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.

Comments

Hypocrisy

[sopssa]

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

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

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

Re:Hypocrisy

[dintech]

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

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

Re:Hypocrisy

[WrongSizeGlass]

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

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

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

Re:Hypocrisy

[meerling]

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

Re:Hypocrisy

[longacre]

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

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

Re:Hypocrisy

[Digicrat]

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

Re:Hypocrisy

[Mister Whirly]

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

Re:Hypocrisy

[PopeRatzo]

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

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

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

Re:Hypocrisy

[Nadaka]

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

Re:Hypocrisy

[MoonBuggy]

[citation needed]

Re:Hypocrisy

[longacre]

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

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

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

Re:Hypocrisy

[InlawBiker]

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

Re:Hypocrisy

[WNight]

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

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

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

Re:Hypocrisy

[omnichad]

But we're still stuck with the DMCA. So modifying without distributing just to make something work right is still illegal.

Re:Hypocrisy

[nickdwaters]

Irony + 1. Not hypocrisy. I see no issue stealing from those who steal.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Nadaka]

For your first question... Yes, everything is automatically copyrighted when it is first published.

For your second? Probably not, but it may not matter for charges to be pressed.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Bigjeff5]

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

Well, you could certainly try, you'd probably just wind up landing both of you in jail for attempted murder though. ;)

Re:Hypocrisy

[Mister Whirly]

But if the code was changed, then it isn't the original code that Rockstar owns anymore. Whether or not Myth had the legal right to the original code or not, the resulting code is different. I am not talking about Myth suing them for a civil matter, I am talking about a company selling code they did not write. Maybe Myth could go after them for using their logo, but something tells me they didn't trademark it properly in the first place.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Bigjeff5]

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

But they did so illegally, thus, they get no claim to it.

It's like stealing someone's Van Gogh, fixing up all the wavy lines, and wind up having the original owner steal it back. The original owner then decides he likes it, and puts it on display in a gallery, and it sells for millions of dollars. The thief gets no claim to the work or the money, because he had no right to alter the original piece. That the injured party decides he actually likes the vandalized work makes no difference.

Re:Hypocrisy

[clone53421]

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?

Re:Hypocrisy

[canajin56]

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

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

Re:Hypocrisy

[Bigjeff5]

Bingo, 100% of the cracker's code was produced illegally, and so they have no copyright claim. Rockstar gets to do what they want because they do have copyright claim to the work and any non-fair use works that are related to it.

Software cracks are not considered fair use. Duh. Rockstar therefore owns the copyright to the cracks automatically.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Facegarden]

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

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

Ugh, can we all stop this?

I mean really, I have a proposal:

Let's all, finally and from now on, agree that we shouldn't keep using physical-world analogies for virtual things.

It just allows people who don't understand the situation to *continue* not understanding the situation, while still allowing them to try to make decisions about it.

I think that's pretty damaging. Remember Senator Ted "Tubes" Stevens? Yeah, lets not have any more tubes here - the internet has been a part of all of our lives for at least 18 years or more (less if you're not that old... but then its your whole life!).

-Taylor

Re:Hypocrisy

[Facegarden]

And I just realized that you weren't the one to start the analogy, though my thoughts in general still stand.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Hypocrisy

[teh31337one]

An even better analogy would be "if you steal your own wallet back from a pickpocket, after the pickpocket has inserted some of his own money into it."

Hey, it's not catchy, but it's the correct analogy.

Re:Hypocrisy

[GofG]

You do not, however, own the game. The game is licensed to you, under the terms of the End User License Agreement (EULA), and I am almost positive one of the clauses in that agreement is that you cannot modify the software.

Re:Hypocrisy

[JWSmythe]

    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.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Venik]

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

As you know, when it comes to intellectual property rights, common logic rarely applies. Stranger things have happened.

Re:Hypocrisy

[AK Marc]

Bingo, 100% of the cracker's code was produced illegally, and so they have no copyright claim.

I disagree. If you stole paint, made a painting, then the paints were seized, I could see a situation where the copyright to the image belonged to the thief, the creator, and the physical paint comprising the image belonged to the original owner of the stolen paint. As long as it wasn't a work for hire, the legality of the creation is irrelevant to the ownership of copyright. They are separate and unrelated parts of the law. For another real example, look at the "famous" graffiti artists. Everywhere I know of assigns copyright to the artist, despite the technical illegality of the work. Though the owner of the structure painted on owns the particular physical work (so they can sell it, paint over it and such, but making reproductions of it would be illegal).

Software cracks are not considered fair use. Duh. Rockstar therefore owns the copyright to the cracks automatically.

Please point out the portion of copyright law that says derivative works made without permission are 100% owned by the original copyright holder. It might be there (there's more law than I can possibly read and I haven't looked for that one particular point), but if it's not, then you are wrong. There is no "it's illegal, so copyright doesn't apply" clause that I know if.

Re:Hypocrisy

[AK Marc]

But they did so illegally, thus, they get no claim to it.

That's false. If you hit the pickpocket while getting your wallet back and your wallet has an extra $20 in it, then you will be required to return the extra money because it would be illegal for you to keep it, and you could be charged with assault as well. The precipitating event could be deemed an extenuating circumstance, but in no reading of the law do you get to keep the extra $20 just because he harmed you before, and assault is still illegal.

It's like stealing someone's Van Gogh, fixing up all the wavy lines, and wind up having the original owner steal it back. The original owner then decides he likes it, and puts it on display in a gallery, and it sells for millions of dollars. The thief gets no claim to the work or the money, because he had no right to alter the original piece. That the injured party decides he actually likes the vandalized work makes no difference.

But, that is illegal. That it will go prosecuted is irrelevant. The first question of legality is easily answered. They *do not* own the new derivative work. There's no provision in copyright for invalidating the copyright on derivative works because of illegal actions.

If there is something I missed, point it out. If there's case law, point it out. But stating your personal opinion about whether you think they would win a court case because of extenuating circumstances is irrelevant to what the law actually says. And I've seen and heard of nothing in the law that comes close to agreeing with you.

Re:Hypocrisy

[kent_eh]

What if the thief put added his own money (ID, whatever) to your wallet before you stole it back?

/devil's advocate

Re:Hypocrisy

[EdIII]

I see no issue stealing from those who steal.

-1 Incorrect.

For the millionth time already, you can't steal copyrights and intellectual property. They are merely legal entitlements granted to them by the State, meaning We The People.

The only thing you can do with a copyright and/or a patent is infringe. That's it. Not remotely the same as the theft of a physical object, which is why the only way you could steal Max Payne, is to steal the piece of plastic the copyrighted material was placed on.

Inevitably, this post will be construed as support for Piracy, which it is not. It is a post in support of accurate information regarding copyrights.

Re:Hypocrisy

[TheLink]

Seems a pretty good endorsement of such cracks. Despite all those FUD claims of malware infestation.

If I were myth, I wouldn't be bothered about getting official recognition etc from Rockstar. The fact that Rockstar shipped "our version" on steam is official enough ;).

Bad move by Rockstar strategically, so they'll have to pull it.

Re:Hypocrisy

[SatanicPuppy]

Bull. Shit.

I wrote a book. You decided you didn't like chapter 3, so you cut it out and redistributed it for free.

I decided you were right, and redistributed YOUR version, and charged for it.

What part of what is being sold is yours? None. DRM is something added to the code. Removing it doesn't mean that you have some kind of ownership over whats left...Even if you added code to remove DRM functionality, it doesn't mean that you own what's left.

Re:Hypocrisy

[DedTV]

Now we just need the crackers to sue Rockstar for infringing on their Intellectual Property Rights.

Re:Hypocrisy

[BikeHelmet]

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

They're already getting some benefit. Free word-of-mouth advertising. Some estimates (mostly from indy devs) suggest that every 20-25 pirated copies will result in 1 extra sale. Obviously for games like Spore, it has the inverse effect.

Their actions are quite irresponsible. Did they even bother checking for viruses/trojans/rootkits? Probably not... :/

Re:Hypocrisy

[Mister Whirly]

You wrote a book. I decided I didn't like chaper 3, so I cut it out, added some new material (for example, a copyrighted logo), and redistributed it for free.

You decided I was right, and redistibuted MY version, and charged for it.

The part of what was being sold that was mine is what I added. In this example, we would BOTH be in the wrong.

Yes, Myth had no right to re-distribute the code they did, becasue it was not granted from Rockstar. They were wrong. But unless Rockstar had permission from Myth, or whoever owns the copyright to the Myth logo, they did not have rights to re-distribute Myth's copyrighted material. (Before you try to tell me Myth probably didn't actually copyright the logo, yes you are correct. However anytime you create something it is automatically copyrighted. Officially doing it just makes it easier to sue later.) Rockstar owned their original code, but anything that Myth added they do not own, and cannot re-distribute, which is exactly what they did. Myth owns whatever the difference was between the original code, and the cracked .exe - nothing more and nothing less.

Re:Hypocrisy

[PopeRatzo]

It's like stealing someone's Van Gogh, fixing up all the wavy lines, and wind up having the original owner steal it back.

No, because by "fixing up all the wavy lines" the thief would reduce the value of the painting.

In the case of Max Payne 2, the crackers actually added value by defeating the "defective by design" DRM.

If you want to use painting in the metaphor, it would be better to say that "it would be like stealing someone's water-damaged masterpiece, performing a professional restoration, then having the owner steal it back to sell at a larger profit.

And this is not the first time that a scene "cracker" has added value to a commercial game, only to have the original company adopt the "crack" as part of an updated package.

Re:Hypocrisy

[ImprovOmega]

The interesting question is if a pickpocket stole your wallet, put some extra cash in it, and then you stole it back...would you go to jail?

Re:Hypocrisy

[mdielmann]

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?

Re:Hypocrisy

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The part of what was being sold that was mine is what I added. In this example, we would BOTH be in the wrong.

Except that Myth gave away copies, and explicitly wanted those who received copies to in turn give it away again. Reselling something for more than the nothing you paid for it is perfectly acceptable.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Ponzicar]

It's more like stealing the crowbar that the burglar used to break into your house. Try as I might, I can't seem to feel upset over this. Their laziness is troubling, but the code stealing isn't.

Re:Hypocrisy

[melikamp]

I find it hard to believe that removing DRM can be done by only removing code. There's gotta be some new code, most likely jumps in place of conditionals. If the story is true, Rockstar is clearly doing it just to piss off the warez scene, and yes, they are hypocrites, and idiots too, for distributing binary code from such a shady source. If they keep doing it, it is only a matter of time before the scene time-bombs them.

Re:Hypocrisy

[WNight]

You do realize that it isn't, right? It's sold.

The license is in the box after the sale but by then it's mine. There's a a big difference between owning the copyright and owning the copy.

Re:Hypocrisy

[WNight]

For you, yes. And depending on ACTA, probably everyone.

But that's the issue I'd challenge. Making and distributing it.

With a crack containing no derivative code - merely NOPing out pieces I didn't want. It's illegal, but shouldn't be.

Re:Hypocrisy

[StillAnonymous]

Cinemaware did this too when they freely released disk images of their old '80s games like Defender of the Crown. I remember them supplying the Eaglesoft cracked version for the C64 image. Funny stuff.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Actually, I do RTFA]

. Reselling something for more than the nothing you paid for it is pretty much the very reason copyright laws exist.

Copyright law never prohibits reselling something for more than you paid for it. Copyright law prohibits, surprise, duplication and derivation. If you are given 100,000 copies of something copyrighted, you can resell them all at a profit. If you are given 1 copy and told to make as many copies as you want, you can sell those copies (as Rockstar would claim was the case). If you are given one copy, and told to give away copies, you would have to then give them to a third party, who would then resell them (absent clever licensing verbiage, which is not the case here).

Re:Hypocrisy

[Mister Whirly]

Not being upset about a crime doesn't automatically make it legal. If you steal from a thief you are still stealing according to the law. Morally you may feel justified. But being justified also doesn't automatically make things legal. If someone beats up your sister, and you beat that person up, do you think the cops are simply not going to arrest you for assault? No, you would both be charged. You may receive a lighter sentence due to mitigating circumstances, but that doesn't mean you didn't break the law.

I don't think anyone is going to get to upset about this incident either, but it will prove to be an example on how the laws are not always applied equally. I certainly don't want Rockstar to get into any trouble over this, but I can't pretend they didn't redistribute materials they may not have had the legal right to do. Someone at Rockstar knew this wasn't legal - they were just betting the odds of getting caught (by being so dumb as to not remove the Myth ascii logo) and having anything negative happen was very slim. If "the law" doesn't go after them for redistributing copyrighted materials, how are they going to justify nailing anybody else for the same?

Re:Hypocrisy

[McFadden]

They flat out stole someone's code

Speaking of hypocrisy, when someone copies (read: pirates) a game, it never takes long before the pedants and whingers jump in to make the tired observation that it's "not theft, it's copyright infringment".

But now, when a games publisher does it, it's suddenly "flat out stealing".

Re:Hypocrisy

[bell.colin]

Charges can not be pressed for "Civil" matters, Copyright infringement/DMCA Violations are a "Civil" matter, not a "Criminal" one. They could sue Rockstar and Rockstar can counter-sue them for the crack in the first place.

Maybe they can sue each other and reach a settlement of amnesty and just ignore each others infractions, Rockstar could win for them creating the crack then they can win for Rockstar using their software and intentional distribution of said software (alot more intentional distribution than the pirating of the game)

IANAL

Re:Hypocrisy

[Nadaka]

There are criminal copyright charges.

The requirements are that the infringement is for profit and the retail value of the goods distributed are over a specific value. Both are true in this case.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

Re:Hypocrisy

[Nadaka]

The circumvention clause of the DMCA is criminal as well.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001201----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001204----000-.html

Re:Hypocrisy

[Myopic]

Hmm. To subtly improve your metaphor, it would be like if someone stole your wallet, then added money to it, and then you stole the whole thing back. The extra money is the crux.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anthelme]

We do this just for FUN. We are against any profit or commercialisation of piracy. We do not spread any release, others do that. In fact, we BUY all our own games with our own hard earned and worked for efforts. Which is from our own real life non-scene jobs. As we love game originals. Nothing beats a quality original. "If you like this game, BUY it. We did!" Pretty much sums up what their NFO would have said.

Re:Hypocrisy

[xtracto]

In this reality it can happen, they stole code, period.

Holly hypocrisy Batman! so in May it is once again called "stealing"... last month (when it was RIAA vs people) was called "copyright infringement".

So many hypocrites in slashdot :(

Re:Hypocrisy

[metacell]

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

It should be noted that cracking games, and distributing the crack itself is not illegal(*), since it has legitimate uses (for example, playing the game on a laptop without a CD drive). Crackers provide a valuable and legal service for free to the public, so suing the game makers for copyright infringement is not as far-fetched as it sounds.

(*) At least in Sweden and many other countries.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anzya]

Actually that would in some cases be illegal in Sweden.
If someone for instance steal your bicycle and you report it to the police then even if you find your bike at someone else's property you're not allowed to just take it back. You should at that point call the police.
Who would of course respond: "We'll get there in a couple of days"
They would then take the bike as evidence and in best case you would get it back in a year or so. If, of course, the new "owner" doesn't claim he bought it in good faith and has a receipt. Then he gets to keep it and you get pittance from the insurance that might be enough to buy a bobby car :)

Re:Hypocrisy

[metacell]

I don't think it's the same thing. A contract automatically becomes unenforceable if it requires breaking the law, but copyright is not a contract (legally speaking).

Also, depending on where you live, it's not illegal to write a crack, or distribute it, or own a copy of it, only to use it for certain purposes. Here in Europe, it's generally legal to break copy protection as long as it is necessary in order to play the material - for example, play a protected media file on Linux, where there are no "official" players.

When the Norseman Jon Johanssen cracked the DVD protection scheme, the US-American media corporations tried to get him apprehended for "data intrusion", which was ludicrous according to Norwegian law. It was perfectly legal for Johanssen to engineer a workaround for Linux users to be able to play protected DVDs.

Re:Hypocrisy

[metacell]

IANAL, but legally speaking, when modifying code by cracking it, a "derivative work" is created. The copyright to the derivative work is jointly owned by the original author and the person(s) who modified it. However, this assumes that the derivation is copyright protected at all. If the modification to the original is insignificant, it may not meet the standards for copyright protection.

So, if the crackers just removed code and distributed the stripped executable, it's probably not copyright protected. If they, however, added code to the executable, it may very well be protected.

Re:Hypocrisy

[metacell]

Reselling something for more than the nothing you paid for it is perfectly acceptable.

I agree. Too bad the copyright industry and the legislators don't.

You see, they have this weird notion that when you make your own copies and distribute them, it suddenly becomes illegal.

Re:Hypocrisy

[metacell]

But surely you don't believe that the game company obtained thousands of individual copies of the game crack from the cracking group, and then only distributed the existing copies?

Re:Hypocrisy

[metacell]

You're perfectly right. The game company didn't steal anything, but they may have broken the law (which was quite broken to begin with ;-) ).

Re:Hypocrisy

[metacell]

Why wouldn't the thief have copyright in the modified version of the Van Gogh painting, assuming the modifications were so significant they warranted copyright protection? She doesn't have a claim to the physical painting, of course, but she would be entitled to part of the profit from copies made from the modified version.

Re:Hypocrisy

[metacell]

From a copyright perspective it doesn't matter if a modification reduces or enhances the value of a work.

Re:Hypocrisy

[metacell]

I think the game company should be applauded for demonstrating the value of the free flow of information and how outdated the copyright laws are.

Re:Hypocrisy

[michelcolman]

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

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

Depends on the country. In quite a few places this would actually be illegal. I heard of someone whose car was stolen, he found it, called the police, and they said he was not allowed to take it. He had to wait several months for all the legal paperwork etc. Laws can be weird sometimes.

Re:Hypocrisy

[KDR_11k]

As long as the game has an awesome chiptune demo intro it's fine by me.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Restil]

I don't think the point is that they have no copyright claim. The problem is, any effort to bring forth such a claim could and very likely would be countered by a DMCA lawsuit, and possibly other lawsuits or charges with related to the facilitation of piracy. It also would require someone to attach a real name(s) to an operation that has enjoyed legal "protection" through anonymity, and expose them to many more potential lawsuits from other software companies. So yes, they MIGHT be able to claim a copyright violation, but it could be a VERY expensive claim, with very little chance of success.

-Restil

Re:Hypocrisy

[Library Spoff]

Technically that's a re-edit.

In order to do a remix you need the stems.
These are provided by the artist or the Label - So the artist (or his label) give the rights.

Re:Hypocrisy

[RichiH]

Depends on where you live. In most western countries, the mere act of cracking your own copy is illegal.

Re:Hypocrisy

[RichiH]

1) Physical is not electronic.

2) There is only one work in your example. It was altered permanently.

3) If the thief improves the physical work, they are entitled to the gains. If they made it worse, they have to compensate.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Scoth]

Actually, you'd be surprised.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1082094.ece

I haven't researched it to ensure authenticity, but I remember it when it first came across.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Actually, I do RTFA]

But surely you don't believe that the game company obtained thousands of individual copies of the game crack from the cracking group, and then only distributed the existing copies?

No, I don't.

But I think that it is clear the cracking group wanted their crack distributed far and wide without any compensation. Given that, there's no reason for Rockstar not to sell it. Even the GPL explicitly states that the contents can be sold. So think of it as Rockstar distributing the crack for free, and charging for all their content that comes with it, as well as the original code within the crack.,/p>

Re:Hypocrisy

[Kevin108]

You assume that the crack was used exclusively for piracy. I'm sure most competent customers who purchased the game also installed the crack. I know I've done so on a variety of programs that insisted you keep the game disc in the drive when playing. Now the crack is being used by even more legitimate customers. I agree with them stripping the DRM but the coders who made the crack should certainly be compensated.

Re:Hypocrisy

[thebasicsteve]

I'm fairly sure that the version of X-Com: Apocalypse on Steam is also using a third-party crack, just judging by the quality... It occasionally asks for the CD to be re-inserted, despite being run in a DosBox environment with mounted CD image. This of course makes it unplayable...

Re:Hypocrisy

[JWSmythe]

Well, if you look at the trends, you'll see it.

    Exhausts got louder, as they've increased the pipes to reduce airflow restriction. Obviously "economy" cars don't get this (and usually don't need it). The coffee can exhaust is not a performance modification, it's a noise maker. Larger displacement engines do very well with reduced exhaust restrictions, which has shown up on late model muscle cars.

    Animal print interiors ... well, I doubt that'll happen, but it could. More customized interiors with added colors have shown up in production vehicles. This may not be in the price range of the average Slashdot user, but the 2006 Lamborghini Murcielago Alpine Edition that could give you a headache (or burn your eyes out). Most manufacturers have stuck with one or two colors. Factory vehicles have definitely been upgraded with finer leather interiors, real wood, carbon fiber, or brushed aluminum dash inlays. This was pretty much unheard of 30 years ago.

    Louder stereos are almost standard equipment now, compared to the earlier ones that had one speaker in the middle of the dash or possibly two. My '00 car has a 8 speaker system built in, which only gets turned up to 25% on the highway at 85mph with the windows down. My moms late model "grandmother" style car has a factory sound system that is far superior to anything built in the 80's or earlier. Some cars come with somewhat serious subwoofers that'll rattle the windows of other cars at a stop light. In some areas, that's follow up by gunfire which sometimes resolves the problem.

    Fluorescent paint job really depends on the beholder. The factory colors change on a fairly regular basis. Is the Hemi Orange too bright for you? How about the Ford Mystic? How about Honda Helios Yellow Pearl? They're all a long way from Henry Fords available colors, or as he said, "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black"

    So, compare a 1980's car to a 2010 car, and you'll see how things have changed. Expect similar changes to continue. People don't like to trade in their old car unless they're getting something "better" which is frequently more "bling" and less performance.

 

Same story different players

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

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

Re:Same story different players

[k8to]

Not exactly.

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

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

Re:Same story different players

[MrLint]

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

Re:Same story different players

[Zemran]

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

Re:Same story different players

[lgw]

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

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

Re:Same story different players

[WNight]

You don't re-invent the wheel. You copy [...]

Don't forget that this is pirate code - game studios themselves tell us it's nigh-guaranteed to be hard-drive melting malware.

Two different cases here, as they decided to remove the DRM on their own terms.

By (apparently) directly copying a pirates code. If so it's an admission on their part that pirate code is just fine. Even the game companies now realize the best way to please the customers is to just ship the warez version.

Re:Same story different players

[hairyfeet]

Actually I bought MP 1&2 back in the day and can say it VERY much was and is a case of the pirate version running better. The original would CTD halfway through level 2 for me every. single. time, whereas the RAZR1911 version I could run all the way through, and with MP 2 it would be jerky and skippy with the original, not so with the RAZR1911.

Plus with the cracked version you can do cool things like put both games on a single DVD with a custom install menu (sorry, registration required, but it is worth it as I've used their conversions and they work great!) that you can't do with the non cracked.

I do find it pretty ironic that after all their screaming out piracy they ran out and picked up the NO-CD just to use the thing on Steam. Does that mean we can all use NO-CDs on Rockstar games since apparently they support them?

Re:Same story different players

[icebraining]

Are you kidding? Steam's DRM is worse than Securom! At least I can resell games protected with the later.

Re:Same story different players

[lgw]

"Worse" in what sense? You may not like the Steam contract, but there's no root kit that rapes your machine like a FruitFucker2000 on a 3-day OJ binge as with Securom.

Also, there's no real impediment to reselling Steam games if you just create a different account for each game. If you value the convenience of seeing all your games in one place more than the ability to resell those games, then I'd have to say Steam is adding at least a little value though their UI.

Re:Same story different players

[GF678]

Max Payne 2 didn't originally have DRM, it had copy protection. The difference being Rockstar wasn't able to control how you used the game once you bought it - you were no longer at their mercy. Copy protection with MP2 simply meant a CD check. DRM would have meant online activation, limited number of installs, something like that. A simple CD check in itself isn't really classified as rights management. DRM does perform the same goal - copy protection - but it goes way further.

Re:Same story different players

[guyminuslife]

I wish I hadn't burned my last mod point earlier in this thread, because the fact that you've got Score 1: Troll, and the parent has Score 5: Insightful, is truly a tragedy.

If it makes you feel any better, one of the points I'd spent earlier has vanished into nothingness by the act of making this comment.

But...?

[natehoy]

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

Re:But...?

[donaggie03]

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

Re:But...?

[UnknownSoldier]

That depends on the nature of the crack.

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

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

Re:But...?

[quantumplacet]

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

Re:But...?

[Kaboom13]

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

Re:But...?

[bhtooefr]

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

Re:But...?

[clone53421]

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

Re:But...?

[Racemaniac]

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

but ianal ^^. just wondering :)

Re:But...?

[denmarkw00t]

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

Re:But...?

[quantumplacet]

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

Re:But...?

[mouseblue]

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

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

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

Re:But...?

[Kaboom13]

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

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

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

Re:But...?

[dcollins]

"I would assume (read: HOPE) that Rockstar had the brains to test the hell out of this binary before saying 'Well, let's just release it and see what happens...'"

As a former game company employee, I say this to your hope/assumption: No freakin' way.

A test gauntlet (requires a whole department of people for weeks) would be so much more labor-intensive than figuring out how to recompile your own code (requires one developer, maybe some days?) that it's completely nonsensical to think that the former happened when the latter did not.

Re:But...?

[J-1000]

I would assume (read: HOPE) that Rockstar had the brains to test the hell out of this binary

Surely extensive QA testing is far more resource-intensive than just removing the DRM yourself, so my educated guess says that any QA testing would have to be minimal. And what kind of QA testing is going to catch back doors and rogue code? Those guys are used to looking for game glitches, not tracking down trojans.

Re:But...?

[element-o.p.]

Isn't it a violation of the DMCA to remove any logos or watermarks from a copyrighted* work? If so, leaving the cracking group's logo and fingerprints may have been legally The Right Thing To Do**.

*Yes, I know that the pirates are in a bit of a tough legal position, since they potentially violated DMCA to release a cracked version of the code. However, as I understand copyright law in the U.S. (IANAL, etc.), copyright is automatically implied on any creative work as soon as you create it. Therefore, their patch *is* a copyrighted work.

**It is rather difficult to parse "The Right Thing To Do" in this context because there are so many potential ways it has already gone wrong. I don't know if Rockstar worked with the cracking group (since TFA is blocked by the firewall at work...sigh), the cracking group already violated DMCA, the DRM was already a step in the wrong direction, etc. <Head Asplodes> is the likely result if you spend too much time (i.e., more than about 2 seconds) thinking through this legal minefield.

Re:But...?

[CapnStank]

"Myth was a Scene group which ceased to exist after it was targeted in the FBI “Operation Site Down”" -Source

I personally believe Rockstar understood the logo was in the exe and left it there on purpose as sort of a "suck it pirates" attitude knowing there's nothing the pirate group could do about it.

Re:But...?

[canajin56]

Not quite. Whether or not it's authorized isn't the issue. (It's the issue with whether or not Myth can distribute it). The question is on the significance of the changes. If a change is significant, then authorized or not, it gets its own copyright. Now, being a derivative still, barring fair use defenses, the second artist has no right to distribute the whole. But, neither does the first. And again, this is with or without authorization. So, the question really is, how significant is the patch? The benchmark is, does it make the game into a new, original work? Would somebody playing the game notice and say "Well, this sure is a different game?" No, the opposite of that. The point of the patch is that you would never notice the difference, except that you don't need the DVD in anymore. It cannot be a "rote, uncreative variation". Of course, that's for a judge to decide. But, the extremely tiny change is invisible to the user of the game. And, the changes are also by rote, finding and removing calls to the DRM routines. There may be something clever about finding them. There's nothing creative about patching them. So, although you may be incorrect over all, in this case it's extraordinarily unlikely that a judge would find that Myth has any copyright on the patched binary.

Re:But...?

[Bigjeff5]

when you create an unauthorized derivative work, the copyright for your derivative is owned by the creator of the original.

You're forgetting fair use. It can be an unauthorized derivative work as long as it is considered fair use (unless you are considering fair use as an "authorized" derivative). The derivative can even contain the entire copyrighted work, unabridged and unedited. Those tend to be a lot harder to show fair use for, but not impossible.

The problem here is that any derivative work that must violate the DMCA in order to exist is by definition not fair use. That's one of the reasons we hate the DMCA, because it eliminates all otherwise fair uses of all kinds of copyrighted materials. All software cracks violate the DMCA, period. There cannot be an exception because anti-DRM circumvention is one of the primary tenants of the DMCA.

Therefor, no software crack will ever be considered fair use, and as such can never be copyrighted. Now we get to your point, which is absolutely correct: all unauthorized derivative works that cannot qualify as fair use automatically fall under the copyright of the original owner.

In other words, Rockstar can release the cracked version of their game because they own the rights to both the game and the crack.

It does not matter if the crack is integrated into the executable or is an add-on patch later. It makes no difference, it is a derivative work that circumvents DRM, and is therefore not fair use, and is therefore owned by Rockstar. Pirates don't have a leg to stand on.

Re:But...?

[Bigjeff5]

If that is the case, why pull it when they got "caught"?

Ever heard of a thing called "PR"?

It's the bad press that made them pull it, not any legal issue. Egg on their faces. Thanks to the DMCA, which elimates any possible fair use DRM circumvention, Rockstar owns the rights to any cracks produced for any of their games. Period. They'd have to sue themselves to get into any legal trouble. Someone up top obviously had no idea that their underlings were being so lazy as to publish an unaltered cracked version of their game through steam, and freaked out when the news hit.

Re:But...?

[denmarkw00t]

Okay, a gauntlet maybe not, but a few computers running different OSes/OS versions, installed with The Latest And Greatest anti-virus/spyware/malware/younameit is about all you would need to at least have SOME QA assurance. If McAfee throws a fit, it'd probably stop them from pursing the release of the crack anymore. Probably. Or not. They released a goddamn cracked game to begin with, so, who knows...but I do know that having some form of CYA is a Best Practice to most people who like their jobs.

Re:But...?

[Racemaniac]

depends on what you consider in what has been changed.
If you consider the entire game, you're quite right.
If you look solely at the exe, it has had a fundamental change: not needing the disc, which is a significant part of that exe alone. All the exe does is load all the other data that gets installed. It doesn't contain the game, it loads it, and that functionality hasn't been changed indeed. However, not needing a disc is an imo significat change to the exe itself, and noticable by the user. If it's creative, i dunno ^^.
But i find dragging the entire game into this, which is content that's not in the exe, taking it a bit broad...

If i were to make my own port of the game, another exe, that i wrote completely by myself, loads all the datafiles from the game, and works identical from the original game. Wouldn't i own the copyright to that exe? can't i freely distribute that exe? i can't distribute the content it needs to be functional, but the exe is mine i think? so when considering if the crack is just a minor change or not, i'd say you can only look at the file that was changed, not at the entire game, that's just unfair...

Re:But...?

[CAIMLAS]

You, sir, have entirely too much faith in your fellow man and human nature in general.

Human nature is to do the easy, quick thing that gets desirable results. It's only the pedantic and slightly OCD geek who does otherwise.

(Thank God for the pedantic, OCD geek, or nothing would ever be done right.)

Re:But...?

[natehoy]

I know, and agree. I was going for +5 funny. No one was more surprised than myself to see an "insightful" tag on there. :)

Re:But...?

[BikeHelmet]

It's far more likely they ran some antivirus scans and set it loose.

Remember, this is Rockstar that we're talking about.

Re:But...?

[quantumplacet]

i don't think fair use is that relevant here. fair use allows you to use someone else's copyrighted materials, but it does not a grant you a new copyright on what you create when you do. even if the DMCA never existed, and myth's crack was considered fair use, it still wouldn't grant them a copyright to it with which they could sue rockstar for violating, it would only protect them from being sued by rockstar.

Re:But...?

[dcollins]

Not a chance that that happened.

Re:Pirates! Yarrr!

[Improv]

I think they confused "booty" with "boot sectarrrrrrrr"

I can see the headlines...

[thechemic]

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

Re:I can see the headlines...

[beefnog]

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

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

Re:I can see the headlines...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the EFF stepped in...

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

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

Re:I can see the headlines...

[Runaway1956]

Uh-huh - sure it was fun.

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

Re:I can see the headlines...

[mx_mx_mx]

In soviet russia pirates sue you!

Sorry can't resist

Re:I can see the headlines...

[Bigjeff5]

Except thanks to the DMCA, the cracks are not fair use derivatives, and since all derivatives that are not fair use are owned by the original copyright owner, the pirates would be laughed out of court, then get their ass sued because they just presented a ton of evidence that yes, they were the ones who illegally cracked that software.

Who is that stupid?

Re:I can see the headlines...

[godrik]

If it happens, I think I might contribute to paying the pirate's lawyers!

Re:I can see the headlines...

[silverglade00]

In F'ing Soviet Russia, EFF F'ing Fs YOU!

Re:I can see the headlines...

[Alsee]

since all derivatives that are not fair use are owned by the original copyright owner

That is wrong, or at best it's oversimplified to the point of being misleading.

Copyright law is often bizarre and complicated, but this part of the law is pretty simple. Every author owns the copyright to whatever they write or create. A derivative work contains content from multiple authors, and each author holds the the rights to their own portions. A derivative work with multiple authors cannot be copied or redistributed unless you have permission from ALL of the rightsholders.

The Myth group would (and presumably did) infringe Rockstar's copyright by distributing the combined work. Rockstar would (and presumably is) violating the Myth member's copyright by distributing the combined work.

Unless Rockstar actually signed some legal agreement with the crack creators, there is no real doubt that this is copyright infringement and that the Myth people could step forward and sue. There is little doubt that the Myth people could get an immediate court injunction prohibiting any further distribution of their work (shutting down sales), and in addition the two sides could sue each other for damages.

In fact Rockstar could quite easily wind up on the massively losing side of the situation. Rockstar's infringement is indisputably commercial-infringement-for-financial-gain and falls under criminal copyright infringement statutes. Depending on the circumstances Myth might easily avoid the financial-gain statutes and stay under purely civil infringement. And again depending on circumstances, it is at least conceivable that Myth could cite Steam sale numbers to establish the larger actual damages. Myth could, at least conceivably, wind up winning the larger award in a lawsuit crossfire.

In general Rockstar has far more to lose. This was an incredibly STUPID move unless Rockstar actually licensed the crack from Myth. And even if they did license it would still be incredibly stupid just for the public relations disaster of it. Stupid stupid stupid stooooopid.

The one thing that might seriously threaten the Myth side is that they might get nailed under the criminal circumvention DMCA provisions. That can mean up to five years in prison, however in the 12 years the law has been on the books it has never once been successfully used in court. And the five year maximum DMCA sentence happens to be the exact same five year maximum that the Rockstar side could face with under the commercial criminal copyright infringement statutes.

Both sides are legally wrong (unless the crack was licensed), but the company probably has more to lose. If Myth were to step forward Rockstar would have to chose between the better business decision of coming to a settlement with Myth or taking a principled but bad-business stand against the evilz piratez. The very first thing that would happen in a fight is that a court would issue an injunction shutting down sales.

Personally, watching such a situation play out would be most entertaining. It would certainly provide a windfall for Slashdot page views :) I bet Groklaw would enjoy a similar surge :)

-

Re:Pirates! Yarrr!

[CorporateSuit]

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

Re:Pirates! Yarrr!

[clone53421]

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

I wonder

[Korey Kaczor]

If the pirates can use the DMCA against rockstar?

Re:I wonder

[nj_peeps]

If their work is truly Copyrighted then the might have a case, if they can get the legal muscle to combat Rockstar.

Re:I wonder

[element-o.p.]

As I understand copyright law (being a layman, and neither employed in nor pretending to offer advice in the legal realm), a work is truly copyrighted the moment you create it. The first tricky detail is proving that you created it if someone else attempts to distribute it or copy it. The second important detail is finding the legal muscle to represent you against someone attempting to distribute or copy your work if you didn't bother to register it, since AFAIK, the law only allows you to sue to recover damages you suffered when someone else began distributing and/or copying your work. If you create a work, then distribute it freely, it's kind of hard to claim that you suffered damages when someone else begins doing the same thing.

OK, but

[hduff]

Did they remove the rootkit?

Re:OK, but

[Simulant]

The myth that cracked software = malware needs to die. It is simply untrue. Cracked software is no more susceptible or infected than legit software. Crackers =! malware authors. They have no incentive to include malware in their cracks.

Re:OK, but

[UnrefinedLayman]

The cracking and warez scene is not done for money, it's done for fame and respect. There are strict rules and levels of vetting done for pirated software as it makes its way through the system to end-users. Including malware in a crack is a death penalty for any group; their stuff will never be accepted again by site operators, and it would make it to a tiny segment of the population even if it weren't noticed.

Just about any other attack vector for malware, specifically rootkits, will have so much better penetration than a game crack that it's essentially a waste of time to a) crack the game so it works without the DRM (and yes, other crackers can figure out what you did to crack it), b) write undetectable malware to include in it, c) build a reputation good enough to allow the release of the crack, d) get your crack done and out the door before anyone else so yours doesn't get nuked, and e) harness the very few people who will receive the crack.

Keep in mind that a, b, c and d can all be undone by a single person in the distribution chain nuking your release because it's suspect or was released five minutes after someone else's working crack.

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about but LET'S ALL HOP ABOARD THE INSIGHTFUL TRAIN HERPA DERPA DERP.

Re:OK, but

[KiloByte]

And usually, it's the UNCRACKED software that includes a rootkit these days.

Re:OK, but

[edxwelch]

Tell that to the anti-virus companies, all of which identify cracks as viruses.

Re:OK, but

[silverglade00]

I have not to my knowledge ever been infected by a crack, and I mostly agree with you. I think they do have incentive, though. If they crack a popular game and their crack gets distributed to 100,000 people, they have a decent botnet to sell if they include malware. They can at least make enough to buy the team new laptops.

Re:OK, but

[Anonymous Coward]

so your saying software cracking is peer reviewed

Re:OK, but

[Rigrig]

No, they only made the game run without CD.

Re:OK, but

[BikeHelmet]

While true, I doubt they put much effort into ensuring that's the case.

Re:OK, but

[brit74]

How many keygens contain malware? How many times have people downloaded movies to suddenly discover that the movie only plays in a "special exe-based player". Do we really need to revisit the iWork-crack botnet example? People who are trying to steal people's data online have a huge incentive to pay crackers to crack software and infect it with Malware. They have "no incentive to include malware in their cracks"? Yeah, right.

First Mac Botnet Stems From iWork, Photoshop Trojans
http://www.crn.com/security/216700006

iWork Trojan reappears in Photoshop CS4 crack
http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/core-dump/22865-iwork-trojan-reappears-in-photoshop-cs4-crack

Re:OK, but

[euxneks]

The myth that cracked software = malware needs to die. It is simply untrue. Cracked software is no more susceptible or infected than legit software. Crackers =! malware authors. They have no incentive to include malware in their cracks.

Counterpoint: the recent iWorks suite that went around the torrent sites: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/22/mac_trojan_attack/ Crackers have as much incentive to crack machines as anyone does - which is to say, a lot. If you control a botnet you can get a pretty penny from some nefarious characters.

Re:OK, but

[geminidomino]

The myth that cracked software = malware needs to die. It is simply untrue. Cracked software is no more susceptible or infected than legit software. Crackers =! malware authors. They have no incentive to include malware in their cracks.

While your initial premise is certainly true, it's also true that there are many unscrupulous individuals out there who have no problems taking a "clean" cracked exe, adding their own malware to it, then sending it around as the cracked version of the game. Since there's no simple repository to verify md5s of these "clean" cracks, the tubes very quickly get clogged with both clean and contaminated cracks. And it very quickly gets very difficult to know which is which.

It's not just the propaganda that is advancing that myth. It's also hypochondriac AV programs that flag any packed exe...

Re:OK, but

[complete loony]

The original crackers are honest and trustworthy for the most part. They feel they have a reputation to uphold among their peers.

However there are a number of unscrupulous people who will take one persons crack, re-brand it as their own and include malicious code. You should still be careful and wary of downloading and executing any old program claiming to be a crack off the internet.

Re:OK, but

[totally bogus dude]

To be pedantic, they rarely identify them as viruses (unless their heuristics are playing up, or it actually is infected). But they do normally flag known cracks under a special category. This makes sense because employees may bring in unlicensed software which the company employing them would be liable for. So flagging the cracks as viruses means the sysadmins can be alerted and helps them make sure there's no unlicensed software being used in the business.

Similarly most AV products detect things like nmap as being some kind of malware, so as to alert the people running the infrastructure that someone's got a network scanner on their system. It's not exactly foolproof and you wouldn't want to rely on it as your only line of defense, but it does make sense to include that kind of thing in an AV product.

Re:OK, but

[totally bogus dude]

A vanishingly small number of people receive cracks from the original creators. Most get it after it's passed through several people's hands, who have nothing to do with "the scene", and don't abide by its standards of ethics or excellence. That's where the malware comes from. Sometimes they'll be creative and embed their malware into part of the application or even the crack itself, but often they'll just package it with it and ensure it gets run through other means (e.g. hijack the autorun to run their malware as well as the installer).

This provides an easy avenue for infecting people: you download a good crack or release, add some malware, and re-upload it. Nobody's going to come after you for adding the malware, since the stuff you're corrupting is illegal anyway, and the actual creator of the product won't really care either (since malware decreases the value of warez). So it's easy to do, costs very little, potentially reaches a lot of people, can be done completely anonymously, and law enforcement will almost universally not give a shit anyway. Pretty much perfect for people who want to spread malware.

Just like hot coffee.

[Higaran]

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

Expediency

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Using a cracked version is expedient, and clever.

Re:Expediency

[RichardJenkins]

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

Re:Expediency

[TubeSteak]

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

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

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

Re:Expediency

[Stiletto]

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

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

Re:Expediency

[The MAZZTer]

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

Re:Expediency

[jimicus]

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

Re:Expediency

[jimicus]

Erm... I'm afraid they do, actually.

Well, bits themselves don't rot, but the hardware that runs them certainly does. PSUs fail, hard disk motors seize up, motherboards start inexplicably misbehaving. The only reason it's not a huge problem for Windows shops right now is that XP has been available for an unusually long time, otherwise I could genuinely ask "can you get drivers for modern hardware to run on the version of Windows you were running 7 years ago?" and there's a good chance you'd have to think very carefully before answering. I wouldn't bank on that being a silly question in a few years time.

Re:Expediency

[TheThiefMaster]

I would be amazed if they didn't have a DRM-less executable around from before it was sent to the publisher (who is usually who adds the DRM, btw).

Re:Expediency

[h4rr4r]

Sounds like shitty code. How would you need a 7 year old OS and build environment unless they really tried to make it that environment dependent.

Re:Expediency

[WNight]

But this just makes the hypocrisy all the more palpable.

Right. I bet if you sent a letter to their tech support about trying to get one of their old games working, with the symptoms of DRM failure, that they'd brush you off before telling you to download a crack.

I've had this discussion with Blizzard. Their DRM didn't like my CD-RW (just that it was a CD-RW) and they told me to go get a CD drive. I asked them to send me a dev build without the obvious broken check - even with my name in it - and they wouldn't. They claimed it was impossible to remove. I sent them a link to the crack and asked again. They read me the riot act about piracy, ignoring the fact that had I been using a pirated copy I wouldn't have had DRM trouble, and that I was asking them for another way...

Re:Expediency

[ShakaUVM]

I've had this discussion with Blizzard. Their DRM didn't like my CD-RW (just that it was a CD-RW) and they told me to go get a CD drive. I asked them to send me a dev build without the obvious broken check - even with my name in it - and they wouldn't. They claimed it was impossible to remove. I sent them a link to the crack and asked again. They read me the riot act about piracy, ignoring the fact that had I been using a pirated copy I wouldn't have had DRM trouble, and that I was asking them for another way...

That's wrong like three different ways... and yet it's exactly how I'd expect a large company to behave.

Re:Expediency

[ShakaUVM]

>>I wouldn't bank on that being a silly question in a few years time.

You can pry XP out of my cold, dark, pudgy hands.

If it was possible to get Windows 7 with the XP UI, I'd switch, but even when you make all the adjustments you can, the inherent stupidity of the Vista and Win7 UI shines through.

Re:Expediency

[Kaboom13]

In related news, ShakaUVM is upset about the kids on his lawn, music these days, and how television never has the shows he likes anymore.

Re:Expediency

[Kegetys]

This also brings into question the typical promises from publishers that if their DRM servers were to go offline some day then they would release a DRM-free patch for their games. Even if the company would still be standing to do that, would they still have the necessary assets to make such a patch?

If Max Payne 2 would have used some form of "uncrackable" DRM and would never have been cracked, would Rockstar have been able to release the game at all for resale in Steam? Would have been funny if they would have been blocked by their own copyprotection.

Re:Expediency

[ShakaUVM]

>>In related news, ShakaUVM is upset about the kids on his lawn, music these days, and how television never has the shows he likes anymore.

Oddly enough, you're right about the second two, but the neighborhood kids are pretty nice.

Except when they get too noisy. Then I throw things at them.

Re:Expediency

[Waccoon]

So... they had no internal build of the game without the DRM?

Is that smart?

Re:Expediency

[shird]

It's not that easy at all. They use virtual machines, encryption, parts of the game resources encoded on invalid sectors on the game disk etc etc. Some of the copyright protections have taken months to crack by experts at machine level debugging, and still haven't been done correctly. The guys writing the games are just good high level language programmers, artists and game-engine-re-users... hardly device driver debugger experts.

Re:Expediency

[petermgreen]

Lukilly we have vmware, IIRC they still support 9x so I'd be very surprised if they dropped support for XP any time soon.

An Easier Route

[eldavojohn]

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

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

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

Re:An Easier Route

[maxume]

Must? 0.

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

Re:An Easier Route

[RealRav]

If the crackers didn't distribute it how did RockStar get it.

Re:An Easier Route

[fulldecent]

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

Zero.

That was easy.

Re:An Easier Route

[WNight]

Assuming he likes playing Contra, the best situation would be simply to do what he wants, crack/emulate and play it, and not pay Nintendo more.

To accept Nintendo's crazy interpretation (who cares if it matches the courts', it doesn't match the people's views) is to let the lawyers win.

This assumes he's talking about the old version, not some new game only sharing the name.

Re:An Easier Route

[mikeage]

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

Zero.

You're welcome to play it on your NES as much as you want, for as long as you want, for that same $40.

Re:An Easier Route

[Bigjeff5]

So the people who cracked it might have a claim that they cracked these games for their own archival purpose after Max Payne left stores and did not distribute them.

Except Rockstar is obviously still selling Max Payne.

Dumbass.

Re:An Easier Route

[mr exploiter]

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

I think you're confused. Most hacker groups actually enjoys games and encourage to buy the originals if you like them after testing the warez version. I don't think they're going to be interested in suing a game vendor.

Re:An Easier Route

[BikeHelmet]

At least some games aren't the exact same game, which makes them worth the price.

Others... not so much.

When you break it down, this isn't news.

[jacks smirking reven]

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

Re:When you break it down, this isn't news.

[Lemmy Caution]

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

Re:When you break it down, this isn't news.

[jacks smirking reven]

Sort of yeah, but I think it's more an acknowledgement that "Crackers are smart dudes, and they wrote a piece of code that accomplishes an objective as good as anything we might write ourselves". Now whether you agree with that objective is another story.

Re:When you break it down, this isn't news.

[tophermeyer]

Makes perfect sense to me. If your goal is to remove the DRM from your old piece of software, why would you waste the time trying to figure it out yourself when you can just reach out and grab some patch that you know will work.

People that hate DRM and support piracy are looking at this and finding it amusing. Just remember that the fact that this crack worked so well means that Rockstar was able to easily move Max Payne 2 onto the Steam DRM/Delivery system. That pirates code helped make Rockstar more money (from one limited perspective).

Re:When you break it down, this isn't news.

[godrik]

The current headlinesounds has funny to me as "director of the RIAA goes to jail for illegal movie download".

Re:When you break it down, this isn't news.

[Bigjeff5]

It makes Rockstar look foolish, but the fact is Rockstar owns the rights to the cracks because it owns the rights to any non-fair use derivative of their product. That's the part a lot of people are missing.

It is a little mind boggling that they didn't at least clean it up a bit, I mean, that is some serious laziness.

Re:When you break it down, this isn't news.

[euxneks]

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.

Heck, if you remove all nouns it's just "take from else and use for own" and we all know that's not news ;)

Re:When you break it down, this isn't news.

[Alsee]

the fact is Rockstar owns the rights to the cracks because it owns the rights to any non-fair use derivative of their product

That is legally false. Rockstar does have the right to prohibit the reproduction and distribution of the derivative work because it contains their copyrighted code, but the new crack code is also copyrighted, and that copyright is owned by the crack authors. The law does NOT transfer ownership of that crack copyright to Rockstar. The law does not grant Rockstar any rights at all to copy or distributed that copyrighted code.

I can make it completely obvious by involving three people instead of two. Microsoft owns the copyright to their operating system. Apple owns the copyright to their operating system. Now lets say I'm cracking the piracy protections on the latest release of Windows. And in the process I discover that there's already a file in the Apple operating system that happens to do exactly what I need. So I just grab the windows code and I just drop in the Apple file which just so happens to work as a crack. I then distribute this cracked version of windows. Under your reasoning, you just said that Microsoft magically gains some legal right to copy and redistribute APPLE'S copyrighted code. No, Microsoft does not gain any rights to the derivative work just because I committed copyright infringement. It does not matter whether Apple owned the copyright to the crack or if I wrote it myself. The law doesn't grant Microsoft (or Rockstar) any rights to the crack code.

The only way this is legal is if Rockstar obtained a license to use the crack code. And that would probably be an even bigger even more embarrassing and more amusing story. "Rockstar steals crack code" is bad, but "Rockstar pays teh evilz piratez to license crack code" is a total howler.

-

Copyright infringement on the crack

[harl]

This is clearly copyright infringement.

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

Re:Copyright infringement on the crack

[sitkill]

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

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

Re:Copyright infringement on the crack

[sitkill]

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

Re:Copyright infringement on the crack

[nj_peeps]

The group isn't even around anymore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_(warez) and I somehow doubt that they copyrighted their "product"

also if you read the wiki page, the crack was removed today too.

Re:Copyright infringement on the crack

[harl]

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

Re:Copyright infringement on the crack

[Nadaka]

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

Re:Copyright infringement on the crack

[Bigjeff5]

This is clearly copyright infringement.

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

You do realize that the original copyright holder also holds the copyrights to any non fair-use derivatives, right?

You also realize that, thanks to the DMCA, no video game crack, regardless of how it is delivered, can ever be fair use, right?

Therefore, Rockstar owns the copyright to the cracks, and the only people who could sue them for it is themselves.

Now that would be one interesting court case!

Re:Copyright infringement on the crack

[harl]

I disagree that Rockstar holds the copyright to the crack.

I do agree that the cracks are likely illegal if produced after the DMCA went into effect. But then again gummi bears and sharpies are both illegal circumvention devices under the DMCA.

Which leads to an interesting situation where their illegal code is being illegally.

Re:Copyright infringement on the crack

[harl]

Which leads to an interesting situation where their illegal code is being illegally used.

Awesome

[Andorin]

This will be great for my download/upload ratio!

Re:Pirates should sue for IP infringement

[BitZtream]

Actaully, it probably would work.

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

That ruins the usual argument ...

[MartinSchou]

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.

Re:That ruins the usual argument ...

[rundgong]

I'd say that argument is still valid.
Obviously not ALL cracked games contain root kits and malware, but surely some of them do.

The problem is knowing what version is safe and which is not. The average gamer does not have the expertise to know this for sure (unless you have a trusted source of your game). Someone at Rockstar will surely have the knowledge to judge if a crack is safe or not.

Re:That ruins the usual argument ...

[Bigjeff5]

That's why the argument should be that cracking software is illegal, which it is.

This just makes Rockstar look like dumbasses. Thanks to the DMCA and the way copyright law works, though, Rockstar actually owns the copyrights to all the cracks made for their games. They are totally in the clear legally. It's funny how that works.

more obvious explanation

[SEAL]

One of the Rockstar coders was a member of Myth.

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

Re:more obvious explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the Rockstar coders was a member of Myth.

That was my very first thought. It's entirely possible that the original crack was someone from Rockstar who compiled a version of the executable without the DRM crap included. Throw in a Myth header and job done. 10 years later when it comes time to release it on Steam, they just pull up the no-DRM version (possibly not even realizing that it's labeled as Myth's) and send it off for release.

Waste not, want not....

[aapold]

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

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

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

Re:Waste not, want not....

[Gulthek]

JMS admitted it more openly than that:

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

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

Re:Waste not, want not....

[jollyreaper]

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

Here's an even better story. The original digital models for all the CGI assets in the show were lost between production shutting down and the new direct-to-video episodes being produced. The production team went to those fans for the models for use in the new footage -- models that were even more detailed than what was used in the original show! Ain't technology grand?

Re:Pirates! Yarrr!

[maxume]

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

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

Pissing of publishers everywhere

[coolsnowmen]

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

Rockstar engaging in copyright infringement?

[kimvette]

Wait a second, hold on here!

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

Re:Rockstar engaging in copyright infringement?

[canajin56]

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.

DRM is bad even for the companies that use it!

[_bug_]

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

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

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

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

HEY now

[Arancaytar]

The pirates spent time and effort on cracking that. The company should reimburse them! :P

Re:Pirates! Yarrr!

[lgw]

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

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

That's probably what the update was for

[kalirion]

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

Obligatory

[SmlFreshwaterBuffalo]

Release the kraken!

That is wrong

[pavon]

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

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

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

Re:That is wrong

[quantumplacet]

and you're confusing the terms of the specific GPL license with actual copyright law. I will admit my explanation was oversimplified, but yours is basically wrong. myth's work on the code was almost certainly an unauthorized derivative work since it would fail to meet the necessary originality requirements. as such, no copyright is attached, and technically yes, anyone could release myth's code, but since the actual executable file contains rockstars code and myths code intermingled in a way that they can only really be released together, rockstar would be the only one legally allowed to distribute it.

Re:That is wrong

[Alsee]

fail to meet the necessary originality requirements. as such, no copyright is attached

Copyright places a very low creative authorship threshold for a valid copyright to exist. A programmer who authors any meaningful chunk of code will sail a million miles above that threshold. A copyright will exist and he will be the owner of that copyright.

The courts have ruled that someone who preforms fairly modest creative formatting and layout on a copyrighted work (or on a public domain work, or on uncopyrightable facts) does obtain a copyright for his creative authorship of that formatting and layout. The law is very aggressive in issuing copyrights to anyone who does anything involving any creativity. The crack authors absolutely own the copyright on the chunk of code that they authored.

-

Re:That is wrong

[Alsee]

The crackers job is to remove that decryption layer and CD dependency, essentially restoring the exe file back to what the devs originally gave to the publisher. So in the end, a properly cracked exe looks just like what the devs wrote. Therefore, there's no extra code added by the crackers to claim copyright on.

In theory that is possible. However in reality it is never true. A crack usually adds code to make it work. And even if a crack managed not to add any code, and even in the simplest case, it is astronomically improbable that the final cracked version will be identical to the pre-DRM software. That wouldn't happen unless a specific program were created to reversibly add/remove that DRM system. The DRM-company itself might create such a thing, but that is a million miles away from how independent cracks work. The cracked software will almost inevitably be a novel form. The law is very aggressive in granting copyrights to anyone creates anything novel. The final program can only be legally distributed with the permission of all copyrights involved, both the game copyright holders and the crack copyright holders.

And in any case we know for a fact that doesn't apply here. The article linked to screenshots showing the elaborate Myth logo embedded into the executables. Even without looking at the code we already see that, at minimum, this copyrighted work of the crack authors is in fact copied in the software that Rockstar is distributing. Q.E.D.

-

more proof pirates are providing a better product

[Dan667]

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

Unclean hands

[tepples]

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

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

Re:Unclean hands

[Nadaka]

That may quash a civil suit, but it won't matter if there is a criminal charge (and in this case, criminal charges may be warranted).

Re:Unclean hands

[Bigjeff5]

Rockstar owns the rights to the game, and since they had to break the law to produce the crack (via the DMCA), I think you'd be hard pressed to show that what the crackers did was "fair use" and therefore copyrightable themselves.

In other words, you don't get to claim copyright for stuff you violated copyright law to produce. The idea is absurd.

Re:Unclean hands

[Nadaka]

Fair use has nothing to do with this.

Violating the DMCA to crack DRM is a separate offense and not a copyright violation in itself.

The game and the crack are separate copyrighted entities. The idea isn't absurd. But it may depend on just how the crack was distributed. Was the crack distributed separate from the game? If no, then you might be able to argue that the crack as it exists is a derivative work. If yes, then you can not make that argument.

Re:Unclean hands

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Was the crack distributed separate from the game? If no, then you might be able to argue that the crack as it exists is a derivative work. If yes, then you can not make that argument.

The crack is clearly a derivative work either way. A derivative work need not include the exact code of the original work. Game mods are derivative works, for instance.

Re:Unclean hands

[Rexel99]

This may depend on the country that the crack was produced. It is possible that in certain locations, the crack or cracking/modification of the original items was not in itself illegal. In Australia chipping a game console is quite legal, but obtaining illegal copies is not. In this sense copying a game chip and it's propriety content would be illegal, even if it was re-distributed back into countries where the act itself was illegal. So (and people are skirting around it here, but to state it obviously)... Are Rockstar illegally distributing software produced quite legally? I will add one other scenario, you can claim a legitimate tax deduction for lost profits of illicit income. In that, if your drug money was stolen you can claim a tax deduction because of course, you were paying tax on your income and properly informing the government about this in the first place right?

Re:Unclean hands

[Myopic]

criminal charges for who? for what? can copyright infringement ever be prosecuted as a crime? i actually don't know the answer to that so it's an honest question.

Re:Unclean hands

[rakslice]

can copyright infringement ever be prosecuted as a crime?

Yes, at least in the United States. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act

Re:Unclean hands

[rockspider]

For some reason i'm prompted to make a quick legal correction. The doctrine of unclean hands applies to equitable remedies. Most likely the crackers would sue for damages under a copyright act e.g.DMCA. Damages are not an equitable remedy. The doctrine on unclean hands would not apply.

Re:Unclean hands

[KDR_11k]

In other words, you don't get to claim copyright for stuff you violated copyright law to produce. The idea is absurd.

No, it's not absurd. Take a more benign example: Fan art. That stuff is infringing on copyright (most companies don't have an explicit fan art license) but it's still copyrighted by whoever wrote it. The end result has a composite copyright where the original characters or whatever was used are owned by the company and the concrete implementation by the fan. The fan could be sued for copyright infringement (in practice that's rare) but the company that made the base IP doesn't get sole rights to the fan art either, if they take it and use it as their own the fan has a legal claim against them (again it's unlikely that the fan would sue but it's possible). In order to reproduce that fan art legally both the original IP owner and the fan would have to agree to allow that copy.

Now a crack may be shaky not because it's illegal but because it could be argued to include no creative content. With old C-64 era cracked versions that come with intros that show off some pretty effects and music it would be pretty clear that the cracker would own the copyright to the crack intro but simply removing a CD check may not be enough.

Re:Unclean hands

[tepples]

Most likely the crackers would sue for damages under a copyright act e.g.DMCA.

And most likely the crackers would have their asses handed to them in counter-suit under the same Title 17.

Re:Unclean hands

[JTsyo]

When was the crack copyrighted? I think the point is moot.

Re:Unclean hands

[Nadaka]

Everything is copyrighted as soon as it is distributed, automatically without any other action required.

Re:Unclean hands

[JTsyo]

even though it's through unofficial channels? How would they keep track of it?

Re:Unclean hands

[tepples]

Copyright comes into existence once a work is fixed. But the author has to register this copyright before filing an infringement lawsuit, and a copyright owner can't collect RIAA-scale damages unless the work was registered before the infringement or within three months after first publication.

Re:Unclean hands

[rockspider]

Yes, of course there are lots of practical reasons why a case like this would probably never happen or go badly for the plaintiffs. I'm just saying that 'unclean hands' wouldn't apply because it's not an equitable remedy.

Re:Pirates! Yarrr!

[stonewallred]

Eh, it ain't a jar of jelly. Not going to run out.

Re:Pirates! Yarrr!

[Jaysyn]

[EDIT]

Not anymore!

17 USC 103: Infringing works aren't copyrightable

[tepples]

US law states: "protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully."

Re:Pirates! Yarrr!

[clone53421]

I rape a man's wife but leave her alive

...well, mentally traumatized by the memories and exposed to myriad possibilities of STDs, but yes, alive.

A CDs memory is read-only, which means that its memories cannot be violated so, and any viral infections they contain had to originate in the original factory.

But still, it does have a nice ring to it.

Software rapist.

I could handle being called that.

Re:Pirates should sue for IP infringement

[offsides]

Actaully, it probably would work.

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

Actually, this is probably one case where someone NEEDs to do something about this, because it would highlight the absurdity of the entire system. Think about it:

1) Company A releases software product (in this case, a game) controlled by DRM measures.
2) Outside group B releases a software product (in this case, the crack) that allows people to circumvent the DRM - right now, this is probably protected under fair use for the people who developed it to use, but not for them to distribute.
3) Company A stops supporting product, and DRM effectively cripples it in some way for the people who legally purchased it (not sure if it was a CD or online protection scheme, but either way it's possible that people had legal copies installed that they couldn't play for one reason or another) - at this point, the crack becomes a way for people with legally purchased copies to use the software, and that goes a long way towards demonstrating non-infringing use.
4) Company A wants to sell the product again without the DRM, and uses the outside group's product to do so - this has one or more of 3 major implications that need to be addressed:
        a) Company A is illegally using group B's product and distributing it - if upheld, this would probably be the best result as it would set precedent that big media companies can be held liable for using other peoples' stuff improperly, and the floodgates might well open in the opposite direction as various groups started digging into the improper use of things by various companies.
        b) Group B's product is LEGAL, as Company A has officially sanctioned it, and no action can be taken against Group B - highly unlikely, but if it was upheld it would guarantee that companies would stop using cracks as the official DRM-removal system.
        c) Company A is allowed to use Group B's crack legally, but has to give them credit for it - this might make them think twice not only about using cracks to remove their own self-imposed DRM, but about using DRM in the first place.

In any case, this is a perfect test-case for the courts of both Law and Public Opinion. And even if Rockstar comes out on top legally, the publicity about what happened should help increase the whole public conversation about the pitfalls of DRM and its long-term difficulties...

Re:Pirates! Yarrr!

[clone53421]

So it all stems from a guy named Daniel Defoe misappropriating the word near the turn of the 18th century? What a vivid imagination that guy had. Didn’t he also write “Robinson Crusoe”?

~ ~ Yes, I realise it didn’t start with him. Amusingly, though, it was originally used metaphorically.

For instance... (from 1603)

Banish these Word-pirates, (you sacred mistresses of learning) into the gulfe of Barbarisme: doome them euerlastingly to liue among dunces: let them not once lick their lips at the Thespian bowle, but onely be glad (and thanke Apollo for it too) if hereafter (as hitherto they haue alwayes) they may quench their poeticall thirst with small beere.

A terrible metaphor, but it seems to have stuck.

Lawsuit

[spankey51]

It would be funny if the pirates in question took Rockstar to court for gainfully distributing their code without prior permission.

Re:Pirates! Yarrr!

[chronosan]

Pirates and privateers are similar but distinctly different. One group are thieves on the sea, and the others are thieves on the sea with permission from the king of one country to attack the vessels of another country.

That's copyright infringement!!

[Hurricane78]

Hey, writing a crack is not a crime. Using it might be.
The cracker team should sue Rockstar for copyright infringement. Especially since they are making money off of it! Just like those black market companies that sell illegal copies of DVD movies.
Let them taste their own shitstorm! YEAAH! :D

Re:That's copyright infringement!!

[Nadaka]

Yes writing a crack is a crime under the DMCA.
It is even if it is only to restore to the user his fair use and personal backup rights.
But it isn't copyright infringement.

Re:Pirates! Yarrr!

[Hurricane78]

Allright then. If you love so much to use terms that were specifically designed by a international mafia, to scaremonger people into a delusional and perverse reality, then you must also accept my preferred term for them:

Media reproduction, artist extortion and rape RAPE CHILD RAPE MURDER COCKSUCKER BLOOD TERRORIST HORROR NIGHTMARE DOOM SNUFF PORN ULTIMATE EVIL RAPE GIB SPLATTER BLOOD SPLAY FUCK FEST industry of INTERDIMENSIONAL APOCALYPSE! ;)

Post of the year!

[Benfea]

Thanks for making me laugh.

Q+A?

[antdude]

Why is there a plus in QA? Quality + Assurance?

Re:...Wow, seriously?

[Nadaka]

That would depend on the method of distribution. A cracked game is an Unauthorized derivative work. But the crack itself, if distributed separately, represents a separate work that falls under normal copyright laws. In that case, a cracked copy is an unauthorized derivative work of both the game and the crack.

Who will file the police report?

[tepples]

but it won't matter if there is a criminal charge

Who will file the police report? The warez group won't because that would open the warez group itself up to criminal charges.

Re:Pirates! Yarrr!

[CorporateSuit]

That probably won't stick, but MAFIAA certainly has.

its all coming together now

[nimbius]

this explains the hot coffee incident....rockstar is actually an anthropomorphism of somalia....

Authorization does matter

[pavon]

After quantumplanet contradicted my post below, I spent some more time researching to see who was right. I'm still not completely sure what the legality of this case is, but it does look like authorization is an important factor.

Copyright of derivative works is granted according to 17 USC 103:

(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.

Since the preparation of derivative works is one of the exclusive rights granted to copyright holders, the preparation of a derivative work without authorization is unlawful. Therefore even if the crack has sufficient original content, it still wouldn't qualify for copyright protection under section 103.

So assuming that the patch is a derivative work, neither Myth nor anyone else (including Rockstar) would hold copyright on the patch. Therefore, Rockstar could legally distribute the cracked version as they hold copyright on the original and there is no protection for the patch.

In this case only way that Myth could claim copyright is if part of the patch was unrelated to the game (so it wouldn't be a derivative work), and original enough to qualify for it's own copyright. For example, logos sometimes qualify for copyright (in addition to trademark), and Myth's logo is included in the cracked version.

Where I am confused (and plan on researching some more) is surrounding derivative works that don't contain the original. I am having a hard time finding any relevant case law on whether or not a patch that does not include the original is a derivative work. I also don't know whether third parties could legally distribute the patch, derivative work or not. Since the patch doesn't contain the original work, and the patch itself is not protected by copyright, no distribution of copyright covered work it taking place. I don't see anything in copyright code specifically prohibiting the distribution of derivative works.

Re:Authorization does matter

[quantumplacet]

first off dude, it's quantumplacet, not planet. second, i think you're still a little of on derivative works, and it is a bit of a murky area. you mention in your last sentence there "I don't see anything in copyright code specifically prohibiting the distribution of derivative works". That's not entirely true. Derivative works that are sufficiently original and transformative can actually qualify for their own copyright, and thus it would be illegal for the copyright holder of the original, or anyone else, to distribute it. however, the bar for a derivative work is quite a bit higher than the bar for an original work to claim copyright. as for the question of a derivative that does not contain any of the original work, i don't think there is any relevant case law since such a concept doesn't really make sense outside of the world of computers, but if it went to court I'm not sure how much it would matter. even if the patch contained none of the original code, it's still dependent on it, and thus still derivative, and I don't think it would qualify for copyright (ignoring of course the DCMA violation that would make the conversation moot to begin with).

Re:Authorization does matter

[Kjella]

In this case only way that Myth could claim copyright is if part of the patch was unrelated to the game (so it wouldn't be a derivative work)

Even though it serves no other purpose than to take an original work and transform it into a derived work, it is highly likely that the patch itself should qualify as its own creative work since it does things that weren't in the original. You could only claim it as a dervative if the original was "in" the patch itself, like say the original story is "in" a translation. Here only the combined work is derivative and copyright eligibility does not flow in reverse from the derivate to the original. For example the instruction to glue page 23 and 24 together is original even though the book with glued pages is derivative. The only question is if it qualifies for copyright at all, but the logo certainly should as it is a stylized picture.

Where I am confused (and plan on researching some more) is surrounding derivative works that don't contain the original. I am having a hard time finding any relevant case law on whether or not a patch that does not include the original is a derivative work. I also don't know whether third parties could legally distribute the patch, derivative work or not. Since the patch doesn't contain the original work, and the patch itself is not protected by copyright, no distribution of copyright covered work it taking place. I don't see anything in copyright code specifically prohibiting the distribution of derivative works.

In general, of course not. If so any patch written for an open source project would be "derived" of the project and the original author couldn't relicense his own code because it's someone else's derivate. There's been some unclarity on whether macros can make your derivative because they pull code defined in external files into your project, but that's an exception. To distribute a compilation or derived work you must fulfill all your license obligations from all the copyright holders, duh. They each hold their own copyright over it, for example for damages each of them can sue not just the one who made the compilation.

Re:Authorization does matter

[Alsee]

You read the derivative works clause backwards. I'll walk it through step by step:

(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works

This says that derivative works are included in things-that-get-a-copyright.
Derivatives do get a copyright.
That copyright is owned by the author.
The cracker is the author here, he owns this copyright.

but protection for a work

The work here is the game+crack.
We are about to address the the "protection", the copyright, on this work...

employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists

The pre-existing material would be the original game.
So we're about to address the copyright on the game+crack, where the game is already copyrighted.

does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.

The game is the part being used unlawfully.

So we're talking about the the copyright on the game+crack, and it says this copyright does not extend to the crack author any rights over the unlawfully used game.

The crack author owns the copyright to his separate code. The crack author also owns the copyright on the game+code combination, but this obviously doesn't grant the cracker any right to reproduce or distribute the game portion.

Copyright is often complex and confusing but this part is actually very simple and very logical. When you have a work with multiple authors it is simple and obvious that you are going to need permission from ALL of the of the authors involved.

I have no idea why so many people seem to have so much (mistaken) certainty for this idea that the game authors somehow gain ownership of other people's code.

I am having a hard time finding any relevant case law on whether or not a patch that does not include the original is a derivative work.

That is an extremely messy legal situation. It is a gray zone of argument and interpretation. If you write a program that patches a specific location with a specific value then you're probably fine claiming it as an independent program. If you write a patch that gets substantially entangled with particular code of the program you're targeting then it probably will be considered a derivative work.

Several areas in copyright come down to human judgment, which pretty much means that if the judge thinks you're a good guy doing a good thing then the judge cuts you some slack. And if the judge thinks you're teh evilz person doing teh evilz stuffs that harm teh good people on the other side of the case, then you're probably screwed.

-

Re:Authorization does matter

[pavon]

first off dude, it's quantumplacet, not planet.

sorry

you mention in your last sentence there "I don't see anything in copyright code specifically prohibiting the distribution of derivative works". That's not entirely true. Derivative works that are sufficiently original and transformative can actually qualify for their own copyright, and thus it would be illegal for the copyright holder of the original, or anyone else, to distribute it.

Yes if it does qualify for copyright protection then it obviously gets the same protection as any copyrighted work. However, if it is an unauthorized work, it does not qualify for copyright, and there seems to be a gap in the law concerning distribution of these. Their creation is clearly infringing, but there is nothing to say that their distribution is an additional offense. So by a strict reading of the law (which isn't always the correct reading) it appears that it is perfectly legal for third parties to distribute patches. I'd imagine they could probably be charged with some sort of contributory infringement like the filesharing software creators, though(or the DMCA for patches that disable DRM).

however, the bar for a derivative work is quite a bit higher than the bar for an original work to claim copyright.

Actually, while I was reading, I found a case decision that disagrees with this: Schrock v. Learning Curve International. Unfortunately I couldn't find a copy of the actual decision outside of LEXIS but here is some commentary.

as for the question of a derivative that does not contain any of the original work, i don't think there is any relevant case law since such a concept doesn't really make sense outside of the world of computers

I can think of a few examples that don't relate to computers. For example annotations are specifically mentioned as something that can be considered a derivative works, but if you were to publish annotations that simply referenced a line and page number, I'm not sure whether that would be a derivative work or not. Ie where is the line between annotation and commentary. Also, I have seen alternative soundtracks made for movies back in the VHS days. It is true that the computer world is rife with these situations ranging from the fully authorized (plugins) to grey area (game mods, vague library licenses) to fully unauthorized (haxies aka binary patches). It is a shame that there is no related precedent to look at.

Re:Pirates should sue for IP infringement

[Bigjeff5]

Actaully, it probably would work.

Actually, no it wouldn't. It isn't even within the realm of possibility. The crackers have no copyrights to their cracks because of the very nature of their existance.

See, no matter how you look at it - separate patches, fully re-built executables, whatever - they are derivative works. In order to receive copyright on a derivative work, your usage of the original has qualify as fair use. Unfortunately, no cracks will ever be fair use because the DMCA specifically denies them fair use (a la DRM circumvention, it's why we hate it so much). So the crack for Max Payne 2, or any other video game crack for that matter, is never fair use and the crackers don't get to claim copyright for their work because the cracks are not fair use derivatives.

Following so far?

Furthermore, the original copyright extends to any derivatives by default, so when a derivative work does not fall under fair use, the original copyright holder automatically gets copyrights for the derivative, regardless of who actually created it.

In other words, Rockstar owns the copyrights to the cracks, because they could not by definition be fair use derivatives. The crackers don't have a case, and if they exposed themselves to sue not only do they get laughed out of court, they do a whole lot of the leg work for Rockstar should they ever want to pursue the crackers for copyright infringement. "Look, they just sued us for distributing their illegal crack of our software, for which the court ruled we own the copyright" would work extremely well for Rockstar in court, not so much for the crackers.

Rockstar is 100% in the clear, they just look foolish. It's a lose-lose for the pirateers, no matter how you look at it.

Re:Pirates! Yarrr!

[mister_playboy]

for hundreds of years:

That's the same sort of argument used to defend the Bible, and just as convincing.

Tell that to O.J. Simpon...

[keepper]

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

Tell that to O.J. Simpson... he's in jail for trying to steal back his own stuff ;)

Maybe its just me

[DWRECK18]

But, I was thinking, is it not possible that maybe someone from MYTH actually works at R* now??? Maybe not but still everyone is claiming hypocrisy and the like but why complain. They removed the DRM so that the software could be distributed via STEAM for people to play. If nothing else, they did people a service. I don't know but it just seams that this is a good thing as it proves to companies that DRM gets in the way of them making money and if those who are gonna get it some other way are going to do it regardless of DRM maybe the companies are finally learning. I know all this is doubtful but honestly I do feel like companies are starting to learn that the people who pay for games will always pay regardless and no matter what protection you put on a game, pirates are always going to crack it and distribute it for free.

Re:Pirates! Yarrr!

[maxume]

Do people often choose to defend the bible when referencing historical language use to point out that some modern use is not new?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Copyrape

[thijsh]

Rapists? Wouldn't the crime become: 'Copyrape' :-)

Copyrape - 1. the process of pirating copyrighted software as an act of defiance in the face of corporate tyranny.
"If you've been fucked over by the game industry, you can always copyrape their software to get even..."

Re:more proof pirates are providing a better produ

[Alsee]

Yes, because it's fairly easy to compete against people that redistribute your product for free.

Yes, because it's some much easier to compete when you use DRM to make the competition free and better!

Brilliant!

-

Re:Pirates! Yarrr!

[Alsee]

Software Pillagers, Murderers, Rapists, and Generally Really Bad People

Hmmmm..... that might not be so bad.
Are any of them Really Hot Chicks?

-

Re:17 USC 103: Infringing works aren't copyrightab

[Alsee]

You misinterpreted the meaning there. To avoid redundancy I'll link my post where I dissected the purpose of that clause for someone else.

-

Re:more proof pirates are providing a better produ

[Dan667]

price is clearly not the only differentiator or Linux would be the only operating system. All of the forced "you bought our product, but your a pirate" messages and trailers before you get to the actual movie and the DRM, which makes it a crap shoot if it will actually play makes you wonder what these movie companies are thinking. If they put up a bit torrent website and offered DRM free movies for $3 a download they would make huge money. The music industry did not implode when Amazon started offering DRM free mp3 songs.

Reminds me of...

[Skarekrow73]

...Ubisoft when they released a "fix" for the Direct2Drive version of Rainbow Six Vegas 2. http://www.kotaku.com.au/2008/07/did_ubisoft_fix_direct2drive_rainbow_six_vegas_2_using_a_crack/ Turns out it was a RELOADED crack. Their reason? The latest patch didn't work with the Direct2Drive version of the game.