Slashdot Mirror
Rockstar Ships Max Payne 2 Cracked By Pirates
Jamie noticed a fairly amazing little story about Rockstar shipping a version of Max Payne 2 via Steam that was actually cracked by pirates to remove the DRM. The going theory was that it was easier for them to simply use the pirate group's crack than to actually remove their DRM themselves.
Just goes to prove that DRM only hampers legitimate paying customers. Pirates simply laugh (usually with a jolly "yar!").
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Couldn't the pirates sue them for unauthorized use of their code?
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Actually, I wholeheartedly and resoundingly agree with what they've done. They may as well get at least some benefit from piracy...
But it would be awesome if they got sued for copyright infringment on the modified bytes. In an alternate reality it could happen...
Did they remove the rootkit?
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Most likely they simply found themselves unable to build the old codebase. You'd need a seven year old version of whatever build environment they were using, tons of other severn year old bits and pieces and a seven year old OS version. You'd probably need a seven year old machine too, and all the peripherals that go with it. Bits rot when left alone..
Using a cracked version is expedient, and clever.
On top of that they're using someones elses work and profiting from it.
I wonder if the pirate's code was published via a version of GPL? /sarcasm
I'm sure that if the original 'crackers' sued them Rockstar would be happy to meet them in court.
Take the word "pirate" out of it and it's really a story of "programmers take code from somewhere else and use it for their own", and we know that never happens.
The usual argument is that cracked software is dangerous, because it contains malware of various sorts. Rather difficult to support that argument, when you then go out and ship the same "malware" as a legitimate part of a software release.
In this reality it can happen, they stole code, period. We are no't talking about a hobbyist, or joe blow on the street, but rather a software company that yells and screams whenever anyone else 'violates' their copyright or heavens forbid, actually make an unlicensed use of their code. So if violating someones copyright on software makes it ok to steal their code, then I guess we're all allowed to do whatever we want with Max Payne 2, since it incorporates stolen software. If you steal a pickpockets wallet, you're still going to jail for being a pickpocket. An eye for an eye just leaves a lot of blind people stumbling around.
If you steal your own wallet back from a pickpocket, you're not going to jail.
Airplane Photos, Airline News, Planespotting Guides
Actually, I wholeheartedly and resoundingly agree with what they've done. They may as well get at least some benefit from piracy...
I hold an opposite opinion. I'd rather they incur the costs to remove their fucked up decisions of the past. Perhaps then they'd think a LITTLE harder before adding the DRM to begin with. As it is, this might make companies more willing to add the DRM since they know eventually if they want it removed for after-market sales, they can depend on the free efforts of others. Others they likely tried multiple times to sue into the poor house already.
Writing the crack could be justified under fair use. Distributing it was certainly illegal, because that overstepped the bounds of fair use.
If I cracked a game that I bought and wrote a no-CD crack for my own personal use, would the game company then be able to come along and claim that they owned all rights to the crack I had put my own hard work into producing for my own personal use?
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Lets say a paid slashdot editor uses Firefox to do whatever it is editors do (clearly it's not edit). Firefox is someone else's work, and the editor just used it to make money. Illegal, then? I once read a book that agreed with you. But, in the real world, you can use somebody else's stuff to do whatever you feel like, even make money. If you buy photoshop, you can touch up pictures you took, then sell those pictures. Crazy, huh? You can't sell copies of photoshop, mind you, but you can sell pictures you edited with photoshop, even though Photoshop was "somebody else's work". (Oh, that book? A teacher read it to the class in Elementary. Don't remember the name. But, some kids working at cafe made their boss a mint when they invented a nostalgic milkshake made with brownie cake mix, tastes just like licking the bowl when mom makes brownies. Well, the boss was quite happy until the police came and arrested him. Seems Sara Lee or whatever fictional variant existed in the book was pressing charges for using their mix without a license. The moral of the story was, I suppose, obey your corporate overlord).
At any rate, what work of MYTH did they use? The patcher? Yes, they (apparently) ran it, though they could have downloaded the pre-cracked binary, we don't know. But, they're not distributing the crack, they're just distributing the pre-cracked binary. So the question is, does the pre-cracked binary belong to the developers, or to the pirate group? The answer is, the developers. Rockstar didn't have to pirate the patcher, because the pirate offered it for free, so that wasn't a violation. And so, they used a tool that they legally obtained, to make modifications to their code. Code that they own the copyright to. In the same way that running a photo through a photoshop filter doesn't transfer your copyright to Adobe, running a binary through MYTH's patcher doesn't transfer copyright of the binary from Rockstar to Myth. Thus, the binary is the copyright of Rockstar still, and they have the exclusive right to distribute it.
Legally, the patched binary is a derivative work of the original binary. Under copyright law, only the creator of a work has the right to create and sell derivative works. However, just because you don't have the right to distribute your derivative work, doesn't mean the original artist has it. It depends on the nature of the changes. If it's a significant and transformative change, then you have copyright over your changes, so neither party can distribute it, unless you can make a fair use argument as to why you can distribute it. In no case can the original artist distribute it without permission, though. However, if the changes are minor, you have no copyright on them, and thus, the derivative work contains only the copyrighted material of the original artist. Thus, distributing it is only a copyright violation of the original artist's copyright. As such, they are fully within their rights to distribute it.
So, it could be argued that the patched binary would also be copyright of the pirate group. But, its a very weak argument. The patch didn't change the game play at all. So, comparing it to the DVD version: The unpatched DVD version needed the DVD in it to play. The cracked, steam version needs Steam to play. To a user, there's no change except for the medium of delivery. From a purely technical point of view, there is no creative work put into NOOPing around the DRM calls. All in all, there's no way I see it being decided that the patch is copyright of anybody. As such, the patched binary is wholly the copyright of Rockstar, and they can distribute it legally. Were they distributing the crack, then running the crack as part of the install process, it would be different. But as it stands, it might make them look like tools, but it's legal.
Looking at it in terms of tangible property rights: If you find an empt
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Analogies between physical items and software just don't work. Please stop.
The basic fact is that Rockstar took code they didn't own and put it into their product.
No. Copyright only applies to creative and original works. This microscopic patch that just NOOPs out a few calls to DVD checking routines is neither creative nor original. The game used generic DVD checks that many games did, so it's entirely possible the pirate team cracked it entirely by rote, just fed it into a generic cracker, and got the binary back out. In the same way, Adobe has copyright on Photoshop, but NOT on any photo that's ever been edited in Photoshop. Myth's tool would be copyright by them, the hand full of NOOPs inserted by that tool certainly are not.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Not to continue with your car analogy, but... :)
A lot of the "standard" equipment in modern performance cars were inspired by "hotrod" enthusiasts of the 1930 and on, who would take a vehicle, lighten it swap engines, modify away from factory specifications, end up with a much more powerful cars. As it became apparent that consumers would spend good money for the same type of performance, these changes were adopted in. Being that the major manufacturers started adopting these changes in, the aftermarket crowd has continued to improve them even more.
Significant time and money was spent by enthusiasts and aftermarket companies to develop and test their aftermarket parts, which some of have eventually shown up in factory vehicles. I doubt even a small percentage of the people who put in the work got any sort of reimbursement from the manufacturer. It's never been a game of "I hope I impress the manufacturer and get a job". It's always been "I want my vehicle to be bigger, better, and faster". For most of us, when we see a car that includes the changes we would have done on previous generations, we're impressed.
Now on the topic at hand, I do agree that it was wrong for the author to use code by a third party. I'm sure many (likely including the author) were happy that it was done, so the modifications were no longer necessary. It would not have been practical for them to attribute the work to the third party author, so maybe by leaving enough of his code in so the top of their banner was visible was all the attribution they could give. It may not have been a "FU, we stole your code", but a "thank you, we liked your change so we included it."
Since these cracks and cheats are done (primarily) for free, and handed out liberally, there is no monetary loss, because there was no monetary gain to begin with.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
This sounds very similar to the remix cases in the music industry.
A musician creates a work, another does a (very popular) remix - a derivative work. Now, whether or not the original artist gave the second permission to use his work, he doesn't have distribution rights on the derived work (even if he can get an injunction to stop its distribution).
So why would copyright law be any different for software?
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?