SH5 DRM

[Arclight]

I know Silent Hunter 5 has already been discussed in several threads, but I think 1 topic was left out: copy protection.

More and more heated discussions have been flaring up all over the web, criticizing the ever increasing invasive nature (like installing drivers) and ridiculous restraints (like limited number of installs) of copy-protection schemes. In particular SecuROM, Starforce and SafeDisc come to mind.

So, what do you think is acceptable, and what is crossing the line?



notes; - the poll is multiple choice -

option 6; an example of this would be a scheme that scans your system at installation of the game/software to check if you have programs such as PowerISO, DAEMON tools, MagicDisc or Alchol52/120 installed and aborts the setup because of this.

Just to clarify; This thread is in no way an attack on Ubisoft in general or the Silent Hunter dev teams in particular. I think Ubisoft has a very amiable disposition on this matter. They used StarForce in the past, but dropped it after a poll showed most people didn't agree with it. Even the SecuROM protection was patched out of SH4.

[Raptor1]

Drivers are unacceptable, but limited installs are really crossing the line

[Task Force]

Yes, as raptor said. When they install un wanted stuff thats unacceptable, But when they limit my installs That goes int to the Load Of S***(aka LOS) catagory.:shifty:

[SteamWake]

Got to agree DRM is a bad idea.

AFter all I 'bought' the game I dident rent it.

Other copy protections schemes are problematic as well. Right now Im struggeling with a re-install of Rail Simulator. Pretty sure its a copy protection problem.

Besides the protection schemes are usually 'cracked' before the games hit the shelves. It just gives the rats something to do.

[Arclight]

Boy, you 3 got your voice in before I could even post the poll. :rotfl:

Personally, I think the drivers are unacceptable as well, but I doubt we'll see the removal of those. Online activation is fine as long as data from the game is exchanged, but nothing else (no scans of my hardware/OS/software :stare: ). Limited installs are just ridiculous, even if you get 1 install "refunded" at uninstall.

[Rockin Robbins]

The bad thing is that copy protections so far used have done everything to punish the legitimate buyer of the software. The pirates are completely unaffected to the point that the honest customer may be tempted to obtain a pirated version of the software they have already purchased, but can't use because the "copy protection" system won't let them!

Copy protection is nothing but a scam. Before Silent Hunter 5 is released to the public, it will be cracked, unprotected and available for free in totally uninhibited form all over the Internet. Who do the copy protection companies think they are fooling? We buy the games because we support the publishers. We realize that without paying for the games there will be no more games.

The losers in the copy protection scam are the game companies, sold a false bill of goods by slimy gangsters like Sony and friends, whose copy protection schemes and means of defeating them are common knowledge. The game companies have been talked into such fear by these thugs that they willingly pay millions of dollars to punish their best customers for the crime of buying their games.

Other than that I have no opinion.:smug:

[Arclight]

Agreed wholeheartedly.

I remember buying Medieval 2 gold-edition and not being able to play because of Securom. Solution? Cracked .exe :nope:

I contacted Securom about it and they sent me another .exe, which fixed the issue, but it was really annoying (to say the least :shifty: ) not being able to play something I just payed good money for. :damn:

[Loud_Silence]

Anyone remembers those good times, when you only needed the disc to play the audio tracks?

[Rockin Robbins]

Well it happens too much of the time that the "protection" software protects the software from its legitimate purchasers, while the thieves are downloading unencumbered software for free. This costs the game companies money by discouraging sales. Unfortunately they drank the Kookaid Sony and others have served them.

Warning: this story for illustrative purposes only! Do not attempt any operations postulated in the next paragraph!

Just like the computer user who finds a message on the Internet that says "You have a gigantic hidden virus in the root directory of your hard drive. The name is pagefile.sys. Sometimes it spawns a Trojan called ntldr, with no extension (! That should be a warning sign right there), also hidden in the root directory. You need to follow the following procedure. Click Start and then run. Type "cmd" into the open window and press enter. Now type "attrib ntldr -s -h -r <enter>" Do the same for pagefile.sys. Now type "del pagefile.sys<enter>" and "del ntldr<enter>." Reboot your system and you'll be safe."

Guess what? The virus was YOU! You just rendered your system unbootable. In the same way the game companies have been talked into harming their sales and treating their good customers like dirt. It's not a crime, but perhaps it should be.

[Arclight]

Not a crime? Depends on how you look at it...

In some countries, there's such a thing as "fair use" (USA&UK, for example). Something generally considered as fair use is making a back-up copy of a disc for personal use. Most copy-protection prohibits you from doing so, thereby violating your rights. Yes, your rights, the very same stuff your forefathers fought so hard for to aquire. :lol: ;)Anyone remembers those good times, when you only needed the disc to play the audio tracks?Yes, the original Tomb Raider. Even worked with the Playstation version. But I think that has more to do with compression, or the lack of a need for it. CDs were still new tech and offered vastly more space then a stack of floppys, so there was no need to compress the data too much.Got to agree DRM is a bad idea.

AFter all I 'bought' the game I dident rent it.Another pickle.

Actually, when you buy a game, all you actually own is a polycarbonate disc with an aluminium layer and some chemicals. The contents remain property of the copyright holder, all you get is the right to use it. Apart from owning the disc, renting or buying is the same thing when it comes to software.

Apart from that, as a user nowadays, you have no rights anymore. They can do whatever the heck they want to you, including forcing "spyware-like" copy-protection on you.



*just to clarify; This thread is in no way an attack on Ubisoft in general or the Silent Hunter dev teams in particular. I think Ubisoft has a very amiable disposition on this matter. They used StarForce in the past, but dropped it after a poll showed most people didn't agree with it. Even the SecuROM protection was patched out of SH4.

[Orion2012]

In some cases game makers realise the problems users get from DRM, as was the case with Oblivion, it shipped without any copy protection or need of a CD-key.

As far as SH5 goes you can beat coming from UBI it will have some form of protection. Safedisk and securom are fine by me as the usually don't cause problems besides the occasional blacklisting of daemon tools, alcohol 120 or any rom mounting software, as long as UBI stays away from that damn starforce crap.

I have a copy of Prince of Persia the two thrones which will ONLY play if I unplug my drives, completely and uderly uncalled for.

Not a crime? Depends on how you look at it...

In some countries, there's such a thing as "fair use" (USA&UK, for example). Something generally considered as fair use is making a back-up copy of a disc for personal use. Most copy-protection prohibits you from doing so, thereby violating your rights. Yes, your rights, the very same stuff your forefathers fought so hard for to aquire.

Fair use is defined by the following in the United States Copyright Act. You would have a very hard time proving that a backup follows under its guidlines.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_17_of_the_United_States_Code) § 106 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html) and 17 U.S.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_17_of_the_United_States_Code) § 106A (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106A.html), the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Copyrights can be put in public domain 70 years after the original author's death. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#cite_note-0)

[Arclight]

In some cases game makers realise the problems users get from DRM, as was the case with Oblivion, it shipped without any copy protection or need of a CD-key.Ubisoft is such a case, they dropped StarForce and even patched SecuROM out of SH4. Bethesda on the other hand stated that the DRM for Fallout 3 would only make a simple disk-check, but instead it now turns out it also performs an invasive scan. :nope: Fair use is defined by the following in the United States Copyright Act. You would have a very hard time proving that a backup follows under its guidlines.True, but it depends on the court, really. Even going by those guidelines you can argue it is in fact fair use since the purpose is strictly for personal use, and that use is no different as it would be with the original. It is merely a backup in case the original is destroyed.

It's nature is then harmless, and the effect on the potential market is non-existent. The only problem is the fact that you are reproducing the entire work, meaning high substantiality.

[V.C. Sniper]

The only DRM I want is STEAM!!!

PUT IT FUTURE SHs ON STEAM PLZ!!!

[Arclight]

You're not gonna escape DRM, especially not with Steam; "Steam is a digital distribution, digital rights management, multiplayer and communications platform developed by Valve Corporation.". Steam implements it's own DRM.

Also "Steam collects and reports anonymous metrics of its usage, stability, and performance, all, with the exception of Valve's hardware survey, without notifying the user at the time of collection or offering an opt-out.". Sure, it's all anonymous, but that doesn't take away the fact it scans personal data.

Not to say it's a bad system. Much better IMO then having to deal with StarForce.

[Nisgeis]

Fair use is defined by the following in the United States Copyright Act. You would have a very hard time proving that a backup follows under its guidlines.True, but it depends on the court, really. Even going by those guidelines you can argue it is in fact fair use since the purpose is strictly for personal use, and that use is no different as it would be with the original. It is merely a backup in case the original is destroyed.
I think you are both confusing fair usage law, which applies to copyrighted content which you have not purchased, with fair dealing, which applies to material that you have paid for in some way.

You have the right to produce a backup copy for personal use of a computer game that you have paid for. However, attempting to defeat any mechanism put in place to stop a copy being created is an offence.

[Arclight]

I think you are both confusing fair usage law, which applies to copyrighted content which you have not purchased, with fair dealing, which applies to material that you have paid for in some way.I think you're right. I'm always confused when it comes to legal stuff. :lol: You have the right to produce a backup copy for personal use of a computer game that you have paid for. However, attempting to defeat any mechanism put in place to stop a copy being created is an offence.So putting copy-protection in place to stop you from making a legal back-up copy (which is your right) is not breaking the law? And claimig that right by circumventing a mechanism that is denying you that right is?

Talk about confusing, not to mention "unfair". :shifty:

[Orion2012]

I think you are both confusing fair usage law, which applies to copyrighted content which you have not purchased, with fair dealing, which applies to material that you have paid for in some way.I think you're right. I'm always confused when it comes to legal stuff. :lol:

Your right.

All I have to say on the subject of backups is, when done correctly should have no problems from security. It's when I can't install X software because I have certain software installed that I get heated. The company has no right to say I can't have it installed when they have no idea how its used.

[FIREWALL]

First off... Show me one link from UBI or it's Agents that says SILENT HUNTER 5.

The improved engine could be for anyone of their other Titles.

The one thing I'll bet on for sure is... It will come out in 3 different prices, 3 different ways, in 3 different places around the world.

If UBI doesn't do anything else right, they know how to market for the most possible gain.

Improved engine maybe but, why change the piracey protection ?

[Arclight]

Well, like I tried to point out in the notes in the first post and a little further down, I'm not targeting Ubisoft here, it's a general discussion. It would be nice if they took notice, sure... :D

Also, like I said earlier Ubi is doing just fine when it comes to DRM; they dropped StarForce because their customers diidn't approve of it and they even patched the Securom disc-check out of SH4. In fact, I wouldn't even object if they added online activation.All I have to say on the subject of backups is, when done correctly should have no problems from security. It's when I can't install X software because I have certain software installed that I get heated. The company has no right to say I can't have it installed when they have no idea how its used.Agreed, that's been one of the issues I encounterd as well. I even had an occasion where it wasn't working because Alcohol 120 was present, which is something you have to frickin pay for! Who are these guys to deny me the use of both a game and a program I paid for? Ridiculous. :nope:

Also, often Alcohol120 is the only program that can make a working back-up and you have to keep the program installed for that back-up to work. That's fine by itself, but the fact you have to buy the program means you're paying for your rights. Again, ridiculous. :nope: :damn: