusiasts are often heartfelt in their defense of this theory, it's got a lot of problems. First and formost is, as pointed out, demand is not infinite. There might not be ten million potential customers out there.

      That's why supply/demand curves exist and why they're so useful for picking the right price for a product. What you've described (demand goes to infinity as price goes to zero) is called unit elasticity and is seldom found in real life. Demand curves are just that -- curvy -- and it might surprise you that a buck isn't automatically the best price to sell any given product.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    77. Re:So... by Crazy_CorranH · · Score: 1

      >What they were selling you was a license to use the software. Regardless of what you convince yourself.

      Really? I just looked at one of my game boxes and it said 'Supreme Commander' on the front, not 'A License to use Supreme Commander'. Why should I assume that I'm just buying a license for the game when it makes no mention of it anywhere on the front of the product?

    78. Re:So... by Muledeer007 · · Score: 1

      I do the same thing - with high traffic on my DVD drive from my games, my wife's games and my kids games -- the NO_CD or ISO emulator saves untold wear and tear on my legally purchased games - the original disks stay pristene. The dreaded - "unable to read media" error is non-existent for me

    79. Re:So... by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      There is no copy protection scheme that has not been utterly broken.

      Yes there is - make a product so shitty nobody wants to pirate it, let alone buy it. I hear EA is using this scheme these days.

    80. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I buy a game, I am buying physical media that contains software. As long as I am not distributing the software to others what I do with it is my business alone.

      I have bought several games that wouldn't even work until I cracked them. Since the store I bought them from won't refund opened software, would the game company prefer that I use a crack or file a lawsuit for fraud?

    81. Re:So... by joaommp · · Score: 1

      You people are reading me all wrong. I didn't say that using the no-cd crack if you bought the software was stealing from the company...

      What disappoints me is that the reason why the cracks appear in the first place are to support piracy. Obviously, sometimes bad things bring good results. But if it was something that came up with the intention of being a fix, people wouldn't be advertising it as a crack from an underground group... they would call it a fix or a workaround from a third-party.

      I do understand the fact that their copy-protection schemes hurt the people that legitimately acquired a license of the product. But why was that scheme put in place in the first place? For the mistakes/wrongdoings of a few, everyone gets nabbed.

    82. Re:So... by pdbaby · · Score: 1

      More? Where do you live? They're the same price as normal iTunes songs here in the UK (or are you just making a general point?)

      --
      Global symbol "$deity" requires explicit package name at line 2. - If only $scripture started "use strict;"
    83. Re:So... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Just because some judge doesn't have a fucking clue how software works, doesn't make his decision "right", only "legal & stupid."

    84. Re:So... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Yet, strangely enough, EA is behind Mirror's Edge, which everyone seems to like. Or at least, want to play -- can't say too much about it until it's actually out.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    85. Re:So... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Okay, okay. "I used to be perfectly happy to pay more for unencumbered songs back when they actually cost more than the DRM'd versions." Better? ;)

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    86. Re:So... by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      My biggest concern is did Ubi QA the "patch" how do they know there's no secret code in there to log keys, install virus or cause the game to crash in odd places.

    87. Re:So... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      They're the original copyright holders, and if the license under which they published their game doesn't allow for cracks like this (which it almost assuredly doesn't), they've done nothing wrong in taking the code and repurposing it.

      Sorry, no, it doesn't work that way. Unless the license explicitly gives them copyright of any cracks like this, the crack itself is still owned by whoever wrote it.

      Now, there's certainly nothing wrong with them releasing their own crack, but this is what was meant by "two wrongs don't make a right" -- take WoWGlider. Blizzard can shut the guy down and stop him from distributing his software, but it doesn't automagically give them the right to use it.

      It's especially laughable for someone (the crackers) who broke someone else's copyright protection to complain that someone is now "abusing" their rights.

      Do you make a habit of not checking the facts?

      As far as I know, the crackers themselves have not complained. A whole bunch of other people have pointed out the irony of Ubisoft flip-flopping on this -- first banning all discussion that the crack even exists, and now distributing it as part of an official patch.

      No one is suggesting that the crackers are "right" here. But Ubi is clearly wrong.

      Let me turn your own argument against you:

      IP rights either exist, or they don't.

      Ignoring for the moment that there is no such thing as "IP rights" -- there are copyrights, trademarks, and patents, which are all entirely different things...

      If IP rights (in this case, copyright) exist(s), then Ubi is violating the copyright of the crackers. The fact that the crackers violated their EULA is an entirely separate issue -- in an ideal court, both would be fined and cease-and-desisted.

      If IP rights don't exist, then Ubi shouldn't have attempted to stop the crack in the first place.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    88. Re:So... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, you only bought a license to use the game according to the terms of the EULA, not the game itself.

      I wasn't presented with the EULA at the time of purchase. As far as the purchase goes, I bought a box with a little plastic platter inside, with which I can do whatever I want.

      How would you feel if you brought an orange home, started to peel it, and found a little slip of paper inside that says "Orange EULA: You didn't buy an orange, only a license to eat it, and only while standing on one leg and wearing an eye patch. If you don't agree to this, well, it's not your orange, so please return it."

      You wouldn't tolerate this kind of bullshit with your groceries. Why do you tolerate it with your software?

      I understand the need for licenses, but present them up front, in the store, before money is exchanged.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    89. Re:So... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      What they were selling you was a license to use the software.

      In which case, they should have had, in big bold print -- or even in a small-print footnote -- "License to Use Farcry under terms and conditons enclosed."

      I doubt even that would be legal in Australia, unless you were allowed to open the box in the store and read the EULA right there.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    90. Re:So... by quanticle · · Score: 1

      Many recent console games (like Devil May Cry 4) do support preloading content onto the hard drive of the console. In fact, one of the main complaints against the latest patch for the Sony Playstation 3 was that it led to erasure of such preloaded content, leading to people having to go through the pre-loading process all over again.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    91. Re:So... by DotDotSlasher · · Score: 1

      There is no copy protection scheme that has not been utterly broken.

      What about the Nintendo Gamecube? It has funny-sized (smaller than CDs) discs, they spin backwards from CDs and DVDs. Hard to read apart from a Gamecube, hard to write. I can't think of a second example copy protection scheme that has been so successful, but I thought the Gamecube was fairly immune to "backup" copies.

    92. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh but it gets even better!

      the DMCA makes it illegal to bypass DRM functions, since they just ripped off a CD hack instead of re-releaseing their own .exe their actions are actually criminal!

      Nailed by the law they thought was there to cover their asses.

    93. Re:So... by NotInfinitumLabs · · Score: 2, Informative

      They were able to rip the ISOs off of the GameCube discs and then were able to play them by using an exploit in Phantasy star online with the broadband adapter. The discs took longer to load, sure, but you could still play pirated games.

    94. Re:So... by mdemirha · · Score: 1

      Amazon's Music Store - DRM free, high quality MP3's cheaper than iTunes prices http://www.amazon.com/MP3-Music-Download/b?ie=UTF8&node=163856011

    95. Re:So... by Enerla · · Score: 1

      While your story about copy protection seems to be true if you don't think about it, the mement you remember the Galactic Civilizaions II title by Stardock, their decision to go without copy protection and yet their surprising amount of copies sold, you would see the incident from a very different perspective.

      Why?

      Because it shows clearly, that the game performed better without copy protection, even when makers of starforce posted a link to warez copies, than expected. You could say: Because many people decided to support it for their decision to go without protection, but if it would be the norm, it wouldn't work...

      Why its expansion had good sales then?
      Why many smaller companies decide to go without copy protection without announcing it?
      Why many companies try to have the same model: if you buy the game, you also pay for some service and buying the game is a good deal for you?

      If you pirate you could see what will you get, but that isn't much different from a demo. If you want to play on the long run, you will pay for the software and the service anyway.

      Why media files without DRM can produce better sales than ones WITH DRM?

      For a good game you would play for months and not just try it once or twice: Copy protection schemes don't help at protecting the intellectual property, since the publisher can lose more customers due protection related problems than what they gain with extra effort needed to pirate the software.

      If you can "steal" the software to try it before buy it, you would try software you wouldn't buy in other cases, and you might become a loyal customer for both that product and future products.

      EA and Ubi that sells low quality games and don't want to see you trying the game before you would buy it, since you don't get good service, the game is bugous, and you don't have a reason to buy it to see another title from same publisher... Are quite different.

    96. Re:So... by mxs · · Score: 2, Funny

      There is no copy protection scheme that has not been utterly broken.

      Yes there is - make a product so shitty nobody wants to pirate it, let alone buy it. I hear EA is using this scheme these days.

      Doesn't work. People are pirating reality show games. 'nuff said.

    97. Re:So... by mxs · · Score: 1

      What about the Nintendo Gamecube? It has funny-sized (smaller than CDs) discs, they spin backwards from CDs and DVDs. Hard to read apart from a Gamecube, hard to write. I can't think of a second example copy protection scheme that has been so successful, but I thought the Gamecube was fairly immune to "backup" copies.

      There are modchips for the GC. 'nuff said.

      More expense is spent on stuff that is on nonstandard media (all those cartdridge-based systems are not copyable to dvd either !), but ultimately it's possible (be it by changing the drive, the firmware, or emulating the cartdridge circuitry.

      Speaking of interesting methods : the CPS2 protection was remarkably long-lived as well (though counterfitters had it worked out long before the method became public).

    98. Re:So... by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, so all piracy is of stuff by big media corporations? Really? How about small game developers whose games are regularly pirated? I guess they suck too, 'cause they aren't giving it to you for free.

      Piracy isn't a "mass advertising campaign." A few pirating gamers might say something about a game to a friend or two. But the idea that that's more beneficial than getting paid for their fucking work is astonishingly retarded. (Especially given that said pirating gamer would probably just say to his friend "here, I'll burn you a copy.")

      Rationalize it all you want: you're still fucking people over.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    99. Re:So... by RulerOf · · Score: 1

      But does anyone here honestly believe that only the guys that bought the product are the ones using the crack?

      I chose to use cracks for software (games, really) I purchase starting with Diablo II. I always chose "full install" back in the day just so that I didn't have to put the CD in the drive to play the game... and then blizzard took that option away from me.

      Then I found CloneCD and Daemon tools.

      While I don't disagree with the use of it by software makers, copy protection that's a CONSTANT pain in my ass is the kind that pisses me off. Activation schemes, a-la Steam or Windows Activation, doesn't bother me as an end user at all.

      --
      Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
    100. Re:So... by BadOPCode · · Score: 1

      This exact thing happened to a friend of mine. He did a byte crack patch to a Silicon & Synapse game Blackthorn to fix their bug in the joystick. They ended up making a "Official" patch that was his byte patch after they said prior to people that the joystick feature is totally and permanently boinked. Where is the real humorous part to this? Later this company changed their name to Blizzard Entertainment. As far as I know they totally pirated his work as they didn't even give a single shred of credit to my friend for successfully reversing and fixing their bug. Now days they sue you for looking at copies of their software in memory. That is after they steal the parts that fixes their bugs. Everyone of these hardcore DRM/copy-protection companies are complete hypocrites. If the shoe is on the other foot than its acceptable. All of it can be boiled down to, laws protect the rich.

    101. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like modding your car. It's YOURS. You paid for it.

      There is a big difference: the program you bought is not yours.

    102. Re:So... by seaturnip · · Score: 1

      There is no copy protection scheme that has not been utterly broken.

      I don't think this is true. Some high-priced software (e.g. CAD toolkits) ship with a USB dongle containing a CPU and part of the executable in encrypted form. In the course of the program's normal execution, some data is sent to the dongle, processed, and sent back. The dongle is designed to self-destruct when cracked open. This scheme is highly resistant to cracks, provided the part of the executable is well-chosen to not be recreatable, and typical attackers cannot obtain a large supply of dongles.

      Not that I'm saying it's necessarily reasonable for consumer videogames to use such an elaborate scheme.

    103. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it one step further, i wont buy a game until i know i can get download...

      1. a patch

      2. a no-cd crack for the patched version

      I generally end up waiting for 1-2 months after a new release.

      Currently it seems about 30% of the games on the shelf simply wont work out of the box. And its not at all uncommon for the DRM mechanism to be the source of the problems.

      Starforce (the DRM system ubi uses) is a notoriously offensive program that causes all sorts of problems, and not just for the game it comes with.

    104. Re:So... by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Demand for any non-volatile product, such as software, caps at about 6 billion. That's a lot less than infinity. People won't download Linux multiple times when they only have one computer, and some will chose something else or not have a computer, so it will average out to demand = world population. Probably a lot less. If price is zero and population is infinite, demand may be infinite.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    105. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhh, but you didn't buy the game did you? You bought a license to use the game under their terms and conditions.

      If you choose to use the game in ways that are expressly forbidden under this license, you no longer have permission to use the game.

      It is less like buying a TV and more like renting one indefinitely for a single payment.

      I'm not saying it's right, and the law agrees with you for certain things in certain countries (like it is legal modding hardware in AUS), but this is the general idea of software licensing.

      So, just 'cause you paid money for a game, don't assume "it's mine. I can do whatever the fuck I like with it"

    106. Re:So... by JohhnyTHM · · Score: 1

      At least you know the scene guys have quality control -- when their releases don't work, they get nuked.

      This quote in your post really stood out for me.

      Why is it that the pirates have such pride in releasing a quality working product, that they can be proud of, when the developers seem to release any old crap and just expect their paying customers to put up with the bugs until a later patch. Surely it should be the 'professional' developers that should be releasing the better product?

    107. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry for my pedantry taking the snap out of your argument ;)

    108. Re:So... by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      Here's a fun little mental exercise.

      How much money do you actually think they lost due to piracy?

      How much money do you think they actually lost due to crazy DRM schemes -- money used for rights to the technology, and for continued support of the technology (which seems to be quite high, from RTFS, I guess)?

      The only way their DRM, their efforts to combat piracy, were a good idea was if the second number is smaller than the first number. I'm getting the sneaky suspicion that is not the case.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    109. Re:So... by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      In Australia...

      What do you expect from a nation founded by thieves and other criminals?
      Hell, you guys made region-locked DVD players against the law, clearly your entire justice system is in league with teh pirates.

      Lay off! They're just trying to stop global warming.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    110. Re:So... by mxs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no copy protection scheme that has not been utterly broken.

      I don't think this is true.

      I do :)

      Some high-priced software (e.g. CAD toolkits) ship with a USB dongle containing a CPU and part of the executable in encrypted form. In the course of the program's normal execution, some data is sent to the dongle, processed, and sent back. The dongle is designed to self-destruct when cracked open. This scheme is highly resistant to cracks, provided the part of the executable is well-chosen to not be recreatable, and typical attackers cannot obtain a large supply of dongles.

      It is resistant and resilient, yes. I would not call it impossible, having seen what has been cracked in the past and what a decent financial incentive will do for the motivation to crack.

      I have seen some of these systems first-hand over the years, always getting more and more intricate. Without fail, they have also gotten more and more burdensome on the regular users of the software. Want that "old" (2 years) dongle supported ? Forget it. Want that parallel port dongle working on your shiny new laptop ? Forget it. Want to exchange a broken one for a new one a month after the "service contract" that was tacked onto the "purchase price" expires ? Tough noogies.
      Architects and engineers put up with it in large part because there are few or no alternatives that do not do the exact same thing.

      Yet, you usually find a cracked version of AutoCAD in certain circles, anyway. In the above scenario, it really just takes ONE cracked dongle to get at the executable code. As for crackers not obtaining a ready supply thereof ... Why would that be ? These companies usually outsource to companies dedicated to making those dongles. Those companies, in turn, want to sell their dongles to other companies to secure their products. Naturally, those companies would like some samples, and possibly some development samples. If the stakes are high enough (a $20k software component that you can sell on the black market for $1k-$2k a piece if you crack it properly), why not set up a front company, get some of those samples, and work on those. You don't need to work on a "real" dongle until you have perfected your method, and you can get more than one "real" dongle by getting another one from the originating software company for the legitimately-purchased license (I assume these crackers will have access to a company with a service contract like that). They won't just say "no" when you say you lost your dongle on a trainride.

      Not that I'm saying it's necessarily reasonable for consumer videogames to use such an elaborate scheme

      It'll come. Right now Blizzard is marketing electronic devices designed to improve the security of their World of Warcraft logins by augmenting the regular username/password tuple with one-time-passwords generated by an electronic device. People are eating it up because they want to protect their accounts. I don't think it'll stay confined to securing online accounts ... 3-4 years down the road, you'll see some high-priced games sporting activation smartcards (or something equivalent). I think. It's madness.

      It is crackable. The more user-friendly something is, the easier it is to crack.

    111. Re:So... by mxs · · Score: 1

      I suspect it has something to do with the "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well" kind of thinking. Obviously these people think it's worth doing (they are doing it, and I would say usually without monetary compensation, at least as long as we are not talking about commercial outfits), so they are going to do it well; Commercial developers sometimes have the same ethic, but even nearly always; It's "just a job", and it's "OK as long as it makes money". This isn't the tenor everywhere, but it is often enough.

      Sceners seem to not think of ordinary users as their audience, either. Their audience is other sceners (read some NFO files some time, it's enlightening); as such when they screw up showing off their stuff to their peers, they social dynamic is a lot different than if you think of your audience as just a blob of people who buy stuff. Of course, some game companies treat their customers quite differently than others, and some scene groups really couldn't give a rats ass about what other scene groups think. I use "scene" here loosely, anyway.

      As for why some commercial developers put the sort of crap on the plate of their users as they often do, I have no idea. They might just not care, or maybe some suit in some key position decided to make the deadline, no matter what. That's what happens when you are answerable to your shareholders, but not your users.

    112. Re:So... by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1
      So, just 'cause you paid money for a game, don't assume "it's mine. I can do whatever the fuck I like with it"

      It's not an assumption. It's a fact.

      Try reading the rest of the thread.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    113. Re:So... by adona1 · · Score: 1

      FWIW, I believe Blizzard recently released a patch which doesn't need the CD in the drive anymore. Better best part of a decade late than never ;)

      --
      Between the falling angel and the rising ape
    114. Re:So... by omglolbah · · Score: 1

      And not only will the game often ungracefully exit... sometimes (often actually in my experience) the game will just silently NOT start.

      You hit the start shortcut and... nothing happens...

      No trivial way to find out why either...

      Case in point: Command and Conquer First Decade. I played the games cracked for months and figured I would buy it (when I started working and had money!) and guess what... No way to play the original due to the DRM... So I went back to the crack... Meh.

    115. Re:So... by n+dot+l · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For smaller developers DRM is often mandated by the publisher. And the publisher doesn't give a damn about the developer or their game so long as it sparkles well enough to attract consumers. In the PC gaming world that standard is ridiculously low.

      If you refuse to DRM, they refuse to publish your game and you make no money. And no, self-publishing is not a viable option for a lot of companies. Almost all major video games sell mostly on hype. If you can't afford a major advertising campaign and don't happen to already have a pack of rabid fans refreshing your home page for the latest scrap of news, then there's no way you can recoup the development costs of a AAA title just selling stuff off your web site. And that's not even taking into account the problem of getting said money in the first place without whoring yourself out to a publisher.

      Having said that, I have no fucking clue what Ubi's excuse is, as they're certainly big enough that they aren't at some evil publisher's mercy. Maybe they've grown large enough that they're like EA, with enough bureaucracy between the studios and the publishing execs that they may as well be separate companies.

    116. Re:So... by Mista2 · · Score: 1

      Because Windows is free too. You get it with nearly every PC, and often cant get the same hardware without it. I want to buy a Mac Mini. It's expensive for a 2GHz core duo with only 2GB RAM and 160GB HDD, but even at NZ$1200 it's the cheapest computer with that power I can find that is that small. I's going to drive an in car pc on a 9" screen in the back for the kids for movies and music when on long trips, and be a main desktop when out of the car for use at home.

    117. Re:So... by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 1

      To be fair, that only happened because England's other penal colony had a revolution.

      The US wasn't a penal colony (ie, none of the 13 colonies that were the original members were penal colonies). In many places there was even a screening process to see who would get in. There were indentured servants who couldn't pay their way, there were slaves, and there were a few rich guys who had been disgraced in England, but not prisoners in any considerable number.

    118. Re:So... by seaturnip · · Score: 1

      Hmm, that's interesting. Well okay, I didn't claim it was "impossible" either. Still, even if your cracking scenario comes to pass, the copy protection can't be said to have been "utterly" broken. There is a significant delay between release and cracking, and if the crackers have broken it for black market sales, this means they won't release it onto P2P networks for free. I imagine most likely not all versions of AutoCAD or other such software have been cracked either, only some of them. So the protection does cut down on a considerable amount of piracy in any case.

      I think in the case of videogames, publishers only really want a window of a few weeks where they can sell their game without competing against pirates, since those first weeks have a disproportionate amount of sales. So the weaker protections they use aren't totally futile for them either, provided that that delay does happen (which admittedly is not always the case). Which kind of brings us back to the initial topic of this thread -- Ubisoft doesn't mind releasing a no-cd crack for their own software once the launch window is past.

    119. Re:So... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I actually can't play games with the CD in the drive - my laptop slows to a molasses-like crawl whenever data is being read from the CD drive. This is true whether it's a music CD, a DVD, or a video game's CD. If I don't make a disc image and use something like Daemon Tools, then my games are literally unplayable.

      Some might say it's my fault for buying a computer with this issue (as if I knew before I bought it), and others might say it's Dell's fault, or whatever - but while I find piracy morally wrong (and extremely hypocritical for a non-OSS programmer), I find nothing wrong with using images of discs I personally own, especially if it improves performance and reliability. Keeping them in the case (as morari points out) protects them from scratches and whatnot, too.

    120. Re:So... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      I once worked at a company that will remain nameless that used tons of pirated software, or violated licensing terms, etc. They had one several-thousand-dollar piece of software meant for validating addresses, with a license for just one machine. If memory serves, it was installed on every single Windows machine in the office (probably thirty).

      We had a burned Windows 2000 Server cd that we used for everyone's workstations (but all the servers ran Fedora Core 4); I'm pretty sure it wasn't a site license. Same for MS Office, though most of the peons were instructed to use OpenOffice.

      We used some ancient (DOS-era) .dbf-manipulating programs that I'm sure we only had once license for. (That's three WTFs in one.)

      My experience there made me promise myself that when I own my own company, I'll just use open source software as much as possible to avoid the whole mire, but if I do find myself running Windows, I'll be sure to have enough licenses. I don't want bureaus of any flavor on my back...

    121. Re:So... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      I tried to get Dell to ship me my laptop without Windows (I have my own legit copies of XP Pro, no need to pay Dell for XP Home). They refused. Finally I gave up. (No, they did not offer Ubuntu on this model.)

      There's not always an option.

    122. Re:So... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Yes, they did so for Starcraft and its expansion (patch 1.15a) and Diablo II and its expansion (patch 1.12a).

    123. Re:So... by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 2, Informative

      In the US, iTunes Plus songs cost $1.99, regular songs cost $.99. Dunno what they cost in the UK.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    124. Re:So... by quetzalblue · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > I actually can't play games with the CD in the drive - my laptop slows to a molasses-like crawl whenever data is being read from the CD drive. \n Check the cdrom's device options. If there's a DMA option available, then setting it would definitely improve performance. I've had a similar issue with this linux setup-config/laptop. \n Cheers !

    125. Re:So... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      DMA is enabled. I've tried so many options I can't remember them all. This happens in both Linux (various distros) and Windows, both XP and Vista (when I had it on here). It has happened unfailingly through several wiped drives and OS reinstalls. It makes LiveCDs somewhat difficult to use (and is probably why Ubuntu didn't want to install). Making ISOs is painfully slow in any OS, and though it was advertised as an 8x DVD burner and 24x CD burner I can't get it to burn DVDs at more than ~1.7x nor CDs at more than 6x.

      Yes, it's Dell's fault, but I got such a good deal on the laptop that I stopped *really* caring about this issue about ten minutes after I noticed it.

    126. Re:So... by Kalriath · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Please note that Amazon MP3 is currently only available to US customers."

      Here's why Amazon isn't an option for a lot of people.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    127. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a clash of "Customer Demands" verses companies telling you what to do with the product you buy from them. I legally purchase games and then crack them. It is downright annoying to have a 500GB hard drive filled with many games that I legally purchased that technically run 100% from the hard drive and then have to find each disk everytime I want to play. The only reason I have to dig up that particular CD or DVD is to keep the game company happy. It certainly doesn't keep me happy. I spent my hard earned money on this product and get treated like a criminal, yet those who are actually pirating the game have no such constraints and laugh at the game companies feeble attempts to stop them. These copy protection schemes do not work in the long run. These companies only annoy their legitimate customers while the players getting the best experience are the ones pirating the thing. Copy Protection .........baaaaaaaaad..........100+ legally purchased games freely accessible on the hard drive............gooooood. Ubisoft get a clue, listen to your customers quit locking down your products and annoying us all. That's my 2 sense. Illusion of security is not the same as security

    128. Re:So... by mpe · · Score: 1

      Ubisoft stole a program released by a group who help others to steal theirs?
      The monsters!


      Since Ubisoft claimed that the patch was theirs what they are doing is worst (according to the letter of the law).

    129. Re:So... by mxs · · Score: 1

      Hmm, that's interesting. Well okay, I didn't claim it was "impossible" either.

      True :)

      Still, even if your cracking scenario comes to pass, the copy protection can't be said to have been "utterly" broken.

      I'd argue that it could be, considering the expense it cost to set the system up to be "uncrackable" :)

      There is a significant delay between release and cracking,

      For software like AutoCAD, which easily gets used for years and years, this is insignificant. People don't upgrade AutoCAD because a new version is out, but because they need a new feature. This can happen surprisingly seldomly.

      and if the crackers have broken it for black market sales, this means they won't release it onto P2P networks for free.

      They might not, but their customers or their customers' employees might and will -- much like commercial movie pirates selling cheaply pressed DVDs of telesync/cam recodordings of current movies in certain asian markets do not release their stuff on P2P, but their customers certainly do.

      I imagine most likely not all versions of AutoCAD or other such software have been cracked either, only some of them. So the protection does cut down on a considerable amount of piracy in any case.

      And at license costs of several thousand to seveal dozen thousand dollars for a single license and the very, very specialized fields in which you actually need this very, very specialized software, there are actually real losses to be found. However, if you want to find a way, you usually will. If it's cheaper to pay a black market guy the development hours he has to spend cracking a certain version of something than it is to buy is (not the case with virtually all over-the-counter software), shrewd businessmen might consider it.

      I think in the case of videogames, publishers only really want a window of a few weeks where they can sell their game without competing against pirates, since those first weeks have a disproportionate amount of sales. So the weaker protections they use aren't totally futile for them either, provided that that delay does happen (which admittedly is not always the case).

      s/not always/almost never/ ... The cracking groups have a copy of the game at about the time the discs leave the pressing plant (which is a decent while before official release date). Either they have a contact at the pressing plant, or somebody in the chain from the pressing plant to the retail outlet. The more "elite" groups will have contacts higher up the chain, the less "elite" groups will likely just get their wares a few days before release when shipments arrive at their stores' local distribution center.

      Since almost all copy protections are bought from third parties, you usually have a variation of SafeDisc, SecuRom, Starforce, etc. -- all of which these groups have working cracks for for previous games using them. It's a matter of tweaking it for the new release -- in the worst case (for the publisher), this is an automated process or takes 20 minutes. But even if it's an entirely new protection ... The race is on. Their top reverse engineers will work tirelessly, day and night, until it is broken -- just to be able to claim that they were the first to do so. There are some exceptionally bright people working in that field (if you dismiss this out of hand, please just study some of the more elaborate cracks and circumventions, and what was necessary to create them in skill and creativity. For WinZip it's trivial (essentially exchangin a return 1; instead of a return 0;, or if you want a key generator, reverse engineering a simple formula; in the case of the more advanced disc protection systems, you'll not be able to use your regular debugger in any standard configuration until you figure out how the system is thwarting those attem

    130. Re:So... by Loibisch · · Score: 1

      Yes, because you couldn't have like kept the retail version and still downloaded a copy for actual use? You know, so you actually own it legally?

      If you don't like their DRM that's fine, you are free not to purchase and play the game. But returning and downloading instead and crying "they made me do it" is hypocrisy.

    131. Re:So... by pdbaby · · Score: 1

      This is why I was asking... here it's the same high price for iTunes Plus and regular songs... £0.79 - roughly $1.57. Aparently we love to pay loads for music:-)

      --
      Global symbol "$deity" requires explicit package name at line 2. - If only $scripture started "use strict;"
    132. Re:So... by SOTEC · · Score: 1

      I think that's the most sense I've ever heard made out of this EULA debauchery. Finally someone is thinking.

      But you forget friend, that this is not our world, this is the corporate world; they think on a different level than the average citizen and having the EULA available to you AFTER purchase is the corporate's way of locking you into a binding agreement without your consent. They figured if you wanted the game bad enough to buy it, then you're amped enough to agree to anything that's in that EULA. Imagine the surprise when Ubisoft shows up and takes some old gamers first born, but instead of flashing a warrant much like cops, they flash a dated EULA. That needs to change. That's exactly how I think though when I buy new software, whether it be a game or application, I come to the EULA and I say "Yea, yea, yea, I bought the damn thing, f*ck off" I AGREE. And the way they write those things up? The language and vernacular they use in those things? Jesus Christ, you'd have to be a lawyer to understand half of it. You can't omit words because they write it in such a way; you switch one or two words around and it could change the entire meaning of the sentence.

    133. Re:So... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Of course, by effectively giving official blessing to this particular 'crack', haven't they implicitly acknowledged the argument that it had a legitimate non-copyright violation purpose all along?

      Interestingly, in the process of acknowledging it's legitimacy, they also themselves ILLegitamatly violated copyright on the fix.

      ...doesn't forgive anyone for pirating software (second wrong).

      I agree that none of that excuses copyright violation, but it certainly DOES justify applying a self help crack to software you did pay for to make a backup or to make it actually work like it's supposed to.

      By the same token, the fact that some people make illegitimate copies of software doesn't justify harming legitimate users with screwy copy prevention crap.

    134. Re:So... by Thundersnatch · · Score: 1

      One of the first things I do when I buy a game is download the CD crack so I don't have to keep track of where the install disks are.

      And I would imagine your machine has been root-kitted for years. What sort of idiot downlaods and installs a random exectuable from an openly criminal source? I mean, really, what could go wrong?

    135. Re:So... by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1
      And I would imagine your machine has been root-kitted for years.

      http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897445.aspx

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    136. Re:So... by Thundersnatch · · Score: 1

      Your point being? That tool detects some of the more popular rootkits directly, and also some of the more popular techniques used by rootkits. It is by no means an infallible rootkit condom.

      Executing an known-shady "crack" executable on a system is about the stupidest thing a slashdotter could ever do. Geeks are supposed to be teaching people not to do that sort of thing.

    137. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who do you think cops calls when they lock their keys in car? It's cheap, safe, and FAST (usually under 30sec even with very complicated and sophisticated systems). I don't think there's an car alarm/anti-theft system right now which works, some of them are enough complicated to turn the thief to next car as it will save him some seconds of work and make it less risky, but if they really want *that* car badly, say bye bye to it no matter what. ... just like SW .. :D

    138. Re:So... by Magada · · Score: 1

      Why would it? Pass the rights to the software to a third party - the FSF maybe? Perhaps a smart lawyer would have the ways to make such a transaction effectively anonymous, but verifiable in court?

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    139. Re:So... by sabre3999 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps he used a legal download service, such as Direct2Drive or whatever was around back then. There are alternatives to having a physical copy that are perfectly legal.

    140. Re:So... by Snaller · · Score: 1

      "I don't need to convince anyone. "

      Yes, you need to convince the judge if it comes to court - which of course it might not. But no matter how much you put fingers in year ears and go NANANANANANANA - it is not your game, and you have a very limited range of things you can do without being a criminal.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    141. Re:So... by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Games boxes always have with small letters words to the effect that "Use of this product is subject to a license agreement", and suggest you can perhaps read it in a manual (if you can borrow one) or on their website. They are not interested in how you read it, that burden is on you. That the shop won't allow you to open and look is a problem between you and the shop not the people who produce the software.

      Don't kid yourself. Australia is a signatory of copyright conventions as well.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    142. Re:So... by VickiM · · Score: 1

      I agree with your statement.

      A while back I downloaded a break-out clone that was lots of fun, so I went ahead and bought the full version. An aquaintance mocked me for paying for it when he could have easily found a crack, then proceeded to download and crack the game for himself and never actually play it. He never understood why I was irritated at him. He always thought I was just indignant that I "wasted" $20 and he showed me up. Yeah, it wasn't the most innovative game in the world, but I thought the company definately earned their $20, and I got at least that much entertainment out of it.

      We're not talking about stealing bread to feed your family. Games are not a requirement for life. A lot of DRM goes beyond what's reasonable, but it's not like they're just doing it to be dicks. If anything, it's a response to the disregard they've seen.

    143. Re:So... by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

      Besides, on the back of my box it says "You must accept the enclosed license agreement" - don't say you weren't warned.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    144. Re:So... by Snaller · · Score: 1

      I guess they would content that you should know it by now, or that you can read it on their site. But they can do any anything, unless you can contest it in court.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    145. Re:So... by alva_edison · · Score: 1

      People use pirated software -> companies think they lose money -> companies invest in trying to avoid illegitimate usage of their software -> copy-protection schemes are put in place -> problems with copy-protection schemes arise -> people who don't give a shit about the fact that the software was a result of an investment in both equipment, marketing and man hours still keep finding ways to pirate the software.

      It's important to remember two things when talking about this subject. First, there is little evidence to support the claim that pirated software = lost sales, i.e. the pirates wouldn't buy the stuff anyway. Second, the company hasn't actually lost any physical product, so it doesn't reduce saleable stock in physical or online stores. The only way the companies would lose money is if they lost sales due to piracy, or they lost physical product.

      --
      He effected a bored affect.
    146. Re:So... by Arccot · · Score: 1

      There is no copy protection scheme that has not been utterly broken.

      I don't think this is true. Some high-priced software (e.g. CAD toolkits) ship with a USB dongle containing a CPU and part of the executable in encrypted form. In the course of the program's normal execution, some data is sent to the dongle, processed, and sent back. The dongle is designed to self-destruct when cracked open. This scheme is highly resistant to cracks, provided the part of the executable is well-chosen to not be recreatable, and typical attackers cannot obtain a large supply of dongles.

      Not that I'm saying it's necessarily reasonable for consumer videogames to use such an elaborate scheme.

      Actually, hardware dongles are pretty easy to crack. You don't even open the dongle. If the challenge and response is always the same, you can snoop and emulate the response in software. If it's always changing, you just recode the executable to either always issue the same challenge, or recode it to OK whatever it gets back. It's actually easier to crack than software, since it's much more obvious tracing a binary file if it accesses a hardware device.

      Hardware dongles are a joke.

    147. Re:So... by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

      There's a real easy way to prevent damage to your game install from using a no-cd crack. Only use cracks that use a modified game exe file. Rename your original file to the same name plus (original) at the end. Then put the crack in the directory. If problems occur, delete the crack and name the original file back to it's original name. I've never had a single issue so far.

      Personally I find that the time involved in figuring out how to undo the stupid DRM that stays on my system even after I've removed the game from the computer is a huge cost.

      DRM should be listed on the label of software just under the requirements and recommendations as well as on the sleeve that holds the discs. They should also have to let you know when the software is being installed and an option to cancel the install. There should also be an easy uninstall application for each of them for when the game is no longer on the system. If I knew games had DRM like SecuROM on them beforehand I never would have bought them. It should be illegal to shadily install programs on my system without my explicit consent.

    148. Re:So... by seaturnip · · Score: 1

      You're probably right that that's how most dongles are misused in reality, I don't have any specific experience working with them. But I had in mind that the dongle would actually perform necessary data processing for the program to run, not just do a tacked-on challenge-response check. I.e. a fairly large and important but non-performance-critical part of the program would be compiled to run on the dongle and not included in the main PC executable. The program would then request that the dongle do work via a sort of RPC. Then you really would need to open the dongle and extract the code, or time-consumingly reproduce all the logic provided by the dongle.

    149. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow... your link leads to a page full of flash, javascript, and odd CSS implementing things like a fade-over nagging ad, lots of dodgy adbureau.net banner ads (privoxy kills those yay)...

      I think I'd rather take my chances with wikipedia wrt transience and inaccuracy of information than cooperate with such a crass and UGLY site.

      If briannica.com is losing lots of traffic to wikipedia, then GOOD!

    150. Re:So... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      If briannica.com is losing lots of traffic to wikipedia, then GOOD!

      Agreed. I didn't notice all the ugliness as I block most of that by default. I would have looked for something more suitable had I been aware. The only reason I went with Britannica is to avoid the "Wikipedia information is suspect" diversion. :P

    151. Re:So... by brkello · · Score: 1

      Bull shit. Piracy is not "sometimes necessary" due to copy prevention schemes. The company could have come up with their own bypass.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    152. Re:So... by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      So even though the copy-prevention schemes arose from piracy, today, piracy is sometimes necessary due to copy-prevention schemes.

      Using a hack != piracy. Refusing to buy the game doesn't make it magically work.

    153. Re:So... by Walter+Carver · · Score: 1

      No, it's more like:

      people use pirated software -> companies [b]think[/b] they lose money and get convinced that copy protection will stop piracy -> ...

    154. Re:So... by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      What I meant was: Sometimes, you must use the same version of the game as those who use a pirate copy use in order to use the game you paid for.
      If you own the game, downloading a cracked copy isn't pirating. It's fixing a defect product.

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
  2. How could they? by Jeremy+Visser · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Stealing the intellectual property of these crackers that they so rightfully deserve -- how could Ubisoft do such a thing?

    On a serious note, is Ubisoft actually legally allowed to distribute these cracked executables, because they are of their own product?

    Mind, I don't get why, because they would have the original source code anyway.

    1. Re:How could they? by Cheesey · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah, I'm still laughing at the irony of Ubisoft being accused of "stealing" from the guys who pirated their game.

      Those poor pirates! Ubisoft just ripped off their work, downloaded and distributed it for free, and never gave them anything in return. Ubisoft is destroying the pirate industry!

      --
      >north
      You're an immobile computer, remember?
    2. Re:How could they? by malkavian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just semantics, I know, but UBISoft didn't steal anything. They haven't deprived the originators of any use of their CD crack.
      I found the article both amusing, intriguing, and irritating in that they're playing the games of the *IAA on the "theft" side.
      What they have done is infringe copyright, which is just not playing fair. And for one of the "big boys" in the industry, who definitely do make money from releases, and continued patching (patches are, or should be, costed into the maintenance cycle of any computer product).

      Legally, I'd say UBI are in the wring distributing the patch, as it is comprised of code they have not written. However, the cracker group would have to go and press charges to have this settled. And I'm not so sure they would be so happy to drop their facade of anonymity for this (all the companies that would love to know who they are, for the sake of taking a shot at copyright protection circumvention charges etc.).

      As things stand, I don't think UBI will get the full legal hot water, however, they've just taken a massive PR hit, and the whole "holier than thou" stance taken by the games industry on copy protection has also been tainted.

      As to why a patch has been released that's copied.. The no-cd cracks are widely distributed, so when they're 'mature', you have a very heavily tested patch, that may just fix an issue you need fixed. You can either spend ages getting the dev to identify the bug, work out how to fix it without breaking other things in the product, get a testing department to exhaustively test it to make sure it doesn't break, pass it through QA to make sure it's not affected any other things adversely, and have it passed backwards and forwards if things don't seem quite right.. Or you can grab some existing highly tested in volume code that does the job nicely.

      Efficiency says that the second is the best option. However, to do that, they'd need the ok from the crack group, which the organisation probably wouldn't want to attribute on a release document. The joys of politics getting in the way of progress.
      Given that they're not willing to attribute or deal with the 'pirates', then alas, their only option should have been to go their own way.

      Methinks someone was a tad lazy and thought "it's all closed, who'll know?" without thinking it through.. After all, how does anyone work out how things have altered without going through patches with the proverbial microscope? You can pretty much guarantee that someone would find out the similarities...

      Of course, there's also the option that one of the UBI devs is also in the crack group and simply reused the code s/he wrote in the first place, which would be even more interesting (and from an 'unofficial' aspect, probably more useful for UBI, as they can comply with uninformed investors clamoring for DRM, and at the same time slake the appetites of the masses who don't want the damned DVD in the drive as it's a pain in the arse! Best of both worlds).

    3. Re:How could they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's more the hypocrisy that concerns everyone. It's like how no-one would care if a seedy pervert was having an illicit affair with a prostitute, but it would be big news if a preacher/pastor/minister/religious-leader was - because of the moral hypocrisy. Sheesh, it's not like the pirates are actually losing money over this.

    4. Re:How could they? by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      They weren't actually arguing that, they just found it funny.....

    5. Re:How could they? by irtza · · Score: 1

      The thought that this came from the inside really struck me. Now my head hurts. Thanks a lot.

      --
      When all else fails, try.
    6. Re:How could they? by Cheesey · · Score: 1

      Pirates who complain about people stealing their work are also hypocrites.

      However, my post was not intended to be taken seriously!

      --
      >north
      You're an immobile computer, remember?
    7. Re:How could they? by b96miata · · Score: 1

      They're violating the copyright of whoever wrote the crack, but of course if said individual came forth to file a claim, they'd just end up with a countersuit for writing it in the first place.

      It's like stealing from a drug dealer, only without the threat of violence.

    8. Re:How could they? by ksd1337 · · Score: 1

      On a serious note, is Ubisoft actually legally allowed to distribute these cracked executables, because they are of their own product?

      I would think so. The only thing stopping them is if there's any code the crackers wrote to disable the CD check, which they would have to get the permission to use (no matter how serious the violation of their EULa is.)

    9. Re:How could they? by colmore · · Score: 1

      Actually this is a very interesting legal question:

      Are illegal copyright circumvention technologies copyrightable?

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    10. Re:How could they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legally, it's both avoiding DRM and a derivative work.

      So it is illegal to distribute by anyone without Ubisoft permission, but likewise is illegal to redistribute by Ubisoft without Reloaded permission.

      IANAL

    11. Re:How could they? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      As things stand, I don't think UBI will get the full legal hot water, however, they've just taken a massive PR hit, and the whole "holier than thou" stance taken by the games industry on copy protection has also been tainted.

      A massive PR hit? Meh. I'd call it more a "storm in a teacup", as is typical of most Internet dramas. A minor embarrassment, sure, but I'll stick my neck waaaay out there and say this will be all but forgotten in a week or so.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    12. Re:How could they? by xtracto · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Pirates who complain about people stealing their work are also hypocrites.

      Have you stopped to think that the guys who make the NO-CD crack do not give a shit about the game they are cracking? And that, if you had by any chance downloaded any of those cracks (not that you had, because we all know Cheesey is a god muthafucka lamb of God), you would have known that some of them even state clearly in the .NFO file that IF YOU LIKE THE GOD DAMN GAME THEN GO TO BUY IT.

      Now, in your beautiful USA country it may be a crime to reverse engineer software for any purpose. But there are plenty of other countries (yes! there are other countries besides your loved America) where this is not the case.

      As such, anyone can reverse engineer the software, publish said programs, subject to THEIR copyright without infringing ANY law.

      Shit, stupid people make my so mad...
      but you really deserved this flamebait.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    13. Re:How could they? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      The author of the crack isn't breaking anyone's copyright...
      He is providing a third party patch which improves the original product. The original vendor has even acknowledged the improvement by using it themselves.
      That the crack makes it easier to copy the game is incidental, cd/dvd recorders make it easier to copy games too.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    14. Re:How could they? by xtracto · · Score: 1

      wow...

      I must extend an apology for the aforementioned flamebait.

      I was over caffeinated... and in some way the GP affected me, because I used to crack programs protections (that is, disassemble, debug, and whatnot break the "security") just for entertainment when I was back in the University.

      But I still think the point I was trying to make holds. When I was doing that reverse engineering, it was not a crime in the country I was living (Mexico). I do not know if it is one now, but I doubt it.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    15. Re:How could they? by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Sheesh, it's not like the pirates are actually losing money over this.

      But the fact is that their work (the executable they release) is still under their copyright, and while they might have not been breaking any law when creating and originally distributing such software (i.e., it may be the case that in Norway, Sweeden, Brazil, Chile or any other country it is not criminalized to reverse engineer a program and show the resulting code in itself), Ubisoft might very well be infringing the copyright of redistributing the code or even a "derivative work" of it without the express permission of the authors FOR PROFIT (i.e., not for personal use).

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    16. Re:How could they? by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      Just semantics, I know, but UBISoft didn't steal anything.

      No, it's not semantics, because according to the science of semantics, they did steal. How that bullshit argument got so popular around here absolutely eludes me. Somehow, people who know nothing about law or linguistics have spawned a meme that has incredible staying power. UBISoft absolutely did steal that crack. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF PHYSICAL DEPRIVATION IN THE ENGLISH VERB 'TO STEAL'. FURTHER, 'STEAL' IS NOT A LEGAL TERM OF ART, SO ANY THEFT ANALOGY IS DOOMED TO FAILURE.

      What you mean to say is "Just false pedanticism..."

    17. Re:How could they? by Holi · · Score: 1

      Actually most no-cd cracks are deriviative works as they are just the games original exectutable with a slight modification. So yes the crack's author is violating copyright by distributing the executable.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    18. Re:How could they? by Draek · · Score: 1

      No, it's not semantics, because according to the science of semantics, they did steal. How that bullshit argument got so popular around here absolutely eludes me. Somehow, people who know nothing about law or linguistics have spawned a meme that has incredible staying power. UBISoft absolutely did steal that crack. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF PHYSICAL DEPRIVATION IN THE ENGLISH VERB 'TO STEAL'. FURTHER, 'STEAL' IS NOT A LEGAL TERM OF ART, SO ANY THEFT ANALOGY IS DOOMED TO FAILURE.

      The problem is that the verb "to steal" does require it to refer to actual property, not a government-granted, time-limited monopoly over distribution rights. Unless, of course, you fell for that idiotic "IP" scam, in which case I'd kindly refer you to this excellent rebuttal written by the man who wrote one of the world's most widely used software licenses, among various other works.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    19. Re:How could they? by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      Actually it depends. Sometimes they are just a patching application that does not contain any of the original executable, but just a checksum of executable (so the patches are not applied to a different version where they may not work) and a list of offsets and replacement bytes.

      But when they distribute a pre-patched executable, that is definitely a derivative work. The pre-patched system is common these days since many modern CD copy-protection systems use a wrapped-executable model.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    20. Re:How could they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I understand copyright, UBI owns the copyright to their game. And the no-cd crack is a derivative work based on their game. So assuming that UBI is an American company subject to American copyright laws, they own every single crack to their games, and are free to do whatsoever they please with it.

      I am not a law-student yet, but I will be this fall.

    21. Re:How could they? by Elrond,+Duke+of+URL · · Score: 1

      As things stand, I don't think UBI will get the full legal hot water, however, they've just taken a massive PR hit, and the whole "holier than thou" stance taken by the games industry on copy protection has also been tainted.

      No, they haven't taken a "massive" PR hit. A massive hit would be this story showing up in, say, the NY Times, followed by industry-wide denouncements.

      What has really happened is a minor PR scandal. It's made people who already dislike Ubi (like me) like them even less, and allowed me to get a good laugh in at their expense. Also, I expect to see a good Penny Arcade comic sprout from this incident.

      Now, you're right that this *should* be a bigger deal, but sadly I don't think it's going anywhere. Ubi doesn't care, and most other publishers use the same easily broken control schemes and they're unlikely to care either.

      --
      Elrond, Duke of URL
      "This is the most fun I've had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!"-Sam&Max
    22. Re:How could they? by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the verb "to steal" does require it to refer to actual property

      No. The verb 'to steal' does not refer specifically solely to property at all. Moreover, even to the extent that property may be referenced by an individual's use, the word 'property' requires neither physicality nor finiteness. 'Property' in its most basic sense is an exclusive right, which Intellectual Property absolutely is. It is no different in function than real property or personal property, both of which are regrettably considered false metonyms with the subject of property by people like you.

      Unless, of course, you fell for that idiotic "IP" scam, in which case I'd kindly refer you to this excellent rebuttal

      No. It is an absurd rebuttal made by an ideological blowhard who has no clue what the hell he's talking about.

      Not only does he intentionally misrepresent the scope of Intellectual Property, he conflates multiple senses of the word property to make a disingenuous point, and he ignores the similar practice elsewhere in the field. Intellectual Property is not the information, nor is it the idea. In fact, it explicitly does not cover those things. It is, instead, the exclusive rights of the rightsholder. It is exactly the same as any other kind of property at law, which is all entirely intangible. Moreover, "Intellectual Property" is a term of convenience for a field, not a statement of relatedness, just like "Family Law" and "Administrative Law", neither of which contain legal fields that are any more closely structured or originated. Family law covers such disparate topics as marriage, custody, domestic abuse, and adoption, plus many others, and itself overlaps with areas of criminal, property, and probate law.

      His license, furthermore, is neither particularly well-written nor is he a lawyer or academic expert on either the philosophy of law or its history.

      IP is neither idiotic nor a scam, and you'd have to be a complete lummox or an intentional troll to believe otherwise. Like everything else in the law, it is imperfect. But more relevant to this discussion, it is misunderstood by most lay people, including quite notably RMS, whose "rebuttal" is the subject of much humor and ridicule. A person who can't even get his definitions straight can't possibly build a compelling argument.

    23. Re:How could they? by malkavian · · Score: 1

      But interestingly, the definitions of the word in the dictionary all come back to the definitions "To commit theft".
      Certainly in the UK (where I am), theft is defined as "The Theft Act 1968 Section1 (1) states that a person is guilty of theft if: he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.".
      Now, taking someone's 'intellectual property' and permanently depriving them of it (i.e removing any ability of them to use that knowledge ever again) would be theft.
      I'm actually interested to hear where 'personal property' and 'real property' are considered false metonyms. I'm sure in some circles (most likely lawyers) this will be the case. In most other areas of life, they won't be considered false. Law is one interpretation of language, and I'm pretty certain it doesn't trump physics as far as reality goes, and its definitions are somewhat more ephemeral.

      While I do bow to your superior knowledge of law (in your own legal arena, which does not necessarily expand past the borders of the country in which you know it; most countries have varying legal systems and precedents/rules), I'd like to point out that most of the people that decry areas of Intellectual Property are effectively saying that "This no longer makes sense and/or is counter productive". RMS is simply trying to put together a view of the spirit of the law, and introduce a measure of fairness, rather than slavish adherence to a technicality of law that can present something in a light beneficial to a very few while absolutely hanging out the larger section of the populace to dry with no recourse.

      As another aside, I'm just wondering how long the legal systems of the West can continue with the current arcane and lopsided IP Law, when the emerging world can simply ignore it and advance faster (which is exactly the way the US reached its current technologically advanced state).

      Your arguments seem very much like one of the (rightly) derided zealots in tech who simply say "Read the manual. If you don't understand down to the metal, don't use a computer. If you can't understand C, your opinion of how the experience of computing should feel doesn't count.".

      While you do make very interesting points there, and certainly make me ponder things again (the point of any good debate), you also lose your audience due to coming off as dismissive and offhanded, which I always found to be a good way to lose a debate (as part of any presentation to the populace at large is factual and part of it is emotional). You state that most laymen misunderstand it, which is why they consider large amounts of the application of it that they see as a bit of a scam. And also state that if you consider it a scam, you're a lummox, or an intentional troll. Don't you consider that just a tad derogatory (and potentially just plain wrong)?

    24. Re:How could they? by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      But interestingly, the definitions of the word in the dictionary all come back to the definitions "To commit theft".

      You must be using one strange dictionary.
      "to take without permission or legal right"
      "to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment"
      "dishonestly pass off as one's own"
      "to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance"
      "gain unexpectedly"

      Now, taking someone's 'intellectual property' and permanently depriving them of it (i.e removing any ability of them to use that knowledge ever again) would be theft.

      Intellectual property is not knowledge.

      I'm actually interested to hear where 'personal property' and 'real property' are considered false metonyms

      Everywhere. Property at law is not an object. It is a set of legal rights, nothing more and nothing less. Property does not refer to an object at all.

      I'm pretty certain it doesn't trump physics as far as reality goes

      There are no physics to property.

      RMS is simply trying to put together a view of the spirit of the law

      No, because he, like you, simply doesn't understand it.

      I'm just wondering how long the legal systems of the West can continue with the current arcane and lopsided IP Law

      It is neither arcane nor lopsided. You've provided no justification for that statement. It is based on the same fundamental tenets as all property law. If you consider all property to be arcane and lopsided, that's a valid possibility, but you can't rationally single out IP there.

      rguments seem very much like one of the (rightly) derided zealots in tech who simply say "Read the manual. If you don't understand down to the metal, don't use a computer.

      Because people in this discussion have continually represented themselves not as people who are seeking to understand, but who dismiss IP outright (despite not actually having bothered to figure it out), and who put their particular brand of analysis to it to declare it "inconsistent" despite having spent exactly zero time considering what property law is and how it works.

      They draw legal conclusions out of complete ignorance and simply do not tolerate the fact that they are plainly wrong. They demonize anyone who disagrees with the groupthink and blindly follow any half-baked criticism because it supports their ideological view. Frankly, there is no other way to indicate that they don't know what the hell they're talking about except to come out and say it. They're not looking for the answer. They think they know the answer and that people on the other side are automatically trolls, shills, corporate profiteers, or hapless sheep who can't think for themselves.

      It's interesting to note here that you are pointing this out in the context of my arguments where the other argument is the one setting the tone. I have provided citations to legal authority everywhere I've been asked. The other side has not and cannot. At each stage where the RMS letter pops up and duly falls apart, people begin turning to ephemera such as claiming that they weren't talking about a legal term--when in fact they clearly were.

      I always found to be a good way to lose a debate

      It's not a debate when the other side is arguing from ignorance. The fact that they think it is is the problem. For some reason, Slashdotters on this issue think they know more than they do, and present their unjustified and unsubstantiated thoughts as truth. Their entire "argument" is an emotional response, and they've lost merely by entering it.

      Don't you consider that just a tad derogatory (and potentially just plain wrong)?

      No. Anybody who vehemently believes they're right about something they've clearly not bother

  3. The patch been pulled, over a week ago! by Planky · · Score: 5, Informative

    Someone was either being very lazy or thought it was funny. I'm glad they didn't censor the forums to hell and back ala Apple...

    Last post from the now locked thread:

    The file was removed from the site over a week ago now and the matter is being thoroughly investigated by senior tech support managers here at Ubisoft. Needless to say we do not support or condone copy protection circumvention methods like this and this particular incident is in direct conflict with Ubisoft's policies.

    1. Re:The patch been pulled, over a week ago! by ThePhilips · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Since I work in 3rd tier support now, let me translate that into human language:

      The working fix was removed as soon as management of department responsible for actually releasing fixes complained very loud. The matter is being thoroughly investigated, but as of now no easy scapegoat can be found, since "fix" actually worked. Also, manager of sales asked me to retype here the stuff from our business booklet: "we do no support or condone copy protection circumvention methods." Nice. Gamers have to thank some poor chap from support department who put the fix up so that gamers can play the game they have paid money for, but please remember, since you already paid to Ubi, we can care less whether you can play the game or not. Ha-ha.

      My theory would be that Ubi support manager had authorized that one of his subordinates would put fix on their site. Because they had a flood of complaints and they had to respond to customers. Luckily, support departments are least responsible for anything. Since it takes that long, the dispute between support, development and D2D folks really heated up. From my experience, I'd say, some manager had intentionally authorized that - just to have a chance to say something (probably about game quality) aloud.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    2. Re:The patch been pulled, over a week ago! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      From my experience, I'd say, some manager had intentionally authorized that - just to have a chance to say something (probably about game quality) aloud.

      ooor to say something about DRM and on how the whole copyright establishment is crumbling before the eyes of the industry. oh and they still haven't decided to devise some decent and fair method of revenue/income. because the day they grow a pair and make this decision then there will be a whole new generation of business models in the entire media industry.

  4. This is awesome. by ElAurian · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's entirely in the spirit of online freedom that all who use cracks live by. It's also a quiet nod to the expertise of those who wrote the crack.

    I think we should all take this as a good sign of further co-operation in times to come.

    1. Re:This is awesome. by William+Robinson · · Score: 2, Informative
      That. Or UbiSoft found the cracked version runs better, smoother and faster.

      I heard story from friend whose another friend bought Pro/E, and could not install from the official CDs. Finally, running out of time, he installed cracked Pro/E right in front of their representative which worked like a charm.

      Of course he has not asked for refund as he wants to keep the license to show, just in case.

    2. Re:This is awesome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, RELOADED, and other scene groups really don't like their stuff being leaked outside their circle of friends.

    3. Re:This is awesome. by Glenn2372 · · Score: 1

      Whatever.... go to any torrent sight look up a recent game and you'll find a RELOADED cracked version of it.

    4. Re:This is awesome. by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      Imagine what would have happened if the program had been GPL licensed :P

  5. Is anyone really that surprised? by neokushan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps I'm a bit silly thinking this, but I have a lot of respect for the majority of the cracking scene.
    Time and time again they've always proved just how talented and resourceful they can be.
    I say props to them! At the very least, Ubi should sack whatever middle-manager that decided to release this as an "official" patch or lazy programmer that decided to submit this rather than build a proper executable and give THEM a job instead. I've had more "official" patches from both Ubi and EA (And a few others) break stuff than dodgy, pirate hacks.

    --
    +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    1. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by cliffski · · Score: 1, Interesting

      its always easier to break and destroy than to fix and create.

      I'm sure there are some very talented people making nocd cracks. I wish those people would actually use their efforts to create good new games, rather than just encouraging games devs to spend yet more time and yet more money creating better stronger DRM.
      We are all very impressed with their l33t coding skills. Maybe now they could do something constructive with them?

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    2. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by masterzora · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How is this not constructive? Game devs insist on checking for a CD in my drive which leads a a good number of problems that, as a paying customer, I honestly shouldn't have to deal with. These people provide a legitimate service by allowing to play the game without having worry about these issues, a right I should have when I buy the game.

      --
      Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
    3. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by PhoenixAtlantios · · Score: 1

      I've had more "official" patches from both Ubi and EA (And a few others) break stuff than dodgy, pirate hacks.

      I would argue that this is because the dodgy, pirate hacks only attempt to bypass one system whereas official patches tend to correct flawed code, fix missing/damaged resources, etc. You're comparing massive changes to minimal ones; we all know that the more changes there are in a particular patch, the more likely one is to become problematic.

    4. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Au contraire. If those "talented" people actually spent time creating something useful for the open source community I would respect them.

      For me they're just a bunch of random lamers who happen to know how to use a debugger. Nothing to write home about.

      Glass

    5. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by RKThoadan · · Score: 1

      The programming skills required to make a no-cd patch and the skills required to make a good game are very different. The first thing required to make a good game is a good game designer, who doesn't necessarily even need to know how to program (although it probably helps) - then somebody needs to code it.

    6. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by cliffski · · Score: 1, Insightful

      if you don't like the terms of the game, don't buy it. Nobody forces you to buy video games. But of course, this is slashdot, you get modded a troll for sticking up for anyone who actually creates entertainment. the slashdot hive mind thinks it was born with a right to take everyone else work for free.
      Anyone pointing out how selfish this is is apparently *troll*.
      This is why nobody makes games aimed at this sort of gamer. Why bother?

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    7. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is probably the most ignorant response I have ever read on Slashdot. Did you accidentally reply to the wrong post?

      Somehow I doubt you would be so quick to condemn players who ignored a requirement in the EULA that they play a game in only their underwear. Then again, after that staggering display of ineptitude, perhaps you would.

      "If you don't like the developer's arbitrary clothing requirements, don't buy the game! It's their right to tell you how to dress while consuming their media."

      Actually, if you are not that monumentally stupid, the only alternative is that you are trolling. It would seem the mods are giving you the benefit of the doubt. If I were you, I'd shut up and take it.

    8. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by ThePhilips · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I frankly stopped buying PC games. Or to put it better I have improved my game buying routine:

      1. Go to review sites and pick game which has good user comments. Official reviews are written by some score-whores and rarely reflect actual gaming experience.

      2. Go to torrent site of your choosing and download the game. If game downloads fast: +1

      3. Try to install and play game. If it plays without crack: +5 (== the game is popular)
      If crack is needed - continue.

      4. Find a working crack. If crack is found easily: +5
      If no crack is found or cracks are not working: throw away the game. If it wasn't worth time to crack, doubtfully it would be worth my time to play it.

      5. Actually play the game. If game is good: +10

      6. If games plays good (with easy to find crack), buy it.

      Now it all boils down to simple fact: was game compromised with DRM or devels instead choose to make game better and not waste their time on crippling users' experience.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    9. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

      if you don't like the terms of the game, don't buy it.

      You don't get to read the terms / EULA until you've purchased it and you're in the process of installing it.

      Since most places won't take an open game back - you could have copied it!, you're fucked.

      But of course, this is slashdot, you get modded a troll for sticking up for anyone who actually creates entertainment.

      It's the DRM, CD checks, and every goddamn thing else that pisses people off.

      If I drop $50 for a game, I should be able to play it without having to jump through a dozen goddamn hoops. You've got my goddamn money, now let me play.

      Why bother?

      I ask myself that question every day. Still haven't found an answer.

      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    10. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consider Sins of a Solar Empire: no copy protection whatsoever on the disks or the download. You instead get extra benefits for buying--access to the patches, which were distributed as standalone executables until now (they're using Impulse now, a la Steam except for the only thing you actually need Impulse for is getting patches).

      Thus far it's been a monstrously successful game. I'm not much of a pirate myself, but the fact that they released the game with no copy protection was one of the reasons why I ended up buying it.

    11. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by Burpmaster · · Score: 1

      if you don't like the terms of the game, don't buy it.

      OK.

    12. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by PeterBrett · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I frankly stopped buying PC games.

      I stopped buying PC games in shops.

      Nowadays, I fire up Steam, browse to the game I want, click "Buy", enter my details, confirm the order, go away, come back a couple of hours later, and play it.

      This is a heck of a lot easier, especially as I can look up reviews while browsing.

      Oh wait! I'm defending Steam. That must make me (-1, IDon'tAgreeWithYou), I suppose!

    13. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      5. Actually play the game. If game is good: +10

      6. If games plays good (with easy to find crack), buy it.

      Apart from the people that never would have bought it in the first place, there's a problem here - laziness. So you got the game, you got it installed and working, some hours of gameplay to see that's its not just fancy graphics, and then... honestly, there's a lot of things I never get around to doing, oddly corrolated with how fun they are. If "busted" I think most would go like "Yeah um, I was just about to pay for that but I sorta never got around to doing it" until you're not playing it anymore, at which point they of course won't pay.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    14. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think someone's a little jealous that there's people out there with great skill and ability that don't care what job they have - because they do it for fun.

    15. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by neokushan · · Score: 1

      How do you know they don't? It's not like they spread their names all over the things they release, it's not like any of them have ever wrote "[scene name] pwns j00! BTW I'm also [dev name] that wrote that really kickass piece of OSS, [really popular linux program].
      In fact, if you look at the history of Open Source software, it all began with the same kind of people that liked to break security for fun, it was all the same kinds of mentality.
      Plus, the techniques used to reverse engineer are nearly exactly the same ones used in projects like WINE and ReactOS - coincidence?

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    16. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by Snaller · · Score: 1

      No, they provide an illegal service. The offer to you is "Buy this game license with copy protection or don't play" - if you do pay for a game license and then hack the game you are in violation of the license.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    17. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by houstonbofh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was going to post "Steam is the devil!" but with some many devils around these days they don't look too bad anymore.

    18. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by masterzora · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The legality of the issue is totally peripheral to whether it is constructive or not. To use a way-blown-out-of-proportion analogy, the civil rights movement involved a lot of people breaking laws in a constructive manner. (Before I get a heap of people thinking I'm trying to equate the two, I'm not. I am merely showing that illegality and constructiveness are not mutually exclusive).

      Considering that actually using a CD instead of a no CD crack leads to all sorts of fun issues like wearing both the CD and my drive, forcing me not to play a game I own if I ever lose the CD (oh the number of CDs I've lost and found months later...), and lower performance than using a no-CD crack, I believe developers of no-CD cracks are very constructive.

      --
      Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
    19. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by masterzora · · Score: 1

      if you don't like the terms of the game, don't buy it. Nobody forces you to buy video games.

      For the most part, this makes sense. But I don't see why I should be forced to adhere to terms that degrade the quality of my system (CD drive wear), my purchase (CD wear), my allowable play time (I can sometimes lose CDs for months at a time), and my performance (using No-CD cracks usually gets better performance than using the CD). Moreover, I bought the game, so why am I the one treated like a pirate? That seems a little backward to me.

      a vocal portion of slashdot thinks it was born with a right to take everyone else work for free.

      Fixed that for you.

      Anyone pointing out how selfish this is is apparently *troll*.

      It is when it's irrelevant to the conversation. This is about people getting to properly use that which they already paid for, not taking other peoples' work for free. Well, except Ubisoft taking someone else's work for free, but you seem to be on the same side of the fence here with respect to that, so I won't bother to expound further.

      As a final note, I just noticed your sig and realized you're the guy behind Positech (or very good as masquerading as him). I just wanted to give you kudos for your fine work and, more importantly, for demos that accurately portray your games so people know what they're buying. Keep it up!

      --
      Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
    20. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by Anti_Climax · · Score: 1

      if you don't like the terms of the game, don't buy it. Nobody forces you to buy video games.

      That's certainly a reasonable stance, but what about people like me who agreed to the terms of sale for a game and got a product that simply wouldn't work because of their copy protection?

      When Half-Life 2 came out, I went and bought a brick and mortar DVD copy for the guide and t-shirt. The DVD had safedisc copy protection that had some incompatability with my DVD drive. Launching HL2.exe, it would show up in task manager, ramp up its memory usage and then silently close.

      I spent days going through chat, email and phone support with vivendi, even going so far as to go back to fry's electronics and exchange my DVD for a new one. Still no luck.

      For me it wasn't a question of cracking the game to make it do something I wanted it to do, it was cracking it to make it do the single thing I bought it to do. I wasn't the only one. They pushed a disc check removal patch down through steam soon after that.

      --
      Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
    21. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      DRM harms consumers, and it harms legitimate ones far more than it harms the pirates... And it still inevitably gets cracked anyway.
      If they spent less time writing these horrendous drm schemes, then those who crack them would also have more time to spend writing other apps.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    22. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Will they refund you if the copy protection is incompatible with your system?
      Will they provide replacement media when your kids scratch it up because they have to keep putting it in and out of the drive every time they want to play?
      I know many people who have been in both these situations, they can't return the incompatible game because it's been opened, and they can't get replacement media without buying the whole thing again (and they couldn't burn a backup copy for the kids to scratch up).

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    23. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Some of the review sites like to delete negative user comments too...
      But there's other ways to gauge how good a game is, comments on thepiratebay for instance won't get censored just because they say a game is lousy, and you can also look at the number of people who have download a game from a torrent site and as you pointed out, the ease of finding a crack if one is required.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    24. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, the OP is right and you've watched the 'Hackers' movie way too often.

    25. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      Apart from the people that never would have bought it in the first place, there's a problem here - laziness.

      I'm buying games more out of principle, first, and, second, because I'm myself software developer. Some knowledge on how it works inside - and how some people manage to earn for their living - kind of keeps me in check. (At different times had relations with both gaming company and indie shareware developers.)

      But if I'm angry about being ripped (e.g. as in my case with Nintendo DS and bunch of overrated games I have tried), then I do not really care about buying games. After all most money go to publishers anyway. (Actually because it is such stupid business model, console games on average suck terribly.) Luckily for me too, since I live in Europe, many good games are never released in EU. So I have stopped bothering myself trying to buy DS games I had played.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    26. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      After all I have read on forums about downloadable NWN2 (not Steam), I'm pretty sure whatever DRM is - it is still crippling user experience.

      What was worth one thread admins have tried to shutdown many times (as soon they close one - new one was appearing) complaining that game asks for disk to be in drive. Comment "gotta keep the disk in drive if you wanna play" had really angered many people. After many complains/etc the stupid support realized that last update for *downloadable* version had turned game into *disk-installed* version, which requires disk in drive (which is of course not there because this is downloadable game).

      DRM remains DRM. Whatever shape it takes.

      P.S. And yes, I stopped buying games in retail shops - I buy on-line now.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    27. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by Snaller · · Score: 1

      So you answered your own question - no they won't. That sucks. Call the politicians and get them to change the system.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    28. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by Snaller · · Score: 1

      "The legality of the issue is totally peripheral "

      Actually no, that was the topic of discussion.

      You don't have to convince me that most normal people would get a nocd crack for their games, but don't kid yourself - it is not legal - alas.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    29. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by masterzora · · Score: 1
      What is is it with slashdotters and selective quoting. That sentence actually reads

      The legality of the issue is totally peripheral to whether it is constructive or not.

      Legality may have been the original topic (I still don't believe it was, but no matter), but this thread, at least, branched off from that into "constructiveness".

      --
      Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
    30. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Well, since i was commenting something else, it wasn't very constructive of you to reply was it? ;)

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    31. Re:Is anyone really that surprised? by masterzora · · Score: 1

      You were clearly replying to my post (being that it's, well, a reply to my post). The only bit of my post that your reply makes any sense as a response to is the "legitimate service" part, but legitimate doesn't strictly mean legal, the "illegal service" comment is irrelevant. The rest of your post shows the way it *is* but since I was arguing the way it *should be*, that's also irrelevant.

      --
      Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
  6. Unethical? Yes. Illegal? Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does Reloaded actually have any legal claim to their program/crack, given that there is no copyright and they freely distribute it for all to have?

    1. Re:Unethical? Yes. Illegal? Hmmm... by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is copyright. All copyrightable works are automatically protected by copyright, no matter if you display a copyright symbol or not. Registering your copyright can make it easier to prove your ownership, but is not compulsory for protection.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    2. Re:Unethical? Yes. Illegal? Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK. But don't people accidentally post images/whatnot on public forums occasionally, only to find out they have no rights to it (think King Douchenozzle Von Crunk)?

      When an author uploads a torrent, is that file considered to have entered the public domain?

    3. Re:Unethical? Yes. Illegal? Hmmm... by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Informative

      OK. But don't people accidentally post images/whatnot on public forums occasionally, only to find out they have no rights to it.

      Yes. They've unintentionally violated copyright.

      When an author uploads a torrent, is that file considered to have entered the public domain?

      No, not anymore than if an author gives a free copy of a book away, that book enters the public domain. Authors (assuming they haven't sold their rights away) are allowed to distribute their own work as much as they want, and in whatever form they want. When someone else does it, they're in violation of copyright (unless they are licensed or copyright has been explicitly waived).

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    4. Re:Unethical? Yes. Illegal? Hmmm... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hold it right there!

      UBIsoft not only distributed someone else's work without their permission. They didn't just go and do what the usual release group does, taking someone else's work and publish it. At least crackers usually have the decency to keep the producer's name on the product. I can't remember any cracker group claiming they actually made some game.

      Looking at it this way, what UBIsoft did was even worse. They didn't only violate copyright and distribute someone else's work without compensating the original author (granted, it would first of all be hard to find him and second, it is distributed for free anyway, so there is no immediate loss for the author), but they didn't even give him credit! This is the problem here, not that they distribute someone else's work. As stated above, this work would have been distributed freely and without any benefit for the creator anyway. They refused him the acknowledgement!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Unethical? Yes. Illegal? Hmmm... by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think everyone is missing the point. Ubisoft,by selling the game Direct2Drive,is selling a product that you CANNOT use thanks to their DRM. Now that the crack had been removed from the Ubisoft forum the ONLY way you can USE the product you paid for is by breaking the law,in this case DMCA. So what I want to know is why isn't someone demanding that they quit selling the game by Direct2Drive? Why isn't anyone looking at busting them for fraud,since they are selling you a product that they KNOW that you can't actually use? That would seem to be IMHO the more important questions here. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    6. Re:Unethical? Yes. Illegal? Hmmm... by RonnyJ · · Score: 1

      Is it a copyrightable work though? They directly modified somebody elses copyrighted work. I could understand it if it was a patcher, but not a actual executable file.

    7. Re:Unethical? Yes. Illegal? Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why doesn't the FBI nail them? They obviously DOWNLOADED an ILLEGAL PIRATED GAME. I love how they can get away with this...

  7. Verification? by SEGT · · Score: 1

    I have seen this floating around all day. Slashdot is the first respectable source I've seen that is willing to push this story along... a 4 AM. I don't have the game, but could anyone with it verify this? I'd think grabbing a few Kb of the binary around that offset in the article could be compared to the crack. Or is this a case of someone just editing a random string inside a binary and posting screens? Smear campaign? FP?

    --
    10: SIN 20: GOTO HELL
    1. Re:Verification? by rdradar · · Score: 1

      I can verify it did have those tags and was exactly the same exe. Ubisoft just pulled it out of the site when news got out (already some time ago).

  8. License by Timosch · · Score: 5, Funny

    Under which license is the crack redistributed? Does it allow including it in a closed-source project?

  9. ahahahahahaha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, we now know what to do to D2Dize Ubisoft's games - ask reloaded. ;-)

  10. Nope, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They aren't "stealing" anything, the executable was theirs to begin with. If you spruce up my house with some fancy artwork it doesn't make it your house.

    1. Re:Nope, by Spad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, but if you then show off said artwork claiming it to be your own then it does make you a bit of a dick.

    2. Re:Nope, by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

      They aren't "stealing" anything, the executable was theirs to begin with. If you spruce up my house with some fancy artwork it doesn't make it your house.

      The crackers infringe UbiSoft's copyright when they distribute the patch, but that does not give UbiSoft the right to distribute the cracker's derived work. They are also infringing copyright. Or, if you prefer analogies, if I take a book you've written and modify it I cannot distribute my new version without your permission, but you cannot distribute my new version without me permission either - we both hold copyrights over the derived work.

    3. Re:Nope, by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think you might be wrong, in that the patch is just that - a patch. If you write a book, and I publish sonething telling people to skip chapters 3,5, and 9, and replace them with something I wrote in order to make the story flow better, then that's not illegal. Someone needs to have copies of both the book and the patch to have the modified version.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Nope, by IntricateEnigma · · Score: 1

      True, I would never want to provide work giving someone other than the author credit, but whether the patch submitter in question is truly a "dick" can be debated.

      Hypothetical situation:
      Imagine you have a lot of legitimate users who need a patch. You haven't found a fix yourself or the development time is more extensive for you. You want to get a fix in the hands of the users as quickly as possible. You already know of a fix, but management would never go for it because it's from the enemies. The legitimate users may not be looking in these "prohibited" areas to find the fix on their own. Your part of the the support team for the game and the users should be able to go to you for a fix. A link is out of the question, so what can you do?
      Quickly disguise the fix and post it as though it's not from your enemies. Granted, your going to have to misdirect who will get the credit, but for you it is a small price to pay to support your customers. You release it under false credentials and cross your fingers. Maybe in a few weeks you'll have a more "official" fix to publish and hope no one is any the wiser. If the truth is discovered,
      1) credit will go where it deserves,
      2) publicity for where the original fix is,
      3) Maybe a miracle of God will let you keep your job, but more likely you'll just get fired as an unsung hero who stole someone else's 'artwork' and were incredibly stupid to post it on a company website.

      If this was released by someone in the company, this person is either very brave, miscalculated the odds of being discovered, actually trying to get credit for someone else's work, or insane to the point that they don't understand what their doing.

    5. Re:Nope, by repvik · · Score: 1

      The patch is a separate, derived work regardless of the original.

    6. Re:Nope, by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's actually not that easy.

      Writing a program that has the capabilities of altering another program can be legal under certain circumstances. Our copyright says specifically that you may reverse engineer software and change parts of it to "establish interoperability". It's also a right you cannot waive, i.e. an EULA telling you you must not is void. You may of course still not distribute the altered version, but distributing a program that automatically alters a piece of software is something different.

      Now, I doubt anyone ever tried to defend this in court, but technically, "cracking" is not illegal here. Other countries may have similar rules, so it depends entirely on where that RELOADED group resides, i.e. what place of jurisdiction is applicable.

      Simply copying a program and claiming it as your own is illegal, though. So, depending on jurisdiction, they could actually win.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Nope, by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

      I think you might be wrong, in that the patch is just that - a patch. If you write a book, and I publish sonething telling people to skip chapters 3,5, and 9, and replace them with something I wrote in order to make the story flow better, then that's not illegal. Someone needs to have copies of both the book and the patch to have the modified version.

      I'm not sure if your analogy is supposed to apply to UbiSoft or the crackers. In the crackers case it probably can't apply because they almost always distribute the entire executable. In UbiSoft's case they may also be distributing the entire executable, it's not uncommon. I don't know if they are or not. Even if they aren't, your analogy doesn't apply because they are still including code they don't own the copyright to. In terms of your analogy, UbiSoft published the original book. The crackers wrote the instructions to modify the book (but almost certainly distributed the final result, in breach of UbiSoft's copyright). But now UbiSoft have published their own set of instructions which include the cracker's changes. That's a breach of copyright in itself, even before those instructions have been applied to the original book.

    8. Re:Nope, by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

      It's actually not that easy.

      Writing a program that has the capabilities of altering another program can be legal under certain circumstances. Our copyright says specifically that you may reverse engineer software and change parts of it to "establish interoperability".

      The DMCA section 103 permits reverse engineering to achieve interoperability. It allows you to reverse engineer someone else's code so that you can write a compatible application. It does not permit you to alter and then redistribute someone else's copyrighted code.

    9. Re:Nope, by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, not every country on this planet is subject to the DMCA.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Nope, by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, not every country on this planet is subject to the DMCA.

      Indeed. Unfortunately other countries seems to be following the US lead to varying degrees. Still, for the moment, reverse engineering is not illegal in many other countries. But I doubt that there is any country that does allow you to distribute someone else's work (modified or not) without their permission in the name of interoperability.

    11. Re:Nope, by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No! Of course the redistribution, even of modified or derived, software is of course not allowed.

      What matters is that it is still allowed to alter software to suit your needs. So "cracking" software that you legally licensed is not forbidden (yet).

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. Rogue Programmer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I bet this is just a case of a rogue programmer trying to meet a deadline. Instead of writing up his/her own fix, they tried to pass off RELOADED's work as their own. It passed QA and was released to prod. Congrats on the fine work form the RELOADED programmers!

  12. Argh! Too many jokes, brain hurts by hejish · · Score: 1

    So I read the... not the article. The forums. Yeah. Before they inevitably vanish. Too many jokes are going through my brain. -- I see comments about open source licenses are already going. -- Jokes about the cracking scene are hopping -- jokes about Ubi (being soft on this issue, etc) Argh.

  13. Pot vs. Kettle by nobodyman · · Score: 1

    Ubi should sack whatever middle-manager that decided to release this as an "official" patch or lazy programmer that decided to submit this rather than build a proper executable and give THEM a job instead.

    Wait a second. You're suggesting that Ubisoft should be taken to task stealing some cracker's hard work? Sounds to me like fair play. Why waste Ubisoft resources on making a patch when they can just steal one?

    1. Re:Pot vs. Kettle by neokushan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not that they stole it, it's more that they couldn't be bothered to make an official one.
      I mean, when you think about it - what if that crack WAS dodgy? What if it had a time bomb in it that wiped out your hard drive after a certain date? I don't think for a second that Ubi disassembled the cracked .exe and checked it for irregularities or they'd have noticed the cracking group's moniker and removed it. That, plus it would have been easier to recompile a new one from the source they have.
      Of course, I trust the group but I know full well that if it DID have something dodgy in it, I'd be fully responsible for it and have to accept that it was my fault.
      But in this case, Ubi could have been under some serious shit if such a thing had happened.
      There's really no excuse, it's sheer laziness on their part.

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    2. Re:Pot vs. Kettle by Ma8thew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is a No-CD crack, which has a legitimate use. If you lose your CD for instance. The hacking group in question hasn't stolen anything of Ubisoft's.

    3. Re:Pot vs. Kettle by cliffski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course, I trust the group

      why? Do you know who they are? where they are from? know the personally? You know who are current members of the groups, and what their motives are?

      Personally I do not trust anonymous groups of coders on the internet who cannot be tracked down to run exes on my machine. If ubisoft format my hard drive, I have legal recourse against a known company. The same if my company trashes your machine. Your defence against some random group of kids on the internet is basically fuck all.

      I'm surprised how much risk people expose their PC's to in order to avoid having a CD, or (more often) to get free games.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    4. Re:Pot vs. Kettle by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      I mean, when you think about it - what if that crack WAS dodgy? What if it had a time bomb in it that wiped out your hard drive after a certain date?

      Is that much different than any 3rd party piece of software, such as a licensed library?

      Just goes to show that even closed source can be open source in the hands of a competent person. Too bad the guy who decided to use the crack was anything but competent, and with any resolution will likely cost his [former] employee a buttload of cash.

    5. Re:Pot vs. Kettle by Thiez · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Reloaded has existed for quite a while and as far as I know they've never put malware in their cracks. While it's obvious there is always a risk involved when you run an executable (no matter where it came from), I'd say you are reasonably save using their cracks. Probably more safe than running DRM'ed software, since that software tries to hook itself into all kinds of important parts of you operating system.

    6. Re:Pot vs. Kettle by Kjella · · Score: 4, Informative

      Reloaded has existed for quite a while and as far as I know they've never put malware in their cracks.

      No cracker groups of any consequence has ever put malware in anything as far as I know, it's 99% others using a virus-adding tool and distributing their own trojaned version of their cracks. Still, it's not easy to tell one from the other.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    7. Re:Pot vs. Kettle by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

      Or more common: if the code that is supposed to check for the CD is broken, and fails on some CD drives. That's happened to me at least three times. One reason I gave up on PC gaming.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    8. Re:Pot vs. Kettle by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 1

      Or if you don't have a built-in CD drive. Those pesky spinning foil plates are on their way out :)

    9. Re:Pot vs. Kettle by Anaerin · · Score: 1

      If ubisoft format my hard drive, I have legal recourse against a known company.

      No you don't. Read an EULA some time (Emphasis mine, wording UbiSoft's (From the "Uru Complete Chronicles" manual, as it happens).

      Ubisoft warrants to the original purchaser of its products that the products will be free from defects in materials and workmanship for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of purchase. Ubisoft products are sold "as is," without any expressed or implied warranties of any kind, and Ubisoft is not liable for any losses or damages of any kind resulting from use of its products. Ubisoft agrees for a period of ninety (90) days to either replace defective product free of charge provided you return the defective item with dated proof of purchase to the store from which the product was originally purchased or repair or replace the defective product at its option free of charge, when accompanied with a proof of purchase and sent to our offices postage prepaid. This warranty is not applicable to normal wear and tear, and shall be void if the defect in the product is found to be as a result of abuse, unreasonable use, mistreatment, or neglect of the product.

      LIMITATIONS: This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties and no other representations or claims of any nature shall be binding on, or obligate Ubisoft. Any implied warranties applicable to Ubisoft products, including warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, are limited to the ninety (90) day period described above. In no event will Ubisoft be liable for any special, incidental, or consequential damages resulting from possession, use, or malfunction of Ubisoft products. Some states do not allow limitations as to how long an implied warranty lasts and/or exclusions or limitations of incidental or consequential damages. So the above limitations and/or exclusions of liability may not apply to you. This warranty gives you specific rights, and you may also have other rights that vary from state to state.

      In other words, you're on your own if it does format your hard-drive.

    10. Re:Pot vs. Kettle by xouumalperxe · · Score: 1

      I hesitated on the no optical drive thing for a moment, then considered MacBook Air owners.

    11. Re:Pot vs. Kettle by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      why? Do you know who they are? where they are from? know the personally? You know who are current members of the groups, and what their motives are?

      Personally I do not trust anonymous groups of coders on the internet who cannot be tracked down to run exes on my machine.

      Well that covers most commercial software companies, so what software do you use? The only stuff that satisfies all that is FOSS, and while they have some games, they are kinda stale...

    12. Re:Pot vs. Kettle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, thanks to DMCA, cracking is illegal even if you have not stolen anything. This episode only highlights the mess of the copyright (and patent system, but that's another story). First, DMCA is shoved down our throat. Next, DRM. Then, lawyers. Now, a copyright owner thinks it has the right to steal other people's work, ignoring the stuff they've supported all these years. This is not the first time either. Ooh, the irony.

    13. Re:Pot vs. Kettle by Hatta · · Score: 2, Funny

      They should really sign their packages.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    14. Re:Pot vs. Kettle by Ma8thew · · Score: 1

      It ain't illegal for me, I'm British. We haven't had an attempt at a DMCA style law yet. Only a matter of time I suppose...

    15. Re:Pot vs. Kettle by lena_10326 · · Score: 1

      Time and time again they've always proved just how talented and resourceful they can be.

      Nitpick.

      I believe it's easier to crack software than it is to prevent cracking of that software, so I don't believe crackers are more talented and resourceful than the developers building the software. My reasoning is: cracking a known quantity (piece of software) presents a far smaller problem domain than does locking crackers out. There are fewer variables and fewer unknowns. They have the luxury of having a clear task (cracking XYZ software) with concrete inputs (binary image).

      Given the preceding I don't perceive crackers to be on the same level as many of our God-like idol programmers such as Donald Knuth, Dennis Ritchie, Alan Cox, John Carmack, Linus Torvalds, etc, so you'll never see me make comments of praise for them such as the one you've made. They may be smart, but then so are most programmers possessing experience. They are simply nothing to get excited about.

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
    16. Re:Pot vs. Kettle by Toll_Free · · Score: 1

      Reloaded has existed for quite a while and as far as I know they've never put malware in their cracks.

      No cracker groups of any consequence has ever put malware in anything as far as I know, it's 99% others using a virus-adding tool and distributing their own trojaned version of their cracks. Still, it's not easy to tell one from the other.

      It sure as hell is. If you get your juarez from P2P or anything other than handed to you from trusted friend of encrypted FTP, then your getting it "second hand".

      No real scene groups use anything but FTP or a simple variant of it. All this P2P shit is just people less competent than scr1p7 k1dd13s trying to "be 31337".

      --Toll_Free (Ex RTS)

    17. Re:Pot vs. Kettle by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Actually you have no recourse whatsoever... You did read the license agreement when you installed their games, right?

      You have a choice... If you don't want to trust a third party, then your only recourse is to either write everything yourself, or only use open source and thoroughly audit the code yourself.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    18. Re:Pot vs. Kettle by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      How do you know? I mean - what if a malware vendor wanted to start publishing cracks under the name "reloaded"? Also none of these cracks are documented anywhere (ie - here's what we did to disable the cd check). For all you know when you install one of these its installing spyware, key loggers, viruses whatever - under any name they like.

      Commercial software vendors owe it to their customers to do due diligence in every bit of code they ship. Shipping a crack from a 3rd party violates every release rule out there.

    19. Re:Pot vs. Kettle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think if you're downloading stuff like that, you're way past the point of mounting a legal defense.

      The hypothetical person would be more concerned about minimising any damage that could occur if the file were nefarious.

    20. Re:Pot vs. Kettle by Arccot · · Score: 1

      Reloaded has existed for quite a while and as far as I know they've never put malware in their cracks.

      No cracker groups of any consequence has ever put malware in anything as far as I know, it's 99% others using a virus-adding tool and distributing their own trojaned version of their cracks. Still, it's not easy to tell one from the other.

      Exactly right. A few groups are always first with no-cd cracks, and a couple of places are always first to get them from the original sources. If you stick with the ones you know, chances are close to 0 of having problems.

      Mass Effect was only game I can remember in the last couple of years where a big-group crack was released that didn't fully work. But since all the other games I own worked without the CDs, I was fine with keeping that one game in my drive. And it's been fixed since.

  14. Maybe NoCD patches are the latest in the industry? by aliquis · · Score: 1

    Warcraft 3 v1.21b patch didn't had any changes in the game except nocd, which was indeed very nice, one do wonder why it took them so long though.

    http://pc.qj.net/Warcraft-3-patch-v1-21b-released-with-no-CD-feature/pg/49/aid/113191

  15. Copyright infringement still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And for monetary gain no less.

    Add that to the recent assholery displayed by the judge in the Blizzard bot case and ALL ubisoft customers are breaking the law by using the patch.

  16. Stealing? by masterzora · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can already see the torrent of people coming in to call all slashdot users hypocrites for calling this stealing but defending "piracy" as not stealing and all that, so I figure I might as well clear this up as soon as possible:

    Thing the first: Slashdot is not one person, it is many people, so it's not inconsistent for vocal members of the community to call this stealing but piracy not stealing.

    Thing the second: "steals" is still a bad word here. "Steals credit" would be better, if anything, but I still think the wording is bad anyway.

    Thing the third: most pirates at least hold to the moral ground of giving credit where credit is due, which is clearly not the case here.

    Hopefully this will head off those silly comments. Eh, who am I kidding, it's Slashdot. I'll probably wake up to 50 of them. Oh well, I tried.

    --
    Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
    1. Re:Stealing? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think that in the books of many /. readers, stealing credit is actually worse than stealing a product. Many people here have an academic background, so they are very familiar with the problems of credit stealing, few, OTOH, are in sales, so the problem of stealing a product isn't so much of a topic.

      I have to admit, I'm in the same boat. Personally, I'd give it a shrug and a "turnaround is fair" comment when UBI simply said that they didn't want to reinvent the wheel so they just took an existing crack and used it for their own purposes. Not saying anything and claiming it as their own development is what irks me.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Stealing? by RonnyJ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The label of 'stealing' is in the story headline itself. If Slashdot ran a story on music/software piracy with a headline labelling those people in the same way, I am sure there would be far more critical posts.

    3. Re:Stealing? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I don't think it helps when the people that post try to give the impression that they are speaking for just about everyone else in their group.

    4. Re:Stealing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taken from Nuuu on another forum. It applies here:

      The crack is what they call an "unauthorized derivative work." The copyright owner is the only one allowed to make derivative works. This means that the people who made the pirate crack don't actually have a copyright, so they can't sue anyone who does anything to/with the code.

      Ubisoft on the other hand, having a monopoly on derivative works for their copyrighted games, can sue anyone who tries to distribute a derivative work without authorization. This means Ubisoft effectively owns the copyright to the no-cd crack even though they didn't write it.

      The more interesting question is: once Ubisoft officially releases a pirate-created no-cd crack, does that no-cd cracks for that game "authorized" derivative works?

    5. Re:Stealing? by dukieduke · · Score: 1

      Having nothing to do professionally with Ubi, (so I may be just guessing here) I'll bet that they were pretty irked too when someone took thier own development and essentially released it free to the world.

  17. NO-CD cracks are what saves the gaming world by blind+biker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seriously. If there were no NO-CD cracks, I suspect companies like Ubisoft would make lots LESS money than they do now. I usually buy the game, download the NO-CD crack, and play. I'll never forget how the CD in my previous ThinkPad almost died from overwork before I saved it (and myself from going insane) with the NO-CD for HOMM IV.

    It has come to the point that I do NOT buy a game until a NO-CD crack exists for it.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:NO-CD cracks are what saves the gaming world by pimpimpim · · Score: 1

      I read once that when Jeri Ellsworth developed the C64 direct-to-tv, she did acquire the licenses, but most of the original C64 software was either lost or not usable, and they had to use the cracked versions instead. DRM is bad for nostalgia. Imagine not being able to read any book from before 1990 because the publisher went bankrupt or changed their DRM server (microsoft plays-for-sure).

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    2. Re:NO-CD cracks are what saves the gaming world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the same thing that I used to do, there is more that one game in my posession that is impossible for me to play without cracking it. But the problem is that when you install the no-cd crack, now you have other issues to deal with. You can no longer patch the game, I've had problems in a few games where the crack would cause some minor gameplay problems, or crash after playing for a few hours. Basically you pay for the game and then in order to use it you are treated the same as any pirate. So I've just cut out the middle man, now if there is a game that I would like to play I just head right to piratebay. I know a lot of people would say that I'm just making excuses so that I can steal games, but quite frankly I'm beyond caring. If the companies producing these games can't make a good faith effort, why should I? The last game that I bought was sins of a solar empire, which doesn't have any drm, and coincidently happens to be one of the best rts's I've ever played.

    3. Re:NO-CD cracks are what saves the gaming world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here. It's simply a more enjoyable experience. The worst for me has been Securom. Once I installed a game that used it and it MADE MY OPTICAL DRIVE DISAPPEAR from the Windows device manager. That was a fun time. Eventually got it back, but I'll never buy a Securom infested product again.

    4. Re:NO-CD cracks are what saves the gaming world by nasor · · Score: 1

      That's true for the gaming industry in general, but it's doubly true for Ubi; it seems like every time they release a new patch it breaks the "copy protection" for the game on many people's systems, making the game unplayable. The Ubi forums are promptly flooded with people asking how they can get their game to start working again. Invariably the answer is "get a no-cd crack." Frustratingly, Ubi vigorously suppresses any mention of no-cd cracks in their forums; apparently they would rather have their paying customers not able to play their games at all than have them download a third-party no-cd crack that fixes the problems Ubi creates with their own patches.

      The irony is that the copy protection software is supposed to protect their revenue from piracy, when in fact all it does is make the pirated versions of the game more attractive to consumers than the "legitimate" version game. Why should anyone pay money for a game when the free version is _less_ buggy?

    5. Re:NO-CD cracks are what saves the gaming world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has come to the point that I do NOT buy a game until a NO-CD crack exists for it.

      For me it has come to the point that I do not buy a game with onerous copy-protection in it, at all.

      Only way for me to protest, while still being legit.

      Worst example so far, for a game that I had planned to buy, is Mass Effect, with its online validation crap. In a single-player game. Just to play the frigging game. Unacceptable. The line has to be drawn somewhere, eventually, and this is the place where I draw mine.

      Remember: Buying the game, and then using a (NO-CD, or whatever) crack, works technically, but still sends the message to the responsible company that you're fine with the original protection scheme, as a customer. They get your money, and since that's all that counts for them, they can thusly conclude that the protection scheme is not a problem.

      (The fact that copy protection doesn't even work in the first place makes the whole thing simply absurd in its unholy mix of stupidity and contempt for customers.)

  18. Re:Maybe NoCD patches are the latest in the indust by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

    They did it for Starcraft too.... Blizzard probably realized that:
    a) These things are so common nowadays that anyone who is going pirate the game can easily find one and
    b) They save money in the long run by having to replace significantly less discs as they get old, dirty, and scratched.

  19. French? by y4h0oo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...Why is that, Ubisoft?

    (1) You're posting an illegal crack that violates YOUR OWN RULES on piracy
    (2) You stole someone else's crack. Couldn't bother making your own? Sheesh. Now THAT'S French for you!



    This french surrender business and now this "whatever is retarded is french" is so obtuse!
    It's like saying all americans are morons and deserve Bush.

    --
    I'll change my sig when I have the time...
    1. Re:French? by masterzora · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, Ubisoft is French, so it's not exactly a case of someone saying "whatever is retarded is French" so much as "it's French and therefore retarded". You may still disagree with *that* statement, but it's still a vastly different one than what you said.

      --
      Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
    2. Re:French? by McGiraf · · Score: 4, Funny

      All ze Americans are morons and deserve Bush.

    3. Re:French? by MagdJTK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Very true. Now I hate the French as much as the next Briton, but I feel the American accusation of cowardice during the Second World War is resting on pretty thin ice.

      "Surrendering? That's inexcusable! What you want to do is refuse to help for several years even though your supposed friends are getting killed in the millions. Then, if attacked, join the war and pretend that it couldn't have been won without you and that you're so selfless for coming to their aid. Ensure that you become a superpower in the process and enjoy sixty years of fucking over the rest of the world!"

    4. Re:French? by abstract+daddy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hell yeah man, the imperialist pigs of America totally fucked over Japan, Germany and the rest of Europe. How dare they.

    5. Re:French? by giorgiofr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What you want to do is refuse to help for several years even though your supposed friends are getting killed in the millions

      Damned if they don't

      Ensure that you become a superpower in the process and enjoy sixty years of fucking over the rest of the world!

      Damned if they do

      --
      Global warming is a cube.
    6. Re:French? by Detritus · · Score: 4, Informative

      One of the reasons that many Americans were reluctant to get involved in World War II was their experience with World War I. After World War I, British propaganda was publicly exposed as a pack of lies, a cynical effort to mold public opinion at home and abroad, and to get America to enter the war. This destroyed the credibility of European news sources with many Americans, who felt that they had been duped by Allied propaganda.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    7. Re:French? by milkasing · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What you want to do is refuse to help for several years even though your supposed friends are getting killed in the millions If you feel that way, then probably, when America entered WW1 and WW2, it should have done on the side of the Germans, after all "German Americans form the largest self-reported ancestry group in the United States, accounting for 17% of the U.S. population".
      There was nothing hypocritical about the US entering the war late, esp in WW1.
      .. join the war and pretend that it couldn't have been won without you .. And the reason for this immense confidence of victory without americans is ... the british sucess in Gallipoli?, or the russian success at Tannenberg? or in the defense of impregnable burma in WW2?.
      The tide of the war turned only after US intervention, in both wars. Face it, wihout Amercan assistance (in supplies, if not in men), the allies would have lost. As far as moral superiority goes, given that Stailn was in charge of Russia (in WW2) the european allies were commiting genocide themselves (in their colonies), America at the time stood for something truly good, at least compared to the rest of the other participants. America became a superpower because it was able to put its house in order, unify, and gave its citizens a stable peaceful, large platform to grow from. USAs 60 years of being a superpower were earned by good policies and far sighted leadership. (Of course today, USA has leaders like Bush and Europe and China are forging ahead, so USAs days as a superpower might be coming to an end)

    8. Re:French? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      bullshit. damned because they have waited long enough for all sides to weaken and then taking all credits.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    9. Re:French? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that in this scenario it's not that they didn't and did. It's how and why they went about it.

    10. Re:French? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a non-American and non-French citizen...

      1. Can you please both get over it?
      Sincerely, the rest of the world

      PS while you're at it, there's another vocal group who constantly harp on about WWII. See point 1. above.

    11. Re:French? by sa1lnr · · Score: 1

      "Very true. Now I hate the French as much as the next Briton"

      There's more to Britain than just England. ;)

    12. Re:French? by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

      If by "refuse to help", you mean "send massive aid shipments under threat of u-boat attacks, then yes, the US refused to help before Pearl Harbor.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    13. Re:French? by McGiraf · · Score: 1

      Before Pearl Harbour they sold stuff to both sides, Allies and Axis.

    14. Re:French? by giorgiofr · · Score: 1

      Ask them, I'm a non-French European too. But I see you have missed the point completely.

      --
      Global warming is a cube.
    15. Re:French? by zulux · · Score: 1

      Even if you do accept the British and Americans as 'imperialists' - you got to give them credit. All the countries they took over are doing just fine - the commonwealth countries are doing wonderfully compared to the poor blokes that got conquered by the French, Russians or Chinese. Compare North Korea to South Korea - same people, same natural resources but different imperialists.

      Portugal did pretty good for her colonies - Spain... not so much.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    16. Re:French? by Jasonjk74 · · Score: 1

      Very true. Now I hate the French as much as the next Briton, but I feel the American accusation of cowardice during the Second World War is resting on pretty thin ice.

      "Surrendering? That's inexcusable! What you want to do is refuse to help for several years even though your supposed friends are getting killed in the millions. Then, if attacked, join the war and pretend that it couldn't have been won without you and that you're so selfless for coming to their aid. Ensure that you become a superpower in the process and enjoy sixty years of fucking over the rest of the world!"

      It's a good thing that Britain never imposed their will over the world, for a couple centuries... As for WWII, it's not like Britain sat there with the US and agreed to give up Poland to the Soviets while also carving up Germany...

    17. Re:French? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And to add to your point, i'd go even further and say any nation at that time sharing a border with the wehrmacht,probably the the greatest army in modern warfare, would have folded into submission. America included.

      (and for those that would claim the soviets as a counter-point, keep in mind by that point the German military was exhausted, while the Soviets were geared for a command economy. And of course a Soviet winter.)

    18. Re:French? by asc99c · · Score: 1

      Joining a side in the war was far more to do with the political, moral and ethical views of the sides, and the US was always clearly going to be on the allied side even with a substantial population of German descent.

      Even without American help, WW1 could definitely have changed course due to the British invention of the tank. There was long term stalemate in the trenches and the war would most likely have taken longer without the US, but a different outcome seems unlikely.

      WW2 is of course a more difficult argument. The Germans made definite strategic errors when bombing Britain, stopping bombing many targets just before they caused unrecoverable damage. With better decisions they could have defeated Britain, which would have made it incredibly difficult for the US to fight in Europe even if they wanted to. That would probably have freed up the troops to win the war in Russia.

      Anyway, to get to the point I was originally going to make, until the last few years, there has been no resentment towards the US for entering the war late. As you say America stood for something truly good, and was admired by most Europeans.

    19. Re:French? by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      It's been too long since the Revolutionary War.  The French need to come save OUR asses again.

    20. Re:French? by Comatose51 · · Score: 1

      Wow, way to kick a friend after having fought a major war together. We practically gave the UK 50 destroyers for nothing in 1940, before we entered the war. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyers_for_Bases_Agreement . We supplied arms to China when Japan invaded them, well before the official start of WWII. Some can argue that by taking sides we invited the attack on Pearl Harbor. So how is it that we refuse to help our friends, even though the struggles were separated from us by oceans.

      You honestly think the allies could have won WWII without the US? How many trucks (or lorries if you like) did the USSR built in all of WWII? IIRC, it was 2. We supplied most of the trucks to them so they can use their factories to build tanks. That's just one example of how US industrial might was used to aid our allies. Yes our allies did a lot of the fighting. In Europe, the majority of the fighting was done by our allies, especially the USSR. No one can argue that. However, modern wars have a strong reliance on materiel and that's where the US really helped out.

      As for your statement about the US being assholes in foreign policy, please don't pretend the UK wasn't part of that. The Suez Crisis and Operation Ajax both involved the UK. Oh and thanks for fucking up the Palestine Mandate after WWI. Don't pretend Germany was the only anti-Semitic country that wanted to get rid of their Jews. If you want to search for one country who've historically fucked over the most people, the UK would easily take the lead. Selling opium to China to balance out the trade imbalance and then taking Hong Kong after they lose their war to stop the trade is just one example of the sort of thing the UK has done for the world. Turning Japanese POWs loose on the Vietnamese after WWII to help the French retain their colony is yet another.

      --
      EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
    21. Re:French? by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      All ze Americans are morons and deserve Bush.

      I'm an American who doesn't deserve Bush, you insensitive Claude!

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    22. Re:French? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Je suis d'accord.

  20. Re:not news for nerds - close: news for pussies !! by Thrashing+Rage · · Score: 1

    I've had quite a few games i bought that had media checks in them. A recent game came on DVD-ROM and the media check failed because my only DVDROM drive happens to be a burner. Remember I paid for the game, so whats the alternative then? This wasn't the first program to cause issues because of certain hardware etc, but you get the idea. I had no alternative did I? Also don't waste your time with call the support line, that joke gets old.

  21. Re:Maybe NoCD patches are the latest in the indust by aliquis · · Score: 1

    But Blizzard doesn't replace them do they? Afaik they ask for money for a replacement disk :(

    This is my TFT-CD:
    http://cdcrack.istheshit.net/

    But I've borrowed a friends instead...
    (On a mac ROC CD when you played TFT wasn't enough either, it's in Windows, fucked up because I hate looking for the CD and I never used NoCD crack once I had the original because I didn't wanted to risk getting banned from bnet.)

    And no, I have no idea why they bother to check for the CD, it will be broken anyway so why bother about it?

  22. Higher-ups by Exanon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is the very definition of Irony. I wonder what the press release is going to say about this.

    But TBH I have a feeling this was a decision from the higher ups in the organization, there has to have been a programmer that was aware of this but wasn't listened to.

  23. Re:Maybe NoCD patches are the latest in the indust by grim4593 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Or you could just rip the cd to a .iso image, mount it in a virtual drive and install/play it from there.

  24. Furthermore by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not stealing if the original programmers were not deprived of anything. Whether the good guys ("pirates") do it or the bad guys (the "content industry") do it, unauthorized copying is not stealing and never has been.

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    1. Re:Furthermore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not entirely true.

      When RELOADED does it they wrote new code and credited Ubisoft for the original game.

      When Ubisoft did it, they claimed the code as their own, stealing credit.

      It's also just using their argument against them. If they want to say it is stealing, than its stealing when they do it. I'm sure most people in the scene would rather Ubisoft have to admit it is not stealing.

    2. Re:Furthermore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not stealing if the original programmers were not deprived of anything. Whether the good guys ("pirates") do it or the bad guys (the "content industry") do it, unauthorized copying is not stealing and never has been.

      The "pirates" are the good guys???
      Oh wait, this is Slashdot, where many think "morals" are paintings on walls, and they "deserve" to break the law. This place gets worse everyday.

    3. Re:Furthermore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Semantics.

    4. Re:Furthermore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      When you redistribute a movie rip, with correct title and attribution, it's copyright infringement.

      When you take someone's work and claim it as your own, it's all kinds of much nastier shit.

    5. Re:Furthermore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not stealing if the original programmers were not deprived of anything.

      Have you ever coded for royalties? That is, where you benefit from a larger number of sales? I have. Is it stealing in that case?

    6. Re:Furthermore by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Those who wrote the nocd crack are not pirates...
      They are a group of coders who created an enhancement to the original game.
      There are many useful products out there that *can* be used for piracy, but they also have other legitimate uses too.

      The authors of the crack released their own code as a patch for ubisoft's game, they never claimed they wrote the original game. ubisoft seems to be ripping off this group's nocd crack and claiming it as their own work, i doubt they even credited the original authors in the readme or such. if they released the crack and correctly stated it was written by a third party, then noone would have a problem.

      The other issue, lies with the fact that ubisoft clamped down very hard on people who even talk about nocd cracks, and yet here they are distributing one themselves. It's not that they're distributing one, that's actually a good thing, it's the hypocrisy that they used to ban people from their forums for mentioning this very crack.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    7. Re:Furthermore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is silly. It is not about stealing their content, but about depriving the content providers from the monetary gains they are entitled to. Maybe stealing is technically not the more appropriate word, but it conveys the meaning.

      And I really don't get this good guys/bad guys thing. If you worked for a content provider, and were fired because piracy made their profit margins too thin, I wonder how you would feel if your children came with "piracy is not stealing".

      BTW, yes, copy protection schemes that make the life of legitimate users a pain are inexcusable.

    8. Re:Furthermore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, unlike what the MAFIAA mislabels stealing, this is actually a case of stealing because the thieves failed to attribute their ill-gotten goods to the source (the real authors). So, yes, they stole in this case. They stole the attribution to the code (claimed it to be their own implicitly).

      And attribution (correctly attributed authorship) is the only morally defensible element of copyright law. Which makes those who violate correct attribution morally-indefensible.

      They are the kind of wankers that shut down discussion on a message board.

  25. maybe.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe they just wanted to put people using that NOCD crack on blacklist or something more sinister.. (so they used it for comparison)

  26. Why blame Dilbert? by Fallen+Andy · · Score: 1
    Don't shoot the poor guy or gal in the middle who made the snap decision. I guess in an outfit the size of UbiSoft it takes about 6 months to get anything approved.

    Top management want answers *yesterday* regardless...

    More to the point, you've got to understand the psychology of some management people. Here's an example - "we don't steal software". Five minutes later a request to load a boatload of stolen software onto a customers machine.

    The truth is though that a widely used crack has likely seen more testing than any delta a maintenance programmer would cook up - although any sane dev team *already* has at least conditionally compiled code which builds to a No CD or backup CD version.

    (You don't really tell *everything* to the people in marketting do you?).

    Ubisoft should at least do the right thing a la Epic and some time after the initial release has made enough cash release a real update which doesn't need the CD or at least plays off a CD image . (c.f. Unreal Tournament).

    Andy

  27. Cool! by FoolsGold · · Score: 1

    Since Ubisoft used the crack (presumably) without permission, does this mean RELOADED can sue Ubisoft for copy protection infringement now?

  28. Sounds like some low level employee overstepped by from1900to2000 · · Score: 1

    his bounds. The summary makes it sound like Ubisoft used the crack in an official patch of theirs. Way to make a big deal about nothing, Slashdot!

    1. Re:Sounds like some low level employee overstepped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new here.

    2. Re:Sounds like some low level employee overstepped by from1900to2000 · · Score: 1

      Do I put start an email? Get a fucking clue. Post like you know how to type.

  29. DRM for games by MLCT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is a real shame that Game DRM hasn't gotten the same bad publicity and force for change movement against it that music has.

    mp3's have, despite the music companies best efforts, proven to be what buyers want - not "you can only listen to this track on 2 machines" DRM files. That has been enforced by media coverage and scrutiny - pointing out and badgering the music labels that people don't want DRM junk.

    This unfortunately hasn't happened with PC games - I guess they are less "mainstream" as far as media coverage is concerned.

    I used to buy a lot of games, and enjoy playing them - but the situation has deteriorated very badly in the last 4-5 years. Games not only have the usual "key & cd/dvd in the drive" requirements, but I have encountered a number, which I paid hard money for, that refuse to install if I have CloneCD installed - others that refuse to install if I have Daemon Tools installed - both programs that I legitimately use (and not for games, just to avoid having to take tens of cd's around with me).

    I bought HL2 - but haven't been able to play it for a couple years as I am behind a tight firewall and so can't register it. Consequently I haven't bought Ep2 or 3.

    The games companies have to wisen up - I used to by 3-6 games per year - I now haven't bought a single one in the last 2 years - I can't be bothered with games I paid hard cash for treating me like I am a criminal. I am not interested (nor should ever need to) apply the various circumvention cracks to get around the DRM just so I can play a game I have bought.

    The farce from Ubi-Soft only reinforces the situation - the same crackers who they decry as "destroying the games industry" are the ones they rip-off when they can't be bothered to write a patch (for a bug caused by all their neurotic DRM crap). Ubi-soft better hope there were no trojans in the crack - or they could find themselves on the end of a hefty lawsuit.

    1. Re:DRM for games by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I suspect that this has a lot to do with the differences in demographics and technology between the music and game use cases.
      Games, particularly once we cast the net to include casual flash stuff, have a wide circulation; but music has a much, much wider one. Even neurotic soccer moms and troglodyte politicians who think that all video games are murder simulators buy music. Aunt Millie not being able to play her tracks from some WMDRM based service on her iPod is a mainstream media vaguely techie human interest story. Cousin joey's inability to kill virtual prostitutes on his laptop just isn't common enough yet.

      The technological differences are even more critical. Even pitiful newbs who can barely handle a microwave are familiar with fairly complex uses of music. House and car is downright basic, and house, car, work, iPod is entirely mainstream. Any DRM system too restrictive to make that trivial is going to take flack even from joe user. Games just don't have the same expectations. Historically, the CD requirement was often technical, rather than artificial(remember the days of ~25MB installs?), and pretty much nobody has a use case more advanced than playing a game on a few different computers. While a lot of game DRM systems are intrusive, do screw up Windows installs, and often screw legitimate customers, glitchiness doesn't violate people's expections of computing to any significant degree. You need to be somebody who knows that these glitches are unnecessary in order to get worked up about them.

      All that said, I'm definitely in the anti-DRM camp for those, and all, situations("Oh, you want to violate my system security and integrity on the premise that I'm a thief? Fuck You."; but it doesn't surprise me at all that music DRM has established fairly broad displeasure, video DRM to a lesser extent, and game/app DRM much less so.

    2. Re:DRM for games by troynt · · Score: 1

      MLCT, go to http://steampowered.com/v/index.php?area=about

      Get Steam.

      You should be able to register your CD Key, this will register your game.

      Then you can ditch your CDs as you can use their client to redownload the game as needed. No CDs necessary.

      If for some reason you can not locate your HL2 CD Key.

      Buy the "Orange Box"
      http://steampowered.com/v/index.php?area=sub&SubId=469&cc=US
      Gets You
      HL2
      HL2 Ep1 & Ep2
      HL2 Lost Coast
      Portal
      Team Fortress 2
      for $39.99

      I recommend buying the Orange Box anyway just for Portal and TF2 alone.

      Plus once you get Steam you don't need the CDs :-D

      Note: You should still be able to use Steam behind a firewall. You probably can't host games, but playing them should be no problem.

    3. Re:DRM for games by TejWC · · Score: 1

      It is a real shame that Game DRM hasn't gotten the same bad publicity and force for change movement against it that music has.

      The reason why DRM for computer games have not been been getting the same amount of bad publicity is because the entire computer industry has really bad DRM. The DRM problems that you go through is nothing compared to other software out there (like anything from Telelogic) and this is nothing new.
      The music industry got a lot of flack mostly because they only recently imposed the DRM schemes and nobody would have expected a music CD to install a rootkit.

    4. Re:DRM for games by ImTheDarkcyde · · Score: 1

      You're that much of a security nut that you won't open up the ports for steam? Might as well just shut down all http access while you're at it.

    5. Re:DRM for games by mxs · · Score: 1

      It is a real shame that Game DRM hasn't gotten the same bad publicity and force for change movement against it that music has.

      It has, gamers just care even less. Go to any bigger LAN party and ask about it. They are ok with it. They just want to play. They'd sell their own grandmother for it.

      mp3's have, despite the music companies best efforts, proven to be what buyers want - not "you can only listen to this track on 2 machines" DRM files. That has been enforced by media coverage and scrutiny - pointing out and badgering the music labels that people don't want DRM junk.

      Thing is, every "copy-protected" game out there has a corresponding crack and scene release. Every. Single. One. In the last 25 years. Every. Single. One. With no quality degradation, usually quite the opposite. Buyers use these as a matter of course. It's broken, of course, but you can still get your fix.

      This unfortunately hasn't happened with PC games - I guess they are less "mainstream" as far as media coverage is concerned.

      Just look at consoles. There is no good reason I should not use a backup-copy of my Xbox or Playstation games -- especially when kids are playing with them. Have you ever seen a kids-owned Playstation-collection ? Most of the discs will have so many scratches that data errors occur, some of them unfixable. An easy fix would be to use a backup copy to play and keep the original safe. Of course you can't do that since that would make you an evil pirate who costs them money (you having bought the game, that is).

      Hell, modded Playstations/XBoxes are the BEST thing you can do if you have kids. Really.

      Games not only have the usual "key & cd/dvd in the drive" requirements,

      CD in drive is already a huge hassle. Keys I can understand for, say, online play. But even then they better not have problems like 0 vs O, l vs. 1, _ vs. -, etc. (and you just know that if you google for " serial" your first hit gets you a working key anyway)

      but I have encountered a number, which I paid hard money for, that refuse to install if I have CloneCD installed

      Yeah, you evil pirate. Never ever make a backup, you evil pirate. Give us more of your money though.

      - others that refuse to install if I have Daemon Tools installed - both programs that I legitimately use (and not for games, just to avoid having to take tens of cd's around with me).

      Yeah, they are EXTRAORDINARILY useful for all kinds of things not related to games, and even for things related to games. I have had a CD image of Diablo II for ages, just to avoid having to put that disc in the drive every time I wanted to play (they recently removed the CD check. After 10 years.)

      I bought HL2

      Poor sucker.

      - but haven't been able to play it for a couple years as I am behind a tight firewall and so can't register it. Consequently I haven't bought Ep2 or 3.

      I have not bought HL2. I was excited about the game, and was ready to plunk down the cash for it. I would have been a customer coming back for more in ep 2 an ep 3. And then I saw steam in action. Regardless to say, I have not bought Half Life 2. I have not bought all that comes with it, Portal, TF2, CS, etc. I have not bought any "Steam"-powered games. I will never do so, even if I really, really, really like the game. I'd rather pirate it than buy it -- but even that I have not done. Valve can go die in a corner for all I care, they're done.

      (I have no beef with checking CD keys when playing online; I do have a beef with "activating" a single player game, with forced updates, with a system you CANNOT cache (try setting up a 2000 people LAN party with, say, 10mbit/s of bandwidth. Try doing this around release time of HL2. Now try setting up a cache server for steam so that not every single one of your guests is gonna go

    6. Re:DRM for games by akadruid · · Score: 1

      The difference with games is that you've not got millions of devices would play the game, but for DRM.

      Those millions of cheap MP3-playing portables, car radios, mobile phones, dvd players and high end washing machines are all votes against DRM in the normal consumer mind.

      In fact, I'm no gadget freak, yet I own 5 or more things that play mp3s for every one thing that will play DRM music. So DRM just got outvoted.

      --
      "Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
  30. Re:Maybe NoCD patches are the latest in the indust by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

    To make sure you had a legit copy to begin with. Even though they charge you for the replacement, they still are probably losing money on the venture as they have to have staff and facilities to maintain the program. Not cheap.

  31. Wolves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a thread that was. All I saw were a lot of whiney people who wanted to see Ubisoft "fail". The thread was complete with some ludicrous reference to the Taliban being "oppressed" by the west. Presumably these people wait in the wings for someone to make a wrong move. What a load of wolves !

  32. Lost source? by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1

    Maybe they lost the source to their own product? It would certainly explain why they've been dragging their feet on fixing the problem the crack addresses.

  33. Re:Maybe NoCD patches are the latest in the indust by ildon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They created the no-CD patches to coincide with their "Blizzard Account" system which allows you to buy their games online and then download them. I'm assuming they wanted a consistent platform for all their users, and it doesn't exactly make sense to have someone purchase and download a game and then have to wait for the CD to arrive in the mail just to start it up.

    Additionally, if you already own the game, you can enter your CD key on the site to gain the ability to download them directly from Blizzard.

  34. Question of the Day? by cryptodan · · Score: 0

    Are the authors of the CD-Crack suing Ubi Soft for copyright infringement?

  35. Re:Maybe NoCD patches are the latest in the indust by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Except if you RTFA(I know,but I got bored) you'll see that they are selling the game Direct2Drive which means you DON'T GET a disc. And now that they have removed the crack it means anyone who buys the game Direct2Drive is getting a non-functional product. I smell lawsuit! Maybe NYCLawyer could weigh in on selling a product that you can't actually use without breaking the DMCA. Would it be fraud or just theft? And as always this is my 02c,YMMV

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  36. Who pirates the pirates? by Carbon016 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Shame on you, Ubisoft! This kind of rampant IP theft is what is killing the PC game pirating industry!

  37. Re:Maybe NoCD patches are the latest in the indust by aliquis · · Score: 1

    How does it matter? One need a cdkey anyway (atleast to play on bnet, for single player a crack would do), so I'd say it's safe enough to know that I have an original CD. They could even get my bnet accounts and current keys / keys from that case.

    And earlier when they required the CD I thought it was a reasonable request to get a CD for free since they have their stupid copy protection to begin with.

    Except with programs which breaks the copy protection you can't backup the CD either.

  38. Commercial Copyright Infringement? by aussie_a · · Score: 1

    I sorely wished one of the guys who coded this would sue. I know it'd mean the end of their lives, but it'd be worth it for me :P

  39. Re:Maybe NoCD patches are the latest in the indust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for a whole list of reasons, this does not always work. that is the drm part of the theft prevention

  40. The link to forum crashes my firefox by mynickwastaken · · Score: 0

    I'm the only one here with this problem?

    1. Re:The link to forum crashes my firefox by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

      No problems here.

  41. MOD PARENT UP by Cheesey · · Score: 1

    Why is this modded down? He makes a good point. If you're downloading shady EXEs from P2P, then it's just a matter of time before you get pwned, because you are a sitting duck.

    The filename says "RELOADED", and you think you can trust them, but is it really from them? If I wanted to get a keylogger on a bunch of computers, I could easily add it to a "no cd crack" for a popular game and put it on P2P. I'd put "RELOADED" in the filename and fake the text files. I'd make sure that the keylogger activated itself after a couple of weeks to maximise my infection rate. If I did this, how would you tell?

    --
    >north
    You're an immobile computer, remember?
    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP by neokushan · · Score: 1

      It depends entirely where you get it from. If you go through the "correct" sources, you've got little chance of getting an incorrect file.
      Reloaded themselves HATE P2P, I think nearly all the cracking groups do.
      And something tells me Ubi don't really have access to one of the group's FTPs.

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    2. Re:MOD PARENT UP by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      P2P downloading isn't random. One should always read the comments on a torrent to see if it is a fake/virus before downloading. This is of course only possible if you use bittorrent and reliable sites, downloading executables from other P2P networks is just asking for trouble.

      That said, there is always some risk involved in any kind of communication to/from your computer. There have even been cases of pre-formatted disks and usb sticks that have been infected at the factory!

      So never trust anything, regardless of the source, and always back up important data as today could be the day your system is fubared.

    3. Re:MOD Parent Up by LrdDimwit · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we'll have our own games. With DRM. And hookers! In fact, forget the DRM ...

    4. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Toll_Free · · Score: 1

      It depends entirely where you get it from. If you go through the "correct" sources, you've got little chance of getting an incorrect file.
      Reloaded themselves HATE P2P, I think nearly all the cracking groups do.
      And something tells me Ubi don't really have access to one of the group's FTPs.

      LOL.

      I like your last comment.

      Wait, no, I don't. Someone in UBI has access, as a supplier :)

      Find the person who uploaded, and I bet RELOADED loses a supplier, someone turns states evidence, and another group joins WLW / PWA / etc.

      --Toll_Free

    5. Re:MOD Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the stripper would expose you to less viruses!

  42. Another Scenario by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder if the programmer responsible for the crack and the patch is the same individual? He probably just submitted what he'd already written as his own work. That's a much more likely scenario than the idea that Ubisoft downloads a NoCD crack off the web and releases it as a patch. This Slashdot story won't be good for him, if so.

  43. Tom Sawyer example by stupidflanders · · Score: 1

    In Tom Sawyer, Tom convinces a bunch of boys to whitewash a fence for him. He then later goes home and tells his aunt that he finished the job. The work got done, but Tom stole the credit and was rewarded.

    Ubisoft did the same thing. They were trying to save face by releasing a patch they acquired through underhanded means. Dare I say, they STOLE credit for the work.

  44. Genius by Hackerlish · · Score: 1

    > Just semantics, I know, but UBISoft didn't steal anything. They haven't deprived the originators of any use of their CD crack.

    So if I copy a game I had no intention of buying, I am not stealing either?

    1. Re:Genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you're not. If I have no intention of buying the game, I could either not buy it, in which case nobody benefits, or I could pirate it, in which case at least I would enjoy the game. The developer/publisher is not being stolen from in any way, since either option I pick does not affect the publisher's cash flow.

  45. DMCA takedown by ghostis · · Score: 3, Funny

    They should send UBIsoft's ISP a DMCA takedown ;)

    --


    Computer Science is all about trying to find the right wrench to bang in the right screw. -T.Cumbo?
  46. Re:Maybe NoCD patches are the latest in the indust by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

    That only works if you have terabytes of free disk space and you don't know how to use it all.

    Most games just copy all the disc contents to the hard drive when you install the game anyway, so why keep a SECOND copy of that data in an iso? You have the original CD anyway if you ever need to reinstall. Better to just use a small crack.

  47. Re:Maybe NoCD patches are the latest in the indust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many "DRM"/copy-protection schemes can and do detect that, so while this works just fine for older games, more recent product is going to be a bit more of a challenge. No-CD works in this case.

  48. Could it be forged? by vikstar · · Score: 1

    Isn't such a "signature" very easy to forge by ubisoft in their own patch? Also, is the original RELOADED crack written in such a way that *!RELOADED!* needs to be there to work?

    Of course, I'm ignoring the motive at this stage, just looking at the technical possiblity.

    --
    The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
    1. Re:Could it be forged? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why on earth would you want to make youself look like that?

      But yes, it's possible. If you skipped code to bypass the checks, the code you bypassed is now just 'fluff' and can be replaced with whatever you want. Sticking a signature in there is a good way to catch posers who 'steal' your releases.

  49. Actually... by hailukah · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...had to call up a car thief to open it for you.

    That happened to my uncle.

    A cop showed up seeing him trying to break into his own car, hollered at some kids sitting in the grass by an overpass, and told them they wouldn't get in trouble if they unlocked the door. It was open in about 30 seconds.

    --
    "What if I got hit by lightning while walking with an umbrella? Ban umbrellas! Fight the menace of lightning!" Doctorow
    1. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      were they black?

    2. Re:Actually... by QuantumRiff · · Score: 4, Funny

      Couple of years ago, we had a party at our house, and some girls locked themselves out of their car. Roommate got a long piece of metal, and was in the process of opening the door of the car, which was parked on the side of the street, when the cops drove by. They stopped and asked if everything was okay, (they looked fresh out of the academy) and my roommate told them, "Its okay, I've been doing this since you were in grade school!"

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    3. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, with GM cars from the 90s, you could use anything that resembles a key to open it up. I've used my Saturn key to open many other Saturns. It's now a habit to try my Saturn key on every other unattended Saturn I come across, and I have not failed yet. I've also used a house key to open my Saturn. That makes it even more upsetting that somebody once broke my window to get in.

    4. Re:Actually... by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 1

      Once I spotted a beautiful yellow 3rd-generation Mazda RX-7 in a parking lot, back when such cars were new and shiny. I said to my friends "Check out my new car" to which they all replied with the obligatory "cha, right" knowing that I drove a lowly 1985 Mazda 626. Undeterred, I sauntered up to the RX-7, inserted the key to my 626, and it worked! I couldn't believe it, but then I made a habit of trying it on various cars and found that it worked about one time in ten.

    5. Re:Actually... by eat+here_get+gas · · Score: 0

      Don Imus! Why'd you post AC?

      --
      the significance of a signature is insignificant
    6. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I once locked my keys in an old Mazda (626?). After trying anything I could think of, my wife, in desperation, stuck the baby's stroller key in the door lock and it opened.

      Strange, but true.

    7. Re:Actually... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Once in a while my wife tries to get me to believe that Honda only makes seven unique keys and randomly assigns one of the seven to each car. I'm willing to believe there are collisions - I'll even believe 1 in 10 - but I can't fathom them doing it intentionally.

    8. Re:Actually... by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

      Most house keys use 5 tumblers that I believe can be in 7 positions, that means there can be 5^7 in combinations, 78,125. That pretty much means that there is about a 1 in 78,125 chance that your key will open anyone's door handle or dead bolt if it uses the same kind of house key. I might actually be giving it too much, maybe it's only 5 positions.

      I wouldn't be surprised if car keys aren't too far away from that estimate.

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    9. Re:Actually... by Mr.+Roadkill · · Score: 1

      Well, with GM cars from the 90s, you could use anything that resembles a key to open it up.

      They obviously still used the same lock mechanics they were using in the 80s then. I have a 1983 Holden Camira (the Australian J-car) and have found that to be very true. Other Camira keys, partially inserted Mitsubishi ones, steering lock keys, all kinds of stuff. That makes it particularly annoying that a would-be joyrider completely destroyed both the drivers and passenger side locks in an attempt to get in.

      The only real security on the car is the aftermarket steering lock (which is useless against a real car thief) and the fact that it looks like crap.

  50. well.. by ImTheDarkcyde · · Score: 1

    I'm sure it was just there for theatrical effect, but now all the sudden "distributing duplicates of a program that can't be considered actual property and thus can't be stolen" (the usual /. argument) is STEALING?

  51. SecureROM in C&C3:KW v1.1 patch breaks explore by antdude · · Score: 1

    See here and here. Basically, Windows' Explorer.exe crashes with ntdll.dll because of C:\WINDOWS\system32\CmdLineExt.dll. There's a fix, but doesn't work for everyone. I had to use a noDVD patch and disable this DLL. I had this problem since 7/9/2008 and fixed it yesterday by disabling it with ShellViewEx. Explorer even crashed in safe mode without networking!

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  52. Bytehacking is cool by Ticklemonster · · Score: 0
    Used to be, a server admin in Unreal Tournament could take their cshp or whatever they used and bytehack it every couple of days and it would catch aimbots left and right. If you had several admins doing this every couple of days, then the hackers would have a logistical nightmare and learn to stay away from these servers.

    Now Helios's Hook has caused some problems, but thanks to dissassembly, the hook can be watched to see the .dll file being hooked, and new protection can be made quickly. IF an anti cheater can get his hands on one of the new hooks.

    --
    Karma: Bad is the liberal way of saying this guy won't drink the kool aid here on slash dot. I wear my Karma with pride
  53. Ban Ban Ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to ban yourself for posting cracks ubisoft

  54. Could I get some help? by ExtremePhobia · · Score: 1

    So anyone know where I can find the disk software since I have the crack now?

    I kid =)

  55. Re:Maybe NoCD patches are the latest in the indust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe NYCLawyer could weigh in on selling a product that you can't actually use without breaking the DMCA. Would it be fraud or just theft? And as always this is my 02c,YMMV

    Of cousre NYCL would not touch your comment with a 10ft pole given that his expertise is in a completely different branch of Copyright and he wont waste time researching (i.e. reading) about the background necessary to answer a question asked by "hairyfeet".

  56. Requiring the CD is a PITA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Ubi-Soft didn't require the CD to be in the drive in the first place, then they wouldn't have to go chasing down no-CD cracks in the first place. Idiots...

    Requiring the CD-ROM in drive all the fucking time to start a game fits in the "You're doing it wrong!" category of game design requirements. Instead, they should change the approach to require the CD only to the point that the game is registered. Once you register, then you get a no-CD fix in an official patch and you don't have to dick around risking your computer to possible malware on non-official no-CD fixes. The no-CD feature then acts as a pretty good incentive for the game purchaser to register. Also if the registration process is designed correctly, they can actually assess what piracy there is (if any) via attempts to update from invalid keys, or many hits from the same key under different IP-addresses, etc. With the right data and approach, the company can develop measures to actually deal with the problem instead of saddling end users with needless DRM bullshit.

    Maybe Ubi-Soft needs to learn some things from Gas Powered Games or a few other companies that actually listen to the users from time to time.

  57. Stop using the word pirate, FN by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Piracy is defined in the dictionary as open water take overs of ships, it has nothing to do with software.

    CFN.

    If those companies outside USA didnt charge 40-100% profit margins, perhaps people wouldnt pirate it.

    So why not get rid of all those scum resellers then , and give ONE EQUAL online price for the whole planet???

    What do resellers offer any way?

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:Stop using the word pirate, FN by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Local support...

    2. Re:Stop using the word pirate, FN by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except with software, you get told to fuck right off.

      You get NO support from local stores, you get told to contact the developer or publisher, even for refunds.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    3. Re:Stop using the word pirate, FN by shark72 · · Score: 1

      "Piracy is defined in the dictionary as open water take overs of ships, it has nothing to do with software."

      This confuses a lot of Slashdotters. "Piracy" is what's known as a homonym or a homophone -- a word that has multiple meanings. "Bark" is an example -- it refers to tree covering, and the sound your dog makes. Slashdotters probably understand this context, but for some reason they get into mental tangles over the multiple definitions of "pirate" and "piracy."

      If you're not sure what I mean, a good resource is dictionary.com. This is what they have to say about the word.

      1. practice of a pirate; robbery or illegal violence at sea. 2. the unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product, etc.: The record industry is beset with piracy. 3. Also called stream capture. Geology. diversion of the upper part of one stream by the headward growth of another.

      Software is covered in the "etc." portion of the 2nd definition.

      HTH.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
  58. Might be a QA accident by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    Could it be that the QA department actually used the crack for their own convenience, then the crack made it into their distribution?

  59. Re:So... So... So.... what is it you cant face by cheekyboy · · Score: 0, Troll

    People smoke pot, take coke, or drink under age, whatever...
    Do you really think they give a hoot about some stupid EULA? Seriously? Are you mormon or some christian Mr Bush lover ? People dont respect stupid laws when they see big govt people getting away with it especially wall street crooks, and lawyers.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  60. But! by Snaller · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Two wrongs don't make a right, dude."

    Two wrights made an airplane!

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    1. Re:But! by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      and three rights make a left!

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    2. Re:But! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and three rights make a left!

      i thnk they left a make (of product) rather than make a left.

    3. Re:But! by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 1

      And three rights make a left!

    4. Re:But! by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      "Two wrongs don't make a right, dude."

      Two wrights made an airplane!

      And three lefts make a right. Therefore, six lefts make an airplane!

      ...yep, that dead horse is officially flogged.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  61. Re:Maybe NoCD patches are the latest in the indust by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    Hello,Mr. Coward,or can I just call you Coward? Look Coward,nobody was asking NYCL to actually DO any research,but since he IS practicing law,I can assume he went to law school,yes? And one thing I have learned about the law is that the difference between what you THINK someone should get busted for compared to what the legal definition of the crime is are often two different things. In this case it could go either way and without a better understanding of the legal definition of the two crimes in question it is hard to tell whether they are guilty of fraud,as they are selling a product known to be defective as working,or theft,since they are selling a product that is worthless unless you break the law. And finally about the name? To paraphrase a very old saying: "The coward dies a thousand deaths,Da feet dies but once".

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  62. MOD Parent Up by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'd personally trust many of these "scene" hackers more than I'd trust Sony to not to try to pwn my machine.

    I would trust a random stripper more than Sony.

  63. What's wrong? by jdevivre · · Score: 1

    Since when is "circumventing copy protection" wrong? That's not what is wrong. Making/using an illegal copy of the software is wrong. Applying or modifying a legal copy to run differently is not wrong in any way I can fathom.

    I *LOVE* no-cd/dvd hacks. I buy everything I play. But maybe I'm wrong?

    1. Re:What's wrong? by LackThereof · · Score: 1

      Since when is "circumventing copy protection" wrong?

      In the USA, we have this law called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Circumventing copy protection is a crime, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. There are a handful of exceptions to this law, but none of them apply here.

      --
      Legalize recreational marijuana. Seriously.
    2. Re:What's wrong? by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      In the USA, we have this law called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Circumventing copy protection is a crime

      Yes, it's a crime, I agree, but since when was it wrong?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  64. Where do I find these? by Crazy+Taco · · Score: 1

    I use no CD cracks on all of my legally bought games.

    So where is a good place to find such patches that aren't contaminated with viruses or malware?

    --
    Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
    1. Re:Where do I find these? by despisethesun · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ubisoft, apparently.

      --
      This poo is cold.
    2. Re:Where do I find these? by morari · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't usually have any trouble with viruses when downloading from www.megagames.com or www.gamecopyworld.com. Still, I always scan the files first, and I'd suggest that anyone else do the same. Torrents are probably a pretty good place to look nowadays as well. Find the pirated game, but only download the crack. ;)

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    3. Re:Where do I find these? by Suddenly_Dead · · Score: 4, Informative

      The key is not to download cracks if you can help it. Instead, download mini images (on gamecopyworld.com as "fixed images"). These are disc images for the games, with copy protection intact, that are only a few megabytes large as they only have the crucial bits. Then, use a program like Daemon-Tools to mount the image, and you're set. This works for online games like Battlefield 2 as well, where cracks usually fail.

      And as an aside, I actually had to do this to run Battlefield 2, as the copy protection apparently doesn't agree with my DVD drive (even though other EA games work). I emailed EA support and never received a response.

    4. Re:Where do I find these? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine went to megagames at my recommendation - and got a virus so bad I literally had to wipe the hard drive to fix it. I no longer recommend megagames. Yes, he had an updated virus scanner (assuming you count McAffee...).

    5. Re:Where do I find these? by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

      I take this a step farther, and have done so for nearly a decade. The very first thing I do when I get a game is to rip a disk image and save it to my file server. I use Alcohol to rip and mount the images because it preserves or emulates all the copy-protection garbage. Then I put the CD back in the box and put it on the shelf, never to be touched again.

      I started this when my kids were little and I was getting tired of them ruining their game disks. It was so convenient I started doing it for all my disks. These days hard drive space is cheap so there's very little reason not to keep the whole disk image around.

      In the very rare cases when Alcohol can't manage a working image, I go to Game Copy World and download the no-CD crack. I don't like doing that, though, simply because it makes it hard to apply official game patches. When the game is patched, you have to get the newest version of the crack and re-apply it. (And to the grandparent... I've personally never had a virus/malware problem with anything I've found on Game Copy World.)

      Disk copy protection doesn't work. It's never worked; there have always been cracks for games all the way back to the days of the Apple ][. People who want to play games without paying for them will find a way to do so within days of the game's release. After that, all copy protection does is piss off your legitimate customers. But after more than 20 years of dealing with this crap, I've given up all hope that publishers will ever get a clue.

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
  65. Irony by Aggrav8d · · Score: 0

    How long until RELOADED steps forward and sues Ubisoft for the theft of RELOADED's closed-source application and demands payment per copy distributed?

  66. Pretty sure by greymond · · Score: 2, Insightful

    that someone in the coding department is going to be fired. If you're going to steal/use someone elses code - COVER YOUR TRACKS FOOL!

  67. Better analogy by unassimilatible · · Score: 0

    A burglar drops his gun on the way out of your house. You pick it up and use it to defend against other burglars. Ha ha.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
  68. While all this might be true and annoying by unassimilatible · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As has been said many times here over the years, if you don't like a product, don't buy it. Video games aren't medical care or food, so you sure don't need to buy them (hint: consider buying your family a book, or better yet, getting them outside to exercise). And EA didn't mislead, you knew they had DRM on it. So you are hostile at someone not misleading you trying to protect their product?

    I've used no-CD cracks simply because I could. But cursing a company for trying to stop piracy? Waste of energy and misguided hostility. Vote with your pocketbook.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
    1. Re:While all this might be true and annoying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His point is, EA successfully "protected" their product against a paying customer.

      I won't pay large companies to annoy me, either, so that makes at least two of us.

    2. Re:While all this might be true and annoying by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      True, but they don't exactly advertise THIS "feature".

    3. Re:While all this might be true and annoying by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The main reason I haven't ordered "Spore" yet is because I'm waiting to see what copy protection methods EA use. If there is ANY chance of the game not working for me, I'm not buying it.

  69. Re:Maybe NoCD patches are the latest in the indust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It really gets me when people poke at AC posters for posting anonymously, while they're posting under equally anonymous pseudonyms like Hairyfeet.

  70. And Britain paid you to do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THAT'S generous of us, isn't it?

  71. The Zimmermann Telegram by westlake · · Score: 3, Informative
    After World War I, British propaganda was publicly exposed as a pack of lies
    .

    The German occupation of Belgium set the pattern for what was to come. The Rape of Belgium: The Untold Story of World War 1

    The Zimmermann Telegram was authentic:

    January 16, 1917

    On the first of February, we intend to begin unrestricted submarine warfare. In spite of this, it is our intention to endeavor to keep the United States of America neutral.

    In the event of this not succeeding, we propose an alliance on the following basis with Mexico: That we shall make war together and make peace together. We shall give generous financial support, and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona. The details of settlement are left to you.

    You are instructed to inform the President [of Mexico] of the above in the greatest confidence as soon as it is certain that there will be an outbreak of war with the United States and suggest that the President, on his own initiative, invite Japan to immediate adherence with this plan; at the same time, offer to mediate between Japan and ourselves.

    Please call to the attention of the President that the ruthless employment of our submarines now offers the prospect of compelling England to make peace in a few months.

    There is much of interest here - not least the talk of an alliance with Japan.

    The historical background:

    April 22, 1915

    The German Embassy publishes this warning which will appear below a New York Times marine add posting Lusitania's schedule:

    NOTICE!

    > TRAVELLERS intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travellers sailing in the war zone on the ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk.

    IMPERIAL GERMAN EMBASSY

    May 7, 1915 Luistania torpedoed without warning. 1200 die.
    August 1915 A Bavarian metal worker stamps out 500 or so back-dated commemorative medallions of the sinking -- which British propagandists will replicate in the hundreds of thousands for sale through British wartime charities.
    August 27, 1915 The Kaiser restricts attacks on large passenger vessels.
    September 18, 1915 Unrestricted submarine warfare ends

  72. Complete hipocrits by ThoreauHD · · Score: 1

    Even among pirates stealing somebody else's cracks without credit is a nuking offense. These guys have truly reached the ultimate level of complete gayness in both worlds now. The least they could do is own up to it- but no, these french fruitloops just lock the forums and hope nobody can read in the future.

  73. Two wrongs make affirmative action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Two wrongs don't make a right, dude."
    Tell that to those that believe in affirmative action

  74. I hate that kind of person : by unity100 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    check this one out :

    Ubisoft should possibly have coded the exe file them selves, but I guess theres a good reason why they did not (as in no coders available at the time)

    there are ALWAYS idiots like this who rationalize and stomachs even the shittiest, dirtiest stuff - a company which was banning people for even referring to no cd cracks, STEALS (i stressed it out, its a direcet STEAL, since no credit was given) a CRACK/HACK group's code, and then passes it as their fix. see the hypocrisy, see the filthiness and shittiness. yet this guy is able to justify it within his poor mind with just a sentence.

    these morons constitute the biggest voter base for corrupt politicians. thanks to their idiocy of accepting anything and smoothing it up in their minds to stomach it, we are not living in a better world.

  75. Now check this out : by unity100 · · Score: 1
    moderator locks the thread by uttering sentences like this :

    Needless to say we do not support or condone copy protection circumvention methods like this and this particular incident is in direct conflict with Ubisoft's policies.

    get a load of that ! they do not condone copy protection circumvention or, hell, god forbid support it, but their programmers are using cracks to fix their games' issues.

    now the irony and hypocrisy doesnt end there. this company, now the infamous ubisoft, would merrily sue any hacker group if they got the chance. thats the real sh@t here.

  76. Re:Maybe NoCD patches are the latest in the indust by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    I don't poke at those that are asking a legitimate question,but did you read his post? It seems like more and more of the ACs are either very rude asshats or blatant trolls. If you are going to be rude and insult someone,at least be man enough to take the karma hit. I never post as AC,because I accept my own opinions and the karma both good and bad that comes with them. But as always that is my 02c,YMMV

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  77. KILL UBISOFT. by Schwarzefeen · · Score: 0, Troll

    Boycott the stupid fucks. Fuck Ubisoft, let em burn in hell.

  78. A hunch by ArmyOfAardvarks · · Score: 1

    If I had to guess, one of their coders got desperate when told to fix the bug, added the crack into the game, and is, as of this week, asking people if they would like fries with their meal. Source Control history is a b@#$%, ain't it?

  79. Re:Maybe NoCD patches are the latest in the indust by Kalriath · · Score: 1

    Actually, the game Direct2Drive sells is quite functional, unless you apply the optional patch that Ubisoft offers. Which you shouldn't do, because Direct2Drive is quite clear that you should never apply retail patches, because they break the TryMedia version sold by D2D.

    There's no potential for a lawsuit whatsoever.

    --
    For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  80. Copy protection only inconveniences legit users. by Behrooz · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, there's a difference between the 'fucking people over' represented by pirates who don't purchase the game and wouldn't even without available pirated copies, and the 'fucking people over' demonstrated when software developers intentionally cripple their product in ways that harm legitimate, paying users.

    I don't give a fuck about the pirates, they're not going to buy the game either way. If you sell me shitware with broken-ass 'copy protection', I'm going to be pissed, and I will do everything in my power to avoid purchasing your products in the future, because you have violated your implicit agreement to provide working software to paying customers.

    That is the issue. Copy protection, by definition, only inconveniences legitimate users, because the copy protection on any product worth purchasing will be cracked by a skilled hacker in a country with a bad enough exchange rate that it's more worth their time just to crack it. Do you really want to try to pass on your piracy 'losses' to legitimate users after they've purchased your product?

    Copy protection is no longer a deterrent to pirates, it's simply an inconvenience for your paying customers, and the entities which fail to recognize this will continue to lose ground to those which do.

    --
    "We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
  81. Re:Maybe NoCD patches are the latest in the indust by Kalriath · · Score: 1

    Interesting. And I just noticed they've given Brood War free to every Starcraft owner (their system detects a Starcraft key as a Starcraft Anthology key).

    Thanks for the tip!

    --
    For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  82. maybe not that illegal after all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has someone thought of the UBI soft "patch" to be equipped with some code that scans for 'illegal' cracks executables containing the string '*!RELOADED!*'.

    If that's so, UBI soft scans for illegal patches, and they did not per se steal stuff from release groups.

    Anyone with de-assemble skills can confirm or deny this?

  83. DRM Hell strikes again! by JimBowen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So basically ubisoft had broken their game with the CD protection DRM, something that nearly all games companies include, but I haven't the faintest idea why this is still a sane thing to do..

    So now they have to use an "illegal" (or so they keep telling us) third-party crack to break their own DRM.
    Or more likely, someone else's DRM that they purchased for a large sum of money, only to introduce bugs into their game and annoy their customers.

    Sounds like great value for money to me! :)

    1. Re:DRM Hell strikes again! by aliquis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why would it introduce bugs?

      And of course they can disable the DRM. I would assume some of their developers was like "oh well I'll link the crack for those who need it" and well ..

  84. Re:Copy protection only inconveniences legit users by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

    Copy protection that is actively harmful punishes consumers for buying legitimately, yes. SecuROM, etc., suck ten miles of dick and should be not only avoided, but actively killed.

    A developer won't every dissuade the pirates. But what copy protection does--in theory, at least, and at least in part in practice because most people are pretty dumb and can't find keygens, etc. that aren't virus-laden to hell and back--is keep the honest people honest. It's like a lock on the door of your house--it won't stop a determined thief, but it'll keep people who don't make their living (or, in this case, their entertainment) from piracy. (This is why the software I'm working on just has a basic ID/key combo. And I'm thinking about making it a web service, due to piracy concerns.)

    The entitlement mentality of the asshole in the great-grandparent post is what pisses me off, though. Piracy isn't "free advertising" when it comes to games; that logic would work for Windows or Adobe, where the goal is corporate mindshare, but for games? Hell no.

    --
    "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
  85. Re:Maybe NoCD patches are the latest in the indust by hairyfeet · · Score: 1
    But as we all know,most games released today are beta quality,if that. Many games have show stopping bugs that can only be fixed by patching. Does this patch fix any bugs? If it does then those that buy D2D are getting a crippled product for their money. Which of course,yet again,makes the pirate version better than the one folks paid good money for.

    Why do these companies insist on punching their paying customers in the balls with all this DRM that doesn't slow the pirates down one bit? Damned if I know. I do know that I won't buy a game that I haven't already found a crack for,as I've been burnt one too many times with CD checks not liking my drives. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  86. PC gamers are customers too! by christ,+jesus+H · · Score: 1

    "People use pirated software -> companies lose money -> companies invest in trying to avoid illegitimate usage of their software -> copy-protection schemes are put in place -> problems with copy-protection schemes arise -> "

    That's one way to look at it, but you can also view it this way;

    Companies that sell DRM solutions convince Publishers the sky is falling and they must buy their shovel ware or they will be bootlegged into bankruptcy by their own fans (thus begins the publishers adversarial relationship with its own consumers) > publisher spend lots of money on poorly written software that breaks the product that developers have worked so hard to create > consumers (fans) turn to pirated versions for a number of reasons, most prominently of course because they generally work better (this is DRMs number one problem) or another common reason is sheer attitude. Many PC gamers are just sick and tired of being treated like criminals (I fall into this camp) when they are in fact legitimate customers. "If publishers are gonna sneak spy ware on my PC and hamper my experience through sloppy coded DRM (which often creates massive security gaps in the users OS while simultaneously hampering the users experience regarding the very software that installed it), then screw them. I will get a 'clean' (pirated) copy of the game."

    When the black market version of software is commonly referred to as the "clean" version, you have a really serious problem. The DRM industry really cracks me up actually (pun intended). They convince a publisher of a need (through distorted exaggeration), sell a solution to fill that need and then explain to the publisher how the problem has gotten worse (not better) so they must buy more of a product, which by their own admission had very little (if any) effect on the problem in the first place. It's a license to print money for those who have no ethical compass. Game publishers are addicted to DRM, its heroin to them. It creates a warm fuzzy feeling of security but does nothing to actually alleviate the problem of bootlegging. Honestly, if you ask most PC gamers (which publishers won't do, because PC gamers are considered criminals not customers), it likely causes more bootlegging then it prevents (thus helping to sell more of itself). I say again, PC gaming may be the first industry in history to literally scare itself to death.

    --
    Ohh spiteful one tell me who to smote and he shall be smolten!
  87. Remember the Thing called a paycheck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The people playing devil's advocate need to remember something, and that is that Ubisoft engineers get paid to put out fixes. Reloaded did not get paid for their hard work.

    When your JOB is to work on fixes, you work on fixes. It does not matter where you get it from, but if you use another person's fix without their prior approval, you always get rid of their name.

    I work for a software company, a pretty big one, and as a programmer myself, it is a secret thing that I am pretty much revealing to you.

    All companies do this. Nobody talks about it, but it is pretty standard practice. Yeah, you "engineers" just learned how your programmers get jobs done so fast. I started at this job about 6 months ago, and from working here, I found out that everybody does it.

    The trick it this: proprietary software specifically for one company means that, hopefully, they will not look at the source in case you did not take all of the "evidence" out. In the case of reloaded, somebody looked inside and found something that was not supposed to happen. The programmers were not expecting people to look inside their code. If somebody looked inside of the code that my company does, it would be the same way.

    I am not for one second saying that companies stealing code is a good thing, but it is standard practice.

    I know that people will chime in saying that it is not true. Think of who is chiming in. Engineers are the people who "micro-manage" programmers. They do a good job at it, but engineers: have you ever looked at all of the code written by your employees? Have you simply asked your employees to show you the code they did and explain what it is doing? Programmers: if you work for a major corporation, you can chime in and say you don't steal code to save face, but if you truly don't, you know many people in your company that do. I have been a programmer for awhile (simply because I love programming), and have been employed for 3 major corporations.

    What happens is that programmers do this, and when somebody catches them, the engineers/managers say, "Well we had no clue that they were stealing code".

    I bet what happened was one single programmer was told that he needed to fix the drm issue, was given a super small time frame, and the person they assigned to it knew he could not get it done in time. The programmer did what any programmer would do, fix the problem within the time frame. You can try to be honest in this business, and eventually get a promotion, or you can steal code, get everything done incredibly fast, and be seen as one of the best programmers.

    People can deny it all they want, but programmers do this pretty regularly. People who manage them claim that their employees don't, but whether they want to admit it or not, those managers honestly have no clue at all if their programmers steal code, they just assume that their programmers will code everything themselves.

    From everything I have said, I have said it honestly and as truthful as possible. You can flame me if you want, but I assure you I am being very honest.

    It is all the programmers doing this. It is not like the company said, "Hey, why not release the Reloaded crack? It works". I bet that it is what I said, where the assignment of fixing this was given to one programmer, and he was given a ridiculous time frame to fix the issue, so he did what any other programmer would do.

    I am not playing devil's advocate, I am simply the messanger. Yes, I am posting this as anonymous to hide my identity from anybody in my own company that reads slashdot (and there are alot of people in my company that read this). Sorry guys, somebody had to speak up.

    Do I like the fact that the company I work for does this? Of course not. Do I personally do it? Yes. Sometimes I do. Do I like the fact that I do it? Hey, at least I don't do drugs. I get paid well for what I do, just like most programmers around me.

    Ubisoft is running like any other company. Hey, at least the dude cited hi