Slashdot Mirror
Ubisoft's New DRM Cracked In One Day
Colonel Korn writes "Ubisoft's recent announcement that upcoming games would require a constant internet connection in order to play has been discussed at length on Slashdot ('The Awful Anti-Pirate System That Will Probably Work'). Many were of the opinion that this new, more demanding DRM would have effectiveness to match its inconvenience, at least financially justifying its use. Others assumed that it would be immediately cracked, as is usually the case, leaving the inconvenience for paying customers and resulting in a superior product for pirates. As usual, the latter group was right. Though Ubisoft won't yet admit it, Skid-Row managed to crack the new DRM less than a day after it was first released."
that Skid Row has done something since "Youth Gone Wild."
Engineering hours building unbreakable DRM: $1.6M
Marketing devoted to managing customer hostility to new DRM: $800K
Lost sales due to customers boycotting your product: $2M
Having some wiseass kid from Sweden break your DRM on the first day: Priceless
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Ubisoft can always blame "those damn pirates" and claim the DRM development as a failed project tax write off.
And the pirates can still play the game for free with no issues.
And paying customers still get to take it in the ass, now AND when Ubisoft decides to can the online service.
Win, Win, Weeeeee
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
I'm a big fan of Silent Hunter. But I won't buy or play the new one until they release it sans DRM. It's really funny; watching the videos from Subsim, you constantly see messages about "no internet" and then, a few seconds later, "internet reconnected". That sure helps you to remain immersed in a faithful WW2 sub sim. After all, Adolph would have won if not for his shitty broadband connection.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Subsim
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
I'm a fan of Silent Hunter as well. And I work for Ubisoft, so I can get it for really cheap from the company store. However, they would have to pay ME to play that shit. As a result, I'll be downloading it via bittorrent, just like the rest of you. Kudos to the clever hacker.
Normally I actually pay for my games. In most cases, I do it the old school way - I buy physical discs from physical stores. Lately though, companies like Ubisoft seem like they're treating me like a criminal for giving them my money. At this point, they're really making it more convenient for me to prove them right.
Speaking of "socially irresponsible," DRM doesn't expire with a copyright, meaning that once a protected work falls into the public domain, people won't be able to use the work according to their rights under copyright law. Unless someone can point me to a clause in the DMCA that allows the circumvention of public domain works, that is. But people shouldn't have to crack public domain works to exercise their rights, whether it's legal to do so or not. (Plus, with anti-circumvention tools blanket-banned by the DMCA... well, I guess it doesn't matter whether it's legal, does it?)
That Anonymous Coward guy is pretty annoying. Can we have the government censor him or something?
Exactly, what *when* they go out of business? Because on the scale of what gets done when a company is bankrupt customers are dead last. There are no more customers: the company is gone. What matters at that point is creditors and the more your owed the higher you are on the list. If there is no non-restricted version held in escrow with a lawyer who has explicit instructions to release when the company goes insolvent then FACT: Your purchase is gone.
Shh.
Doesn't matter really. Nothing released today is ever going to enter public domain (or, in any case, during any of our lifetimes). Copyright laws are almost getting worse than DRM... almost...
What is this public domain you speak of?
Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
Unless someone can point me to a clause in the DMCA that allows the circumvention of public domain works, that is.
The DMCA would only apply to access control mechanisms that protect an underlying copyrighted work. There is case law on this; simply cracking an access control mechanism is not enough to run afoul of the DMCA, there has to be something copyrighted that is being protected by it (e.g. not just a short number for example). (However, cracking and access control mechanism to a copyrighted work without infringing the work will run afoul of the DMCA, so the law is still idiotic).
In this case if the work's copyright had expired, there would be no valid copyright in question, so the DMCA would not apply. But your point about the ban on distribution of tools in interesting... since in this hypothetical situation, a circumvention tool would probably contain material that could crack access controls on both copyrighted and copyright-expired works.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Imagine a person, in a casino, sitting at a slot machine. They're pumping coin into it and steadi;y losing everything. They know that they should walk away, but they can't. Walking away means admitting to themself and others that they lost. And so they keeping telling themself that if they keep playing long enough, they will win back enough to at least break even.
The same is true of Ubisoft, Microsoft and all the other companies who keep pumping money into the DRM slot machine. Year after year they keep coming up with new DRM schemes to replace all the previous ones that have failed (ie, all of them). They can't stop. To stop would be an admisison of failure. An admission that even if they created uncrackable DRM, the extra sales revenue wouldn't even come close to covering the cost of creating and maintainging new DRM schemes.
It would be funny, it it wasn't so stupid.
If lost sales aren't the problem, then what the hell are you whining about?
That Anonymous Coward guy is pretty annoying. Can we have the government censor him or something?
Well if that happens then they blame the pirates for lost sales, which is the current way game companies deal with poor sales.
Piracy rates are can be tracked. They'll know, to within a moderately narrow margin of error, how many copies were pirated, and they'll know exactly how many were sold. Both numbers will have been estimated prior to launch by the bean counters.
If the game fails to reach its sales quota, but is pirated more extensively than anticipated, what that tells them is that even more extreme anti-piracy measures are needed. The difference between sales figures and sales projections will be treated as "lost sales", with the blame placed on the rising piracy figures.
If the game tanks, and the piracy rates are no higher than expected, that sends a different message. It tells them that the piracy rates aren't to blame for the "lost sales" - customer boycotts are.
The only way to kill DRM in the long run is to convince the people making the decisions that it's costing them more money than it's worth. Don't buy or pirate Ubisoft's crap. Don't give them money or mindshare. Write them off as a loss, and buy games from publishers who don't treat their paying customers this way. Either they'll learn to do better, or the publishers who don't saddle their games with this crap will out-compete the ones who do in the long haul.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
The only thing that I'm surprised about is that companies remain so obstinately stupid in trying to implement Digital Rights Restrictions.
Anyone who has ever been involved in software development knows that even when it comes to relatively simple systems, all it takes is one minor SNAFU, one little bug, for the whole thing to be laid bare before skilled hackers. And it doesn't even have to be a problem with your code; it can be in anything from firmware to the operating system to libraries you've linked to to the compiler you used. Add to this the fact that Digital Rights Restriction systems are hardly anything but relatively simple; they typically encompass very complex encryption, heavy duty mathematics, picky dependencies on very specialized hardware and/or software and/or connectivity requirements, etc.
Also, how many people did it take to write your Digital Rights Restrictions system, and how smart were they? Let me tell you, it's not like there's just one guy holed up in a basement somewhere working on cracking the Digital Rights Restrictions of a popular game. There are thousands, maybe tens of thousands. And they all want that reputation boost (or sometimes even financial gain) of being The One Who Cracked [insert game title here]. Oh, and maybe your people are smart, but these people are frickin' brilliant.
Yet still, these companies are under the delusion that after decades of abject failure after abject failure by companies much bigger and more motivated than they are to stop software theft, they're going to be the ones that come up with the magic bullet, that special recipe that will keep their software locked. So sure of it, in fact, that they're continually willing to invest a lot of time, money, and effort into their futile pursuit. The reality of the situation is that all it takes is one. One hacker, one flaw, and every cent you poured into your Digital Rights Restrictions system is *poof!* gone.
I'd like them to hire me to create the Digital Rights Restrictions system they use for their next game. I'll charge them a few thousand dollars and put a text file on the root of the installation media that says, "It would really mean a lot to us if you would not copy this game illegally, so please don't. Thanks!" Now, I know you're probably thinking, "But Skippus, people would be able to copy the game from day one!" My contention is that I've saved them tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars and my Digital Rights Restrictions system lasted just one day less than the one they would have otherwise spent so much money on.
Standard IANAL disclaimer. Just an interested amateur.
Copyright is life of the author + 70 OR 95 years from publication OR 120 years from creation (in the United States). Life+70 is only used in some cases (non-anonymous, non-pseudonymous, non-work-for-hire) -- most works are under the flat 95 years from publication (or 120 years from creation for anything not published). But other countries have different laws -- Canada is life+50 instead of life+70, for example.
What the GP was referring to, however, was how essentially nothing becomes public domain these days, due to *constant* lobbying by large corporations to extend and restrict copyright, patents, and trademarks (major extensions in the USA happening in 1976 and 1998 -- life+50/70 in 1976 and life+70/95 in 1998, both of these commonly believed to have been passed specifically as a result of Disney lobbying to 'protect' Mickey Mouse). That and the complexities of copyright law and revisions to those laws that make it nearly impossible to tell if a work is covered by copyright or not unless it was published prior to 1923 (which means it's definitely not).
Once past 1923 (but before 1976), it depends on if a work was ever registered and renewed or not -- and by god, there are massive disputes over many works from this period (were they registered, who renewed them, were they renewed, who had the rights to renew them at the time, etc...). If published, registered, and renewed, it's 95 years from publication for any works between 1923 and 1976. If not published (but registered and renewed -- I don't think many, if any, works fit this), it would be 120 years. Once you hit 1976, it depends on if the work is covered under the life+70 or the flat 95. If the work has a non-anonymous, non-psuedonoymous author, and was not a work-for-hire, then you have to find out the date of death for the original author and add 70 years. If the work was anonymous, pseudonymous, or a work-for-hire, then the flat 95 applies. Unless that work was unpublished, in which case it's 120 years instead (and don't ask me what the barrier for 'publication' is, I have no idea). I also have no idea which does/doesn't apply if there are multiple authors or anything else vaguely unusual about a work's authorship.
Anyway, this applies for works in the USA. International copyright probably gets even more nasty with the varied treaties/extradition/etc. Basic rule of thumb, currently, is that the USA has the longest copyright and anything before 1923 is therefore safe. Anything after that, you'd need to do a lot of research on who does/doesn't hold the rights. Or take a gamble that no one will care/notice -- but that's probably not smart.
We get paid a salary. But we also get some residuals based upon the sales of our game. In this case, Silent Hunter and any other PC exclusive Ubisoft game are going to sell like shit for the next little while until this madness is stopped. The execs don't care, because they get to tell the shareholders that they are doing everything in their power to stop the evil pirates. So the execs get to keep their jobs and make tonnes of money. Everyone's happy, unless they are the developer, the consumer, or (ironically) the shareholder.
So, yes. Pirating the game does take a few coins from the pockets of the developers of this game. But it's but a small fraction of the sales anyway, so it really doesn't matter. The point is that if the piracy rate actually INCREASES, then the execs might actually have to answer for this nonsense at some point. They'll no doubt spin it to look like angels, but I'm sure that if the piracy rate is really high, then this might end at some point.
So, I say raise the jolly roger, but keep buying Indie games. That's where our future (hopefully) lies.