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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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?

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: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:Pirates! Yarrr!

[clone53421]

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

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

[Anonymous Coward]

so your saying software cracking is peer reviewed

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

[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

[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.

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?

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: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.

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.

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: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: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!

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.