View Full Version : Ubisoft ain't so Bad
FIREWALL
03-17-10, 07:30 PM
I clicked desktop icon for SH5 and it loaded up just fine.
Played saved career for a couple of hours and had to save and do some RL things.
Came back later and came right back to save and continued playing.
The funny thing is... I took SH5 back to BestBuy for full refund, days ago. :haha:
btw. It plays better now than it ever did. :har:
609_Avatar
03-17-10, 07:48 PM
Uh... shouldn't you have deleted the game then? Would be the right thing to do.
So ... you hated the game so much you had to return it? But you still spend hours with it?:woot: Good topic this.
Oh dear. :dead:
Everything is backwards.
Bilge_Rat
03-17-10, 07:59 PM
I love these guys that claim to hate a game and still spend hours playing it. I'm sure he will still find a reason to complain even though Ubi is letting him play for free.
I love these guys that claim to hate a game and still spend hours playing it. I'm sure he will still find a reason to complain even though Ubi is letting him play for free.
Well, I'll play anything if it's free.
But if I pay for £40 worth of game and I get £5 worth of bugs, I want a refund.
KING111
03-17-10, 08:20 PM
bloody hell i never thought of that
on line games no need for disk ??
buy them install them take them
back you can spend the same £35
over and over again
and have all original games :har::har:
FIREWALL: you might want to stop using your SH5 copy.
Eventually someone will buy your disk and try to use it.
Each disk had a unique ID.
When the new owner finds he/she can't use the game, they will contact
ubi support to get it sorted. Ubisoft will they check to see which profile is
using the game and your name will come up.
Or at least that is a possible scenario.
Although, who knows, perhaps you have found a genuine loop hole.
Either way, what you are doing is not very moral.
It may be accidental, but it is still fraud/theft.
Nafod81
03-17-10, 08:30 PM
Hence the reason software isn't returnable most places.
If I might ask what is with the ridiculously large fonts all the time?
jwilliams
03-17-10, 08:35 PM
As soon as Ubisoft realise. Your account will be banned and then you'll nolonger be able to play using that account. :yep:
GoldenRivet
03-17-10, 08:42 PM
Thats the funniest thing i have seen all day!
return the game, get full refund, play the SOB anyhow. :har::har::har::har:
i say we coin the phrase
"Pulled an Ubi" to convey something that failed on a biblical scale
"Doh! Looks like SH5's DRM pulled an Ubi!"
As soon as Ubisoft realise. Your account will be banned and then you'll nolonger be able to play using that account. :yep:
bets on how long this takes?
When the new owner finds he/she can't use the game
So... like normal then?
CaptainHaplo
03-17-10, 08:54 PM
Mein Gott!
You mean all these people have been complaining about draconian DRM - and it turns out you don't even have to be "renting" the game to play it...
If this is not proof to UBI of how big a FAIL the "online connection" DRM really is, nothing ever can be.....
I also have to say this has to be one of the funniest things I have read in the last week! Not that I morally approve mind you - but its funny regardless - and its not me doing it so I am not worried about it!:rotfl2:
Hence the reason software isn't returnable most places.
It's returnable all over the EU...
jwilliams
03-17-10, 09:01 PM
bets on how long this takes?
About that long :-
Eventually someone will buy your disk and try to use it.
Each disk had a unique ID.
When the new owner finds he/she can't use the game, they will contact
ubi support to get it sorted. Ubisoft will they check to see which profile is
using the game and your name will come up.
Which could be a very long time. LOL :haha:
I think the legal/moral thing to do, is remove the product from your HD if you return it.
Falls in the realms of copyright infringment? :hmmm:
So FIREWALL remember, you removed it from you HD.:yep:
P.S. You also might want to edit/delete you original post.
About that long :-
Which could be a very long time. LOL :haha:
I think the legal/moral thing to do, is remove the product from your HD if you return it.
Falls in the realms of copyright infringment? :hmmm:
So FIREWALL remember, you removed it from you HD.:yep:
Not sure why this guy isn't in the brig, not only did he declare he is stealing the game but he also has told everyone else how to do it.
I got banned once for saying much less.
Not sure why this guy isn't in the brig, not only did he declare he is stealing the game but he also has told everyone else how to do it.
I got banned once for saying much less.
Oh please. He just told us what happened when he clicked on his desktop icon.
Not sure why this guy isn't in the brig, not only did he declare he is stealing the game but he also has told everyone else how to do it.
I got banned once for saying much less.
This is not condoning piracy. This is exposing a loop-hole to DRM.
In Australia it is consumer rights to be able to return goods if not up to standard. EB Games no longer allows the return of games that require Online activation for this exact reason. This is illegal but they have no choice.
This just shows that the retailers get screwed along with the consumers by dodgy DRM.
The real victim will be poor Timmy who goes to best buys and purchases his game only to register and find that his CD key is already in use... poor Timmy :wah:
jwilliams
03-17-10, 09:20 PM
The real victim will be poor Timmy who goes to best buys and purchases his game only to register and find that his CD key is already in use... poor Timmy :wah:
I would guess that the store would have to return the `online activated` products direct to Ubisoft. Or atleast this is how it should be done. So that poor timmy doent have to find out that his key is already in use.
I dont know if this is how it's done. But it should be.:yep:
This is not condoning piracy. This is exposing a loop-hole to DRM.
In Australia it is consumer rights to be able to return goods if not up to standard. EB Games no longer allows the return of games that require Online activation for this exact reason. This is illegal but they have no choice.
This just shows that the retailers get screwed along with the consumers by dodgy DRM.
The real victim will be poor Timmy who goes to best buys and purchases his game only to register and find that his CD key is already in use... poor Timmy :wah:
DRM? What are you new to computers? This has nothing to do with DRM fool. Anyone can buy a game, copy it, bring it back to the store. Thats stealing. What this guy has done is reminded everyone how to do it, declared he did it and is still posting away with his sausage thumbs. Like I said, I got banned for 10 days for much less. Ban this old fart a few weeks and watch how he shakes. If the ignorant admins here cant see that and continue to let this jerk post his crap (its all he does), than this board is just as bad as the pieces of **** showing up here to rant about their problems.
DRM? What are you new to computers? This has nothing to do with DRM fool. Anyone can buy a game, copy it, bring it back to the store. Thats stealing. What this guy has done is reminded everyone how to do it, declared he did it and is still posting away with his sausage thumbs. Like I said, I got banned for 10 days for much less. Ban this old fart a few weeks and watch how he shakes. If the ignorant admins here cant see that and continue to let this jerk post his crap (its all he does), than this board is just as bad as the pieces of **** showing up here to rant about their problems.
What's a sausage thumb?
FIREWALL
03-17-10, 09:40 PM
I could respond in so many ways but, I won't.
As for little timmy getting it resold to him by BestBuy.
Somebodys smoking Wacky tobacky. :haha:
It will be returned to UBI and destroyed.
As for removeing it... I'll be sure to drop everything in my RL and jump right on it.:har::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:
Gee I hope I can sleep tonight. :har::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:
DRM? What are you new to computers? This has nothing to do with DRM fool. Anyone can buy a game, copy it, bring it back to the store. Thats stealing. What this guy has done is reminded everyone how to do it, declared he did it and is still posting away with his sausage thumbs. Like I said, I got banned for 10 days for much less. Ban this old fart a few weeks and watch how he shakes. If the ignorant admins here cant see that and continue to let this jerk post his crap (its all he does), than this board is just as bad as the pieces of **** showing up here to rant about their problems.
You should be banned again.
It actually has everything to do with DRM. It is the fact his SERIAL KEY is now linked to his UBI account that lets him play the game without the disk. He could even download an image, install and simply enter his account username and password to play.
Just because you were banned, doesn't mean you should demand others, that would simply be trolling. You aren't a troll are you?
And by the way, New to computers? I'm a silent service vet. I'm sure you've been a fan of the series long enough to know what that is.
I could respond in so many ways but, I won't.
As for little timmy getting it resold to him by BestBuy.
Somebodys smoking Wacky tobacky. :haha:
It will be returned to UBI and destroyed.
As for removeing it... I'll be sure to drop everything in my RL and jump right on it.:har::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:
Gee I hope I can sleep tonight. :har::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:
You really think the guy at Best buy will send it back to ubi? They'll simply put the box back on shelf.
Similar thing happened to me with X3 when it first came out. I took it back as it was unplayable on my rig due to star-force and two days later saw the same box on the shelf. (It was a little bit damaged.) X3 also requires online activation for special content.
Perhaps things have changed though and they have a process to handle returns.. x3 was when the online activation had just started...
jwilliams
03-17-10, 09:51 PM
I could respond in so many ways but, I won't.
As for little timmy getting it resold to him by BestBuy.
Somebodys smoking Wacky tobacky. :haha:
It will be returned to UBI and destroyed.
As for removeing it... I'll be sure to drop everything in my RL and jump right on it.:har::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:
Gee I hope I can sleep tonight. :har::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:
Well if you got a couple of hours to play and then can come back to your saved game later. doesnt sound like your RL is that busy. Do you have a RL ? :D
Im sure you wont be able to sleep..... gotta sink a few more ships in SH5 ? :03:
:arrgh!: Yearrrrr!!!!!
FIREWALL
03-17-10, 10:07 PM
You really think the guy at Best buy will send it back to ubi? They'll simply put the box back on shelf.
Similar thing happened to me with X3 when it first came out. I took it back as it was unplayable on my rig due to star-force and two days later saw the same box on the shelf. (It was a little bit damaged.) X3 also requires online activation for special content.
Perhaps things have changed though and they have a process to handle returns.. x3 was when the online activation had just started...
Since when did you start posting BS ?:haha:
Oh please. He just told us what happened when he clicked on his desktop icon.
Piracy: The illegal copying, distribution or use of software.
Sorry, but using software that was returned for a refund is piracy.
Since when did you start posting BS ?:haha:
It's been a long day :shifty:
sabretwo
03-17-10, 10:26 PM
Ban this old fart a few weeks and watch how he shakes. If the ignorant admins here cant see that and continue to let this jerk post his crap (its all he does), than this board is just as bad as the pieces of **** showing up here to rant about their problems.
Don't hold back now. Please tell us how you really feel. :o
I generally agree with FIREWALL on his sentiments regarding Sh5. However, with that said, I believe there is a moral and legal obligation to uninstall the game once its returned.
As for us "pieces of **** showing up here to rant about their problems", I guess that's the natrural counterpoint to all those "pieces of **** showing up here" on their knees in front of UBI's open zipper to defend DRM/OSP and SH5's broken features.
Amazing how this kind of antagonism brings out the best in folks. :DL
Fantasm
03-17-10, 10:39 PM
The returned game will be destroyed. Probably without even being checked. It's just not worth the effort to have some dude checking returned disk beyond the quantity of them.
I bet dozens of people if not hundreds are already doing it.
FIREWALL
03-18-10, 12:04 AM
OK Everybody lets play nice now. :DL
I was just as surprised to see it still played.
Will I uninstall it ? :hmm2: Of course :03:
Overboard
03-18-10, 12:15 AM
As bad as this might hurt me to say,.....Please go To your next UBI website to bitch, We all ready have enought of it here, Stop Clogging up the fourms :nope: and takeing up bandwith that your wallets cant pay for, :shifty:
mookiemookie
03-18-10, 12:20 AM
Sorry, but using software that was returned for a refund is piracy.
I agree. Using software you didn't pay for (or paid for and then got a refund on - thus using software that you didn't pay for) is piracy. The rules on piracy are quite clear here.
Guys, I will give the benifit of the doubt here.
He may have returned the game with no intention of playing again.
He was borred and noticed the icon on his desktop, and out of habit ran the game (which is designed to be run without the disk).
Now If he continues to do this, or new mods come from him, then he should get keelhauled for contributing to the problem that led to DRM in the first place
Something tells me however the files on his comp are now getting over written by other files.
jwilliams
03-18-10, 03:45 AM
Something tells me however the files on his comp are now getting over written by other files.
Yeah, Mods.... lol :haha:
I think this thread was just meant to denounce another stupid aspect of Ubisoft DRM implementation.
Fact: in the EU you've the right to return something you purchased and ask for a refund within a certin timeframe. And Ubisoft should know this better than anyone, since their HQ are located in France.
I'll go ahead and give Firewall the benefit of doubt... He didn't intentionally devised this "scheme" to play for free. But, if anyone else will exploit this loophole, that it's a matter between him and his coscience.
jwilliams
03-18-10, 04:04 AM
I think this thread was just meant to denounce another stupid aspect of Ubisoft DRM implementation.
It's not Ubisofts DRM. You can buy any (online reg) game and do what FIREWALL did. (install it and then return it).
IT's NOT A FLAW WITH UBISOFT's DRM. its a flaw with any game that doesnt need a disk to play..... and there are heaps of games i could list.
It's not Ubisofts DRM. You can buy any (online reg) game and do what FIREWALL did. (install it and then return it).
IT's NOT A FLAW WITH UBISOFT's DRM. its a flaw with any game that doesnt need a disk to play..... and there are heaps of games i could list.
You're right, If I don't need the disk, I can part with it and still be able to play the installed copy. But it's funny to see that Ubisoft didn't think of this when they devised such a draconian scheme that forces you to be constantly online. As I said, refund of a product within a certain timeframe is mandatory.
I still have my boxed version of Half Life 2. It doesn't require the disk to be constantly inserted into the drive while playing. But each installation much be validated through Steam. Then, I can play offline forever. Forever. Does Valve knows if I've sold or returned the game? No. But anyone that will eventually purchase my used copy could denounce it to Valve and have my account suspended. Too bad some retailers will try to resell the game to someone else. The retailer must give my money back but, at the samer time, he ought to inform Steam service that I no longer own the game.
mikeydredd
03-18-10, 07:32 AM
That's another reason I love this type of DRM . . .
It brings out the best in everyone. . .
Stay in the light.
:arrgh!:
SabreHawk
03-18-10, 07:55 AM
Well at any rate, if he ever has to reinstall SH5 he's screwed and then he's done unless he goes back and buy's it again. And then has $100 in it, and will have something else to be unhappy with.
SteamWake
03-18-10, 08:52 AM
So here is Firewall basically admitting to an act of piracy ..... wheres the smackdown?
KING111
03-18-10, 09:10 AM
The way you are all going on about is it right is it wrong
made me wonder
if you were walking down you street and found a
case with 1 million $ or £ in it how many would hand it in to
the police :salute:
The way you are all going on about is it right is it wrong
made me wonder
if you were walking down you street and found a
case with 1 million $ or £ in it how many would hand it in to
the police :salute:
I would SO take the case, and kill anybody who saw me! No wait, I mean I would drive to the nearest police station and hand it over.
jwilliams
03-18-10, 09:14 AM
The way you are all going on about is it right is it wrong
made me wonder
if you were walking down you street and found a
case with 1 million $ or £ in it how many would hand it in to
the police :salute:
The answer is easy....
Is the answer legal?
is the answer moraly right?
Do you know the diference between right and wrong?
Many people would do the right thing (both legal and moraly).
Many wouldn't. Doesn't make it right though does it?
609_Avatar
03-18-10, 09:27 AM
You know, I was raised to believe the only way we can truly judge a person, including ourselves, is by observing what a person says and what they do and seeing how the two coincide or not. Everyone pretty much knows what is considered "right" and "wrong" within their own societies mores but still do what they want based on their own beliefs and rationalizations.
Firewall knows what the "right" thing to do here is. pythos gives him the benefit of the doubt by saying this: Something tells me however the files on his comp are now getting over written by other files. Firewall himself states this: Will I uninstall it ? :hmm2: Of course :03: One can only guess what the true intention of the wink is here and only Firewall himself will know for certain whether he actually deletes the files. Guess it all depends on how strong a conscience he has. I'm not making a judgment either way on it and I personally don't even care as he has to live with his own actions, not me.
Armistead
03-18-10, 09:30 AM
He hasn't done anything illegal..this is in fact a quirk because of DRM. It may morally upset some, but it shows the failure of using DRM. This method is being posted everywhere, this ain't the first I've seen it.
One, he didn't make a copy, UBI holds the copy online.
Stores normally don't allow returns, which also shows a marketing failure between Ubi and the stores they use. I haven't bought the game, but did ask the walmart near me could I bring it back, the lady looked on her PC and said no...she tried to explain it was an online game, but the answer was no..I called Bestbuy...they said I could return it if it didn't work as stated, in fact, they said they didn't have any in stock....strange, did they sell them all or pull them.
Ubi has no function to protect against such, just like they can't protect their servers.
He ain't the first, I've seen tons of posting in other forums where people do the same..right or wrong, they took it back and just happened to click and play...again, nothing illegal, just Ubi's failure. In fact, this is such a simple failure, it shows how little thought out the use of their server was. In fairness, they shouldn't play, but most feel since the game is so goofed, it's not worth playing. My guess is if people like FW took it back due to all the problems and bugs, they won't be playing much anyway.
Ubi will have to address this because hundreds will catch on resulting in who knows what maddness.
Him stating it shouldn't result in anything but for Ubi to see yet again that this is a failure on their part.
If they were so dumb that they couldn't see this....hard to believe. My guess is like losing customers due to DRM this was another risk they decided to take.
You can remove it from the boards, but it's already being stated everywhere...The simple answer is to remove DRM..
jwilliams
03-18-10, 09:37 AM
He hasn't done anything illegal..this is in fact a quirk because of DRM. It may morally upset some, but it shows the failure of DRM.
One, he didn't make a copy, UBI holds the copy online.
Stores normally don't allow returns, which also shows a marketing failure between Ubi and the stores they use. I haven't bought the game, but did ask the walmart near me could I bring it back, the lady looked on her PC and said no...she tried to explain it was an online game, but the answer was no..I called Bestbuy...they said I could return it if it didn't work as stated, in fact, they said they didn't have any in stock....strange, did they sell them all or pull them.
Ubi has no function to protect against such, just like they can't protect their servers.
He ain't the first, I've seen tons of posting in other forums where people do the same..right or wrong, they took it back and just happened to click and play...again, nothing illegal, just Ubi's failure. In fact, this is such a simple failure, it shows how little thought out the use of their server was.
Ubi will have to address this because hundreds will catch on resulting in who knows what maddness.
Him stating it shouldn't result in anything but for Ubi to see yet again that this is a failure on their part.
Sorry. but i think you'll find that it is, infact... illegal.
By using the software, you could be charged with Copyright Infringment.
Copyright infringement (or copyright violation) is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works covered by copyright law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law),http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement
Its not Ubi's failure... all online activated game have this same failure.... but has it failed ???
As soon as Ubi get the game back from the store that Firewall returned it to... his key code will be deactivated and his account suspended. meaning he will nolonger be able to play the game.
And may even get a letter from Ubi to tell him to remove the game from his computer or face charges. (they will know he'd been playing after returning it because he would have logged into Ubi servers).
Somebody get a lawyer in here
jerm138
03-18-10, 09:58 AM
Hypothetical situation: I'm walking down the street and see a car with the window open. There's a purse inside and nobody is around. I reach in and take the purse.
According to some people here, that's not "Illegal" it's just pointing out the epic fail of the owner who didn't protect their property better. :har:
SteamWake
03-18-10, 10:18 AM
Somebody get a lawyer in here
Why ? this site already has hundreds of them evidently.
SteamWake
03-18-10, 10:21 AM
Hypothetical situation: I'm walking down the street and see a car with the window open. There's a purse inside and nobody is around. I reach in and take the purse.
According to some people here, that's not "Illegal" it's just pointing out the epic fail of the owner who didn't protect their property better. :har:
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh312/UlteriorModem/nothingtosteal.jpg
Leandros
03-18-10, 10:26 AM
It's returnable all over the EU...
Is it not supposed to be unopened if eligible for return..?
Leandros
03-18-10, 10:27 AM
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh312/UlteriorModem/nothingtosteal.jpg
You in the insurance business...?
robbo180265
03-18-10, 11:41 AM
If I read one more car analogy.......................:timeout:
I´ve paid for the SHV to play and FIREWALL not and also plays SHV.
Who´s the arse here , me or FIREWALL ?
btw nothing personal mate.
Mud
To the question about the case with the money. I would take a "finder's fee" and turn the rest in to the proper people. LOL.
I ordered a replacement part for a sink from kohler.
Their website was crap, and when I ordered the cheapest shipping options was FREE OVERNIGHT.
I clicked the cheapest option (why not), and it rang up properly. Later I got an email saying that I'd get a definitive total LATER. Huh?
So I called them to complain. I said I would take overnight shipping if free, but NOT if it was even as much as the 2d day (which was like $20 for an $8 part). I said I needed the part, and they could ship it parcel post, or whatever other way they wanted for free since the shopping cart gave a $ value for shipping. Long story short, I got a call back not long afterward, and they shipped me the part, overnight, and refunded even the price of the part for my troubles.
I am in no way obligated not to use the part, nor would I have been had they shipped overnight for free vs the 20-whatever bucks that shipping should have cost (frankly the part should not have broken in the first place).
Anyway, he gets additional use for his trouble, IMO. :) It's Ubi's responsibility to dump customer codes when they do a return if they are going to have this idiotic system that requires online.
4 pages of trolls banging on piracy this piracy that... shouldn't do this and shouldn't do that.
The fact is that DRM crap allows and is flawed so screw it... time for UBI get it right or don't even bother implementing crap that doesn't work and dont cover their money asses.
Well done FireW by expositing a huge flaw in that anti-piracy nosence... a non thought exploit.
Now please flame on... I might be back when this thread reaches 8 pages before get a final locked.
I am in no way obligated not to use the part, nor would I have been had they shipped overnight for free vs the 20-whatever bucks that shipping should have cost (frankly the part should not have broken in the first place).
Yes, but you were paying for the part, not a license to use the part.
If you were paying for permission to use the part, then got a refund for it, and used the part anyway, you would be using it without permission.
Aside from that, the company gave you permission to have the part without paying them for it. That was their choice, not yours. As the customer, you don't have the right to decide not to pay for the product or service received.
The fact is that DRM crap allows and is flawed so screw it... Well done FireW by expositing a huge flaw in that anti-piracy nosence... a non thought exploit.
So if I start printing really good copies of $100 bills on my home printer, I'm just exposing a flaw in the U.S. Treasury system, not counterfiting, right?
If something is made available on the net for free, it's free.
Ubi (1C in this case) repeatedly had patches available "before release" on their FTP site for Il-2, with the perms set so that you could grab it. There would be much complaining by Oleg, et al, that people were DLing it before the URL was published. Sorry, but putting anything online with the perms set to allow use is exactly the same as giving it away. Whining "don't visit our wide open FTP server" is lame, set the perms, morons.
If they cannot control their passwd protection system to disallow returned copies from using it, that's ubi's fault, and implied permission to go ahead and use it, IMO. I think from a legal standpoint (I'm no lawyer), they'd have to demonstrate what in copyright would be "due diligence" (I've talked to our lawyers about intellectual property, myself). In this case, turning off the account should in fact be trivial, so failure to do that implies consent, IMO.
From a practical standpoint, what prevents someone from doing all transactions with a prepaid CC, then returning it_where all data ever supplied was no more "real" than my "tater" nick? Unless they need to ship to me, or match CC billing info vs mail address, I never put real infomration into such online forms. I put a false birthday, everything.
Again, if they want to sell a service, make it subscriptive and be done with it.
Nisgeis
03-18-10, 01:06 PM
If I read one more car analogy.......................:timeout:
Well, I hadn't noticed there were so many until you pointed it out. Now I will see them all!
It's like when you buy a new car and you suddenly start seeing that model of car everywhere.
:O:
mookiemookie
03-18-10, 01:09 PM
I´ve paid for the SHV to play and FIREWALL not and also plays SHV.
Who´s the arse here , me or FIREWALL ?
btw nothing personal mate.
Mud
Succinctly summed up. I get to play and I'm out $50. He's out $0 and still gets to play.
Try to justify it and pull all the moral relativism you want, but the fact of the matter is that it's not fair to people who bought the game.
Eightbit
03-18-10, 01:24 PM
If I read one more car analogy.......................:timeout:
http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/object2/1595/34/n228446831504_3065.jpg
robbo180265
03-18-10, 01:39 PM
Well, I hadn't noticed there were so many until you pointed it out. Now I will see them all!
It's like when you buy a new car and you suddenly start seeing that model of car everywhere.
:O:
:rotfl2::rotfl2:
So if I start printing really good copies of $100 bills on my home printer, I'm just exposing a flaw in the U.S. Treasury system, not counterfiting, right?
Firstly I do doubt that you alone would be able to print a single buck that reaches the level of detail required to pass the fake buck as real. So you have to have considerable upfront investment on equipment also to have knowledge of the paper used (yes its important factor) and to know how to apply the watermark on the paper
Secondly UK Treasury didn't sell you software to print neither the printing originals for you to copy them straight away... therefore you would really have to invest considerable time in detailing to create the original fake print.
thirdly, your fake buck would have to be near perfect to pass through the eyes and touch by common shop keeper as real buck
But if you reach this level congrats you are good money maker... by comparison to software your example gives is an hacker (o seeks to exploit software with the only aim of break into)
Now in software area what was found was not result of hacker activity neither is deem piract activity. Was result of the software detect and prevent allowing players to carry on playing the game. 1st because it does not verify the existence of the DVD. 2nd because no one bothered to put in place at sale point a mechanism that once a product returned = account canceled.
At least who is in this circunstances have to congratulate UBI for lack of vision and by having a considerable hole in their dictacted/imposed DRM software.
cheers
Rockin Robbins
03-18-10, 01:40 PM
The assumption that the game is returned to Ubi is just plain wrong. A friend of mine owns a business that buys returns lots from major chains, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Target, etc, reconditions what is sellable and chucks the rest in the garbage. Always, from all stores so far, lots have included returned computer games.
Recently I was looking to purchase Valve's Orange Box (Half-Life 2, Half Life 2: Episode 2, Team Fortress 2, Portal) from e-Bay. Now although you buy a Valve game off a store shelf in a normal box, you are not buying a real computer game. You're just purchasing a license to download with a quicker install method. Once you install and register the disk is worthless. I accidentally bought two from e-Bay and of course both of them refused to install, saying they were registered to another user. Got my money back on both.
Then my friend came to me with five copies on disk. He couldn't sell them because chances are even though they were in sealed boxes, they had been installed and somehow resealed to "return" them ala FIREWALL. Only one of the five installed. That's four slimy people out of five who returned the software to that store.
Npwhere on a Valve box are you warned that the game you are about to buy is not resellable. In Valve's case, they have a powerful sales pitch to make that seem OK, and as long as they had a disclaimer on the box I wouldn't have a problem with it. But unlike Ubi, Valve is a powerful consumer advocate, working to ensure its customers are happy and delivering compelling value with their online product, along with giving players an offline option. They don't have to and aren't shy about saying they could care less about piracy. Smart company.
So FIREWALL's "returned" disk will never be sent back to Ubi, who has no way of knowing that the disk has ever been returned. In fact, why should they care? Only one person can play it. The store paid Ubi for the game. What's not to like in a morally bankrupt world? Ubi won! That's all they care about. Don't bother them with the small stuff. The store can afford it.
I'd say it's not a good system. Even Steam should have a way to deregister a game from one owner and allow the owner to sell or gift it to another just as they have the right to do with any other copyrighted product, books, DVD's, music, whatever. If a disk is returned to a store, that store should have the right to deregister the game, rendering the copy on the nice fraudster's computer unplayable and restoring the ability of the disk copy to be installed.
But that would require a game company who cares about its customers. Guess we lose.
T
So FIREWALL's "returned" disk will never be sent back to Ubi, who has no way of knowing that the disk has ever been returned. In fact, why should they care? Only one person can play it. The store paid Ubi for the game. What's not to like in a morally bankrupt world? Ubi won! That's all they care about. Don't bother them with the small stuff. The store can afford it.
And since when is consumer's fault?
At least is distributer's fault or even UBI's fault by not having mechanisms to prevent their lack of reality touch.
for who claims losing millions coz of pirates... well they see to have shot their both feet.
I really cry for them!... really! :yawn:
SeaWolf U-57
03-18-10, 01:53 PM
I wonder if everyone would be as happy if Ubisoft
decided to bring back permanent disk in drive to play :O:
Rockin Robbins
03-18-10, 01:57 PM
Any act of fraud which results in cheating a store out of their fair profit (they have to sell it for next to nothing as a return) and then cheats whoever subsequently buys it in good faith because they can't install the game is wrong.
This is not a victimless crime. It's fraud on the part of the person who returned the software and received his money back. It's also called shoplifting and lots of people go to jail for it, as they should.
There are other victims: those honest people who should have the right to return merchandise to the store, but who are refused because fraudsters make this dangerous for the store.
Saying there's nothing wrong with it is just plain idiocy. Trust is the true currency of the marketplace. Anything that erodes that trust is wrong.
robbo180265
03-18-10, 01:59 PM
I wonder if everyone would be as happy if Ubisoft
decided to bring back permanent disk in drive to play :O:
I'd have no problem with that at all. In fact I've just remembered that's where I left the disc after I installed it lol:oops:
Firstly ...
Secondly ...
thirdly, ...
But if you reach this level congrats you are good money maker...
So, if I'm reading this correctly, then if I print out a really good copy, it's just the same as making a real bill?
Now in software area what was found was not result of hacker activity neither is deem piract activity. Was result of the software detect and prevent allowing players to carry on playing the game. 1st because it does not verify the existence of the DVD. 2nd because no one bothered to put in place at sale point a mechanism that once a product returned = account canceled.
So, it's Ubi's fault that someone got the game for free? If the bank leaves the door open, and I walk in with a bag, fill it with (real) money, and walk out, and they don't catch me, then it's now my money, and it's the bank's fault?
Yikes. That's just a frightening view.
So, it's Ubi's fault that someone got the game for free? If the bank leaves the door open, and I walk in with a bag, fill it with (real) money, and walk out, and they don't catch me, then it's now my money, and it's the bank's fault?
Yikes. That's just a frightening view.
Bad analogy.
You buy a pay per view on cable. The movie DLs, and in the first few seconds watching you find that it has bad pixels during some of the opening stuff (rating warnings, etc) so you stop it. You call cable, and get your money back, but the movie remains usable on your DVR. You try it, and other than 2 seconds of bad pixels during the warnings, it is perfectly fine.
Are you wrong to not delete it if the cable company didn't delete it?
Bad analogy.
Sorry, should it have involved a car?
You buy a pay per view on cable. The movie DLs, and in the first few seconds watching you find that it has bad pixels during some of the opening stuff (rating warnings, etc) so you stop it. You call cable, and get your money back, but the movie remains usable on your DVR. You try it, and other than 2 seconds of bad pixels during the warnings, it is perfectly fine.
So, playing SH5 without paying is the same as getting free cable?
Are you wrong to not delete it if the cable company didn't delete it?
Bad analogy. (And also, no car) If someone else orders the show, but is unable to watch it because you are watching it, then yes, you are wrong. Furthermore, morally, you are wrong.
If someone buys the returned copy of SH5, and is unable to play it because it is already registered, is that wrong?
mookiemookie
03-18-10, 02:56 PM
Why are we getting so wrapped up in needless analogies? It doesn't matter if "A is just like B so that's bad!" or "A is nothing like B, so that's good!"
The bottom line is he paid for the right to use the software. No, he doesn't own it, that would imply ownership of the code. He paid for the license to use the software. He returned the physical media, got his money back, but is still using the software. That's fraud. That's wrong.
I don't care if Ubi was stupid enough to forsee this happening or not. Someone's stupidity or negligence DOES NOT MAKE THEFT/FRAUD OKAY TO DO.
He returned the physical media, got his money back, but is still using the software. That's fraud. That's wrong.
I don't care if Ubi was stupid enough to forsee this happening or not. Someone's stupidity or negligence DOES NOT MAKE THEFT/FRAUD OKAY TO DO.
And that sums it up and hopefully concludes this discussion. Although it was fun to read how people lost themselves in their own faulty logic...
So, playing SH5 without paying is the same as getting free cable?
Yes, they are both in effect "virtual," and simply data on a hard drive. I see zero difference. If you paid for, then "returned" a pay per view movie, you are equally obligated not to watch it as not to play SH5.
Bad analogy. (And also, no car) If someone else orders the show, but is unable to watch it because you are watching it, then yes, you are wrong. Furthermore, morally, you are wrong.
If Ubisoft allows the resale of a product that is not "new" and they cannot GUARANTEE it will be useful, Ubisoft is at fault (or the reseller). Frankly, it cannot be used anyway, regardless, right? Player returns game, and does NOT play it. Since the registered account has not ever been deleted, doesn't this mean that the new buyer cannot play regardless? Or is the idea only that the new and original players will continually bump each other offline when playing? Regardless, the fundamental flaw is with the OSP scheme, IMO. Products returns are a usual part of doing business, and if ubi facilitated such returns at all, they best be damn sure they have their ducks in a row.
As for morality, I tend to agree with you. OTOH I also think that leaving something unprotected is a de facto admission that it is "free." Functionally this is true regardless of the moral aspects, and it's a simple fact that if it can be done it will.
If someone buys the returned copy of SH5, and is unable to play it because it is already registered, is that wrong?
It;s wrong to resell it if it is not guaranteed to be usable. Since OSP has a principal feature the inability to resell, reselling returns seems like a bad idea if ubi has not thought it out (clearly they have not, or don;t care).
Again, since deleting the ubi account required to play is simple "due diligence" on the part of ubi, I'd submit they are demonstrating that they do not care if it is used—they own the servers and the account data, after all, deleting an account should be TRIVIAL.
BlackSpot
03-18-10, 04:12 PM
Anyone fancy a pint ? :yeah:
Anyone fancy a pint ? :yeah:
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/ernaehrung/food-smiley-004.gif
Mud
CaptainHaplo
03-18-10, 04:47 PM
For those hollering for "MODS" to "do something" - I can only assume that Firewall is in the brig for the issue (since he is in the brig). This is only an assumption - as I am not privy to the decisions of the main mods and Neal.
This site does not condone piracy - and I cannot define this as or not as - piracy - for the site. Nor would I. But suffice it to say that Subsim.com appears to have taken a stand on the issue.
Regardless of your personal views on the matter - whether you think its ok or not, it still demonstrates the fact that the OSP model is a fail. But more importantly for those that read this - is the fact that Subsim.com has (barring Neal or a major Mod correcting me) taken a position on the act, and as such it would be wise for everyone to avoid advocating or rationalizing (giving reasons why it should be "ok") this behavior.
slikster
03-18-10, 05:12 PM
A message to fraudsters.
Fraud is fraud. There is no debate. If you were morally bankrupt enough to do this, that is, return the game and then keep playing, and you think you are somehow justified, you are delusional. If you truly think the game is crap, fine, return it. But stand by your convictions and delete the damn thing. If you don't, it displays a lack of character on your part.
jerm138
03-18-10, 05:40 PM
Why would someone who hated the game so bad that they had to box it up, drive to the store, stand in line, and return it... keep playing the game afterward?
I can only see one logical (though immoral) reason someone would return a game then keep playing it when they got home.
That's just like something to do with a car. I'm still working on an analogy though... :haha:
Car analogies are tough because there is nothing "real." The best analogy might be to continue to use a concierge/phone service like OnStar even after it has been cancelled.
It's moot to me as I have not, and will not buy any Ubi title with this OSP as it stands on principle. I'd not install it for free, either, as my concern would be EVER getting interrupted by a net/server problem even for a second (that's my only issue).
That said, it's exactly analogous to buying, then canceling a premium cable channel, then finding they had not turned it off. I bet virtually ALL consumers faced with this would watch the unpaid for channel, and effectively there is zero difference—though you are right, doing so would indeed be unethical.
Madox58
03-18-10, 05:54 PM
Meh
I don't agree with playing the Game after it was returned.
I also think it was the very Epitome of Stupidity to post that fact here!
May as well have posted a link to the crack!
I can't even play SH5 on my current system.
But I have the Game AND the bill from Amazon.com.
I'd say there are alot of persons here with questionable programs
on thier systems.
But I also say they don't go around bragging about it.
That proves they knew what they were doing.
BALIFF!
Whack his Pee Pee!
:har:
analogie: It´s like divorcing your wife and still do her.
Mud
I don't agree with buying it so you can return it and keep playing, that shows a sort of premeditation about it that is certainly distasteful. Discovering this after the fact is a different issue, IMO.
That said, it points out another glaring flaw in the dumb OSP system, and is useful to discuss for that reason alone, as a demonstration of how half-baked OSP was. Rushing out a systemic DRM scheme seems even dumber than rushing out a game title ;)
analogie: It´s like divorcing your wife and still do her.
Mud
Based on what I've heard from divorced friends, it sounds like that would be the most fair from a financial standpoint ;)
Based on what I've heard from divorced friends, it sounds like that would be the most fair from a financial standpoint ;)
Yeah but if you have a ... point......erm... stand..... you know what, I´ll stop this analogie :shifty:
Mud
Sethorion
03-18-10, 08:21 PM
Well I just got SH5 today and so far I'm actually quite enjoying it. I had to restart my router once but the game was kind enough to save before kicking me back to my menu.
This DRM isn't anywhere near as bad as the time EA attempted to stop piracy. Imagine SH5 with none of the need for the internet except you can only install it 3-5 times before your key is then made redundant and then you have to buy the game again.
That being said EA did actually come to their senses and remove that DRM but whatever.
Sonarman
03-19-10, 06:02 AM
This site does not condone piracy - and I cannot define this as or not as - piracy - for the site. Nor would I. But suffice it to say that Subsim.com appears to have taken a stand on the issue.
Yes, it seemed more clear cut...last time (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=138132&highlight=deadliest+catch&page=5)
The Enigma
03-19-10, 06:13 AM
For those hollering for "MODS" to "do something" - I can only assume that Firewall is in the brig for the issue (since he is in the brig). This is only an assumption - as I am not privy to the decisions of the main mods and Neal.
This site does not condone piracy - and I cannot define this as or not as - piracy - for the site. Nor would I. But suffice it to say that Subsim.com appears to have taken a stand on the issue.
Regardless of your personal views on the matter - whether you think its ok or not, it still demonstrates the fact that the OSP model is a fail. But more importantly for those that read this - is the fact that Subsim.com has (barring Neal or a major Mod correcting me) taken a position on the act, and as such it would be wise for everyone to avoid advocating or rationalizing (giving reasons why it should be "ok") this behavior.
So, pure hypothetically, if there would appear a mod that changes several
.cfg files (not the exe file!) in such way, that an online connection is no
longer needed, would that be wrong to discuss about?
Again, I'm only talking about a (so far non-existing) mod not a cr*ck.
From my past experience as a forum administrator in other communities and gaming sites, I can tell you that's always better not to allow open discussion about piracy / cracking / etc... even if the people participating in the discussion keep it civil and mean no harm.
The companies involved are paranoid enough to send ugly letters, if too many threads about piracy spawn. And if you are running a gaming site and you want to have 'exclusive' previews, then you have to be EXTRA nice to the publishers.
I'm sure a lot of us have hard feelings towards UBi policies, but it's pretty useless to incite boicotts, enourage piracy or even mock this company in the open.
Vote with your wallet
Hang in there FIREWALL! Just don't drop the soap and you'll be fine.
Rockin Robbins
03-19-10, 12:53 PM
So, pure hypothetically, if there would appear a mod that changes several
.cfg files (not the exe file!) in such way, that an online connection is no
longer needed, would that be wrong to discuss about?
Again, I'm only talking about a (so far non-existing) mod not a cr*ck.
Actually that mod does exist. It does not stop Ubi's DRM or online play at all, just gives you a way to play offline if you choose. It is a straightforward editing of .cfg unprotected text files in the /data directory where files intended to be modded are. Just like all files intended to be modded this file is internally commented for ease of modding as well.
However, upon publication of the mod on the Ubi forum, the Ubi folks pulled it as a crack, which it is not. They then waffled, changing their reasoning that the mod could be useful to pirates. Well, so could RFB for SH4, so that's a specious argument.
That being said, i personally oppose the use of this mod or any mod that would make SH5 more popular in its present state, as enhancing the value of the product removes Ubi's need to fix it. I believe we need to stick to our guns and not purchase, play or mod it until Ubi sees the light of day.
My take is as above. It doesn't deactivate Ubi DRM in any way. It doesn't keep the game from going online at all. It merely allows the user to mimic the changes the online portion does to your .cfg file to allow you to progress in the game. Since the file is a file traditionally modded with approval, since it lives in a directory approved for all previous mods, including mods to that particular file in SH3 and SH4, since it is a normal text file, unprotected and internally commented like all the other files intended to be modded we must conclude that modding it is proper.
However, without specific scrutiny by Subsim high mucky-mucks to verify the above, I won't post the link to the new location as much as I'd love to. The mod is by a German guy named ZygmuntTorpedo.
Nisgeis
03-19-10, 01:21 PM
My take is as above. It doesn't deactivate Ubi DRM in any way. It doesn't keep the game from going online at all. It merely allows the user to mimic the changes the online portion does to your .cfg file to allow you to progress in the game.
I don't think that's right, as it's the exe that checks you are connected before launching the game. The only way (I believe) this is useful is if you have a version of the exe that does not try to connect to the internet, which... wouldn't be official.
Webster
03-19-10, 01:26 PM
firewall openly and freely admitted to commiting fraud AND piracy by his purchasing the game then registering/activating it then boxing it up and returning it for a full refund while still playing it on his computer.
what about the poor guy who buys the game he returned and finds the activation has already been used and now this innocent person must go through major BS to get his game to work because firewall did this. i just hope there is some loophole in the activation so there wont be any issues for this guy who buys the returned game as it could easily be you or me who buys it.
many laws were broken in this process but thats between him and his morals to sort out.
the only concern we at subsim have is that whatever you do in your own home is your own buisness but dont talk about it here. once you start talking about how you did it then you are actively promoting piracy or ways to crack game protections and you WILL get banned for it.
Rockin Robbins
03-19-10, 01:36 PM
I don't think that's right, as it's the exe that checks you are connected before launching the game. The only way (I believe) this is useful is if you have a version of the exe that does not try to connect to the internet, which... wouldn't be official.
ZygmuntTorpedo says that is not true. I of course have not been able and do not want to verify it for myself. It should be up to Ubi to remedy the DRM issue.
Any player imitated moves to make this less nasty, especially if successful would just result in more sales. Ubi would say "It's working!" and never make the needed changes to the game. When confronted with a draconian or unreasonable policy, the best move is always to observe it to the letter.
People make that mistake at work all the time, cheating to make it look like a stupid policy works. Then the bosses say "It works!" and proudly go about making even stupider policies. Let's not let that happen here. Either we play the game as is and tolerate the abuse or we jingle our money in their general direction and let them know it's theirs when they decide to treat us like human beings.
Jingle! Jingle!
The Enigma
03-19-10, 01:42 PM
Webster, it's completely clear for me, that Subsim doesn't want any discusions about changing library or exe files intending to bypass the copy protection.
I'm trying to find out whether a mod that allows you to playoff line is off limits to discuss here too?
Modding is OK, but is it for all mods?
And if no, why treat mods differently?
To me, a mod is a mod, but is that also for Subsim?
Webster
03-19-10, 02:08 PM
Webster, it's completely clear for me, that Subsim doesn't want any discusions about changing library or exe files intending to bypass the copy protection.
I'm trying to find out whether a mod that allows you to playoff line is off limits to discuss here too?
Modding is OK, but is it for all mods?
And if no, why treat mods differently?
To me, a mod is a mod, but is that also for Subsim?
offhand anything that bypasses the DRM would be a "crack" even if its called a mod so i would say a "mod" that lets you play the game offline would be a crack or pirate tool since being offline removes the validation of the game as well.
i think it falls into that catagory of you know it when you see it and the very description of what this thing would do says it all.
now IMO if you wanted to discuss it i see no harm in that but providing links or describing how to do it (like a do it yourself demo) is not allowed here.
we already had long discussions about DRM and only a few times did we mods have to step in so as long as we have the discussion within the rules then the topic is not off limits only the specifics of how its done or links to it.
we are all adults here and we can discuss just about anything as long as we maintain the discussion within certain boundry limits.
keep in mind this may change because its only my view of things at this time, the more that is known about it things may change.
Altering a savegame is a crack?
Nisgeis
03-19-10, 02:15 PM
Altering a savegame is a crack?
In conjuction with a cracked exe, yes.
Clearly a cracked exe is a crack, and wrong. I didn't say a cracked exe though, just a legal owner prevented from playing by sysadmin incompetence, for example.
Nisgeis
03-19-10, 02:23 PM
Altering the save game wouldn't work on its own, as you can't play any part of the campaign or start the game without an internet connection, so if you can't load the altered save game, because the game won't start, it can't be used to bypass the DRM, without also being used in conjunction with a cracked exe.
Rockin Robbins
03-19-10, 02:24 PM
Well all that remains to be seen, as I have only the word of the modder that it does nothing to defeat the DRM. I'd be glad to supply links to Webster or any moderator by PM so you can check it out for yourself to see where you think the judgment call on this one lies.
One thing for sure. Ubi Forums missed the call by a mile. If it is something impermissible, they have not come up with a reason that stands scrutiny. Maybe you guys can kick the tires and see if it drives.
The Enigma
03-19-10, 02:29 PM
Its a thin line we are talking about, but to qoute a forum admin from another mod site:
However, I have been modding SH3 and SH4 since the beginning,
so I would think I know just a little about it, and in that post of yours it looks
more like a tutorial of how to play a legal copy offline, as 95 % of the
community wishes it, than a description as to how to crack it.
A crack is defined in modifying the executive files with the file extension exe.
So far, I see nowhere a description as how to crack it. Nor do I see links to
the so called crack.
I see a description as to how to modify text files plus adding units from
previous versions, just like modders have done between SH3 and SH4.
As long as it follows that pattern, and that alone, I will allow it for now.
But it may change. Only time will tell. I cannot guarantee it.
Please understand.
I admit I had a lot of trouble understanding the thread, but no where does it say anything about touching any file that is not a simple text file. If the "fix" proposed only works after the game has started via a proper connection, and simply allows you to progress after you for some reason lose connection, it doesn't even defeat the DRM, just allows online play after a disconnect.
The Enigma
03-19-10, 02:54 PM
@tater
I would gladly talk about the if and how (from a mod on the web) in here at subsim, but I'm not sure if that is allowed. :doh:
(I don't want to end in the brick)
So I won't react on your post Tater. :-?
I'd not talk about anything if it involves a crack. :yep:
I see how it could be used with one, certainly. The general issue is how crappy a drm is that could ever be defeated so trivially if that combination were in effect.
Had they simply added an offline option, no one would have poked around, lol.
The Enigma
03-19-10, 03:23 PM
What I see as such has already been explained in one of my previous posts.
The definition of a crack differs from forum to forum.
I tried to get that clear with my question about the mod (see previous posts).
A mod is, to me, editing locally stored text files which are allowed to be changed for modding purposes.
This mod doesn't violate this rule. Yet some forums allow to talk and discuss that mod, some don't.
Some see it as a cr*ck, some don't.
And there starts the confusion.
Webster
03-19-10, 03:48 PM
I admit I had a lot of trouble understanding the thread, but no where does it say anything about touching any file that is not a simple text file. If the "fix" proposed only works after the game has started via a proper connection, and simply allows you to progress after you for some reason lose connection, it doesn't even defeat the DRM, just allows online play after a disconnect.
but how can you possibly lose connection and still be playing "online" if you are disconnected?
to me it sounds like bill clinton saying it depends on your definition of what "is" is or how sex isnt sex just because he doesnt consider it sex.
i see both sides here and agree its a fuzzy area but all i see is a crack trying to be passed off within the rules with some PC description of what it does.
a while back there was a sh4 thread with a "hack" for the exe file, it was a flat out mod for faster loading or something (i cant remember) but it wasnt a crack for anything being bypassed but it was a hacked exe and therefore not allowed so there is an example of even if its action and intent is pure and legal its the bypassing of the check thats at issue and illegal
i think neal has the only opinion that really matters here since he is the final authority on what is or isnt allowed so its best to play it safe and not discuss the specifics until he gives his opinion on this so called "mod"
talking about it in "general terms" without specifics is IMO ok
jerm138
03-20-10, 07:30 PM
it sounds like bill clinton saying it depends on your definition of what "is" is or how sex isnt sex just because he doesnt consider it sex.
i ... agree its a fuzzy area but all i see is a crack
:haha::har::rotfl2:
Onkel Neal
03-20-10, 07:45 PM
Originally Posted by Webster http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/viewpost.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1324290#post1324290)
it sounds like bill clinton saying it depends on your definition of what "is" is or how sex isnt sex just because he doesnt consider it sex.
i ... agree its a fuzzy area but all i see is a crack
:haha::har::rotfl2:
:haha::haha: Good one, Webs.
I would rather not interject myself into this discussion, you guys are doing fine. :salute:
lord bame
03-20-10, 07:46 PM
the pc community always makes me laugh... a bunch of fat 12 years kids that still believes in anarchy and lol i can download this for free and DRM is the ****
Rockin Robbins
03-21-10, 07:28 AM
Actually, no, this is a group of law-abiding adults trying to reason out a situation which Ubi clearly does not like on their forum, but which appears to me to fall clearly in the realm of a mod, altering an unprotected, internally commented text file, contained in a directory which has always been open for Ubi endorsed modding, within a file which has been open for Ubi endorsed modding. In fact, over the years, Ubi has used the extreme moddability of the Silent Hunter Series as a sales promotion tool.
The question is, "Can you make a change to a file permitted for modding which Ubi can say is not permitted."
Anyway I think would be hilarious if Ubi comes up with "well you WERE intended to mod that unprotected text file, but we didn't think you would alter THOSE lines!" I know! They could put a commented disclaimer warning in the .cfg file before each forbidden line: "Warning: altering the following line could circumvent our unassailable, uncrackable DRM. If you modify it you will be in violation of law and be subject to fine, imprisonment, death and bad karma." That would stop any problems, wouldn't it?:D
Having made a terrible sophomoric mistake with their DRM concept and implementation, I don't know how Ubi can close Pandora's box, and I can't see any possibility that they can say that file is not intended to be modded. Any attempt, as shown above, would make them look plain silly. But, of course, they look plenty silly now...
Nisgeis
03-21-10, 07:52 AM
The question is, "Can you make a change to a file permitted for modding which Ubi can say is not permitted."
The question is, "How do you play the game offline, without using the 'no net patch' that the 'mod' you are referring to talks about."
I'm not aware of a no net patch from Ubisoft. So...
The Enigma
03-21-10, 08:26 AM
The writer of the mod says that it works with both the illegal sh5.exe as with the unaltered sh5.exe
It doesn't nowhere says it only works when you have that illegal version.
[EDIT]
As far as I understand it correctly, that mod allows you to play all levels or what it may be called within SH5, without the need of having a connection to UBI the server.
Normally the UBI server 'opens' a door to a next mission by changing your .cfg files at your PC.
This mod does the same by showing you how to manually altering those .cfg files.
That's all.
Nisgeis
03-21-10, 08:36 AM
I think what he's saying is that he is a legal owner of the game, so what he is doing is legal. He then goes on to describe what does and doesn't work with the cracked version (or no net patch version) and how to manually make the changes that the proper game exe would make if you were using it. If he has a legal version of the game and is using the crack, then he's legal right? I know that's a whole other grey area...
But, I don't see anyway to get round the needing a network connection other than using the cracked exe. There's nothing in the save files about whether or not to check you have a connection and the game checks for a connection before it loads the rest of the game up and before you load the save files.
The Enigma
03-21-10, 08:40 AM
I think what he's saying is that he is a legal owner of the game, so what he is doing is legal. He then goes on to describe what does and doesn't work with the cracked version (or no net patch version) and how to manually make the changes that the proper game exe would make if you were using it. If he has a legal version of the game and is using the crack, then he's legal right? I know that's a whole other grey area...
But, I don't see anyway to get round the needing a network connection other than using the cracked exe. There's nothing in the save files about whether or not to check you have a connection and the game checks for a connection before it loads the rest of the game up and before you load the save files.
His statement before explaining how to do it:
SO I ONLY MODIFY MY OWN COPY OF GAME WITHOUT ANY CRACK JUST TO BE ABLE TO PLAY CAMPAIGNS WITHOUT NET CONNECTION!!!!
I fail to see how one could read that line in a different way.
So please help me if I'm wrong with my conclusion that this guy isn't using a modified sh5.exe
i ... agree its a fuzzy area but all i see is a crack
:haha::har::rotfl2:
Heh, that's what she said
Nisgeis
03-21-10, 11:56 AM
His statement before explaining how to do it:
SO I ONLY MODIFY MY OWN COPY OF GAME WITHOUT ANY CRACK JUST TO BE ABLE TO PLAY CAMPAIGNS WITHOUT NET CONNECTION!!!! I fail to see how one could read that line in a different way.
So please help me if I'm wrong with my conclusion that this guy isn't using a modified sh5.exe
His 'style' of writing is a bit hard to read through, but he says in the same post:
Main problem to player without net connection , using no net crack is that game BLOCKING , MISSION BAR PROGRESS and we can't have our MISSIONS completedI don't have that problem when I have no internet connection, I just get disconnected, never mind campaign progress not updating.
And to he says to test with:
yes without need of connection to the UBISOFTCKERS SERVERS (try with patch no net)And also:
FIRST mission works and can be completed even with NO NET PATCHI don't think that's an official patch :).
But just to be absolutely sure, I went through all of his instructions and changed everything he said to (boy was it tedious) and I started the game without an internet connection - it wouldn't start. So I plugged the cable in until it had started and then continued to follow the instructions (loading the save) then pulled the cable out. The game came up and said that I must be connected to the internet to play the game.
So, the instructions don't do anything to make the game work if you don't have an iternet connection, they only let you continue through the campaign if you already have a way to play without being connected (a cracked exe).
EDIT: Has anyone else with a legit version tried this?
The Enigma
03-21-10, 02:54 PM
His 'style' of writing is a bit hard to read through, but he says in the same post:
I don't have that problem when I have no internet connection, I just get disconnected, never mind campaign progress not updating.
And to he says to test with:
And also:
I don't think that's an official patch :).
But just to be absolutely sure, I went through all of his instructions and changed everything he said to (boy was it tedious) and I started the game without an internet connection - it wouldn't start. So I plugged the cable in until it had started and then continued to follow the instructions (loading the save) then pulled the cable out. The game came up and said that I must be connected to the internet to play the game.
So, the instructions don't do anything to make the game work if you don't have an iternet connection, they only let you continue through the campaign if you already have a way to play without being connected (a cracked exe).
EDIT: Has anyone else with a legit version tried this?
Now that's a revealing post.
I must agree, reading through his post is quit a struggle.
I thought when he was talking about the "no net patch", he was referring to his own .cfg modification.
You proofed by going through the process he has described, that his so called solution only works with a modified sh5.exe.
Thank you for clearing things up. :salute:
I can't go through those steps myself, since I don't own a copy of SH5.
Rockin Robbins
03-22-10, 12:28 PM
Whether morally right or not (I don't like it) most countries now have laws on the books forbidding you from modifying software of any type to defeat DRM. I choose not to break the law, so I wouldn't consider using the cracked exe file.
However, if Ubi, as it did in SH3, actually pirates the cracked game from the pirates and releases it officially as the DRM free version of the game then all bets are off.
So according to Ubi, piracy is bad unless... I still say that Ubi commits piracy with its DRM, converting your computer to its own use, removing your legal fair use rights with the software. What is worse, piracy of a piece of software or piracy of an entire computer? I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon for either.
SH3 and SH4 are great games that can keep us modding, playing and strategizing for ten years.
Whether morally right or not (I don't like it) most countries now have laws on the books forbidding you from modifying software of any type to defeat DRM. I choose not to break the law, so I wouldn't consider using the cracked exe file.
Strictly speaking, most copyright laws are probably much more specific than that, but therefore upon loopholes. I can speak for the German law text, but I assume many European formulations at least will sound quite similar. It forbids the "circumvention of a functional copy protection mechanism for the purpose of creating duplicate copies".
Now that offers two legal and accepted loopholes. (A) What is a functional copyright mechansims? This has been tested in law suits already, but it leaves it up to the judge to decide whether he considers a specific mechanism functional, or not. Mechanisms need to be enough sturdy to be functional (i.e. not easy to circumvent).
(B) "For the purpose of creating a duplicate". Now if you edit a easily modifiable text config file, you already have installed your copy -- so no duplication. So this law does not apply here.
In the German legal system, you would probably, or surely, not be prosecuted for editing that file. However, this would have to be tested in a case first to get a general judgement. Even if it would fall under the copyright infringement category, the punishment would be dependent on the damage you did (there will be a differentiation between a civil case for the damage reparation (if a software company would press it), and a separate legal one for the copyright infrigement).
For the damage reparation, the software company would for example have to proof that you caused lost sales, and would have to proof how many -- that would in case of proven guilt (besides the cost of the judge, defendant and case fees) be the penalty to pay. Most likely the judge would even correct that penalty down to match your income so you have a real chance to pay it off in a certain time frame. Now since you paid for your original already, and did not cause any external damage, there is no damage value. And state attorneys are too much in demand for bigger cases that news papers already print for years that they would not accept such a small case.
jerm138
03-22-10, 08:11 PM
However, if Ubi, as it did in SH3, actually pirates the cracked game from the pirates and releases it officially as the DRM free version of the game then all bets are off.
Didn't they do this with a version of Rainbow Six? They pirated the pirated copy and released it as an official "patch."
Two wrongs don't make a right, so I don't think that this justifies pirating UBI's games...
...but isn't this kind-of F-'ed up?
urfisch
03-23-10, 02:58 AM
UBI is, what MAKES the people "steal" the game...nothing else.
Whether morally right or not (I don't like it) most countries now have laws on the books forbidding you from modifying software of any type to defeat DRM. I choose not to break the law, so I wouldn't consider using the cracked exe file.
However, if Ubi, as it did in SH3, actually pirates the cracked game from the pirates and releases it officially as the DRM free version of the game then all bets are off.
So according to Ubi, piracy is bad unless... I still say that Ubi commits piracy with its DRM, converting your computer to its own use, removing your legal fair use rights with the software. What is worse, piracy of a piece of software or piracy of an entire computer? I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon for either.
SH3 and SH4 are great games that can keep us modding, playing and strategizing for ten years.
In Europe, reverse engineering and modification even of protected software is allowed and protected by law for interoperability issues.
Ex : my PC runs Debian (Xubuntu to be precise).
I use software to play my PC games with a Nvidia driver.
Legally, I am allowed to modify the games as to make them work under my PC (I use cracked .exe so the protection that doesn't work with Linux doesn't forbid me from playing the game). Legally, it's interoperability and there's nothing they can do to prevent me from doing it.
Rockin Robbins
03-23-10, 07:01 AM
In Europe, reverse engineering and modification even of protected software is allowed and protected by law for interoperability issues.
Ex : my PC runs Debian (Xubuntu to be precise).
I use software to play my PC games with a Nvidia driver.
Legally, I am allowed to modify the games as to make them work under my PC (I use cracked .exe so the protection that doesn't work with Linux doesn't forbid me from playing the game). Legally, it's interoperability and there's nothing they can do to prevent me from doing it.
That sure is a lot more enlightened than what the wholly purchased government of the US has done.
Here is what Wikipedia says about our Digital Millennium Copyright Act
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) copyright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright) law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law) that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Organization) (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management) or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet). Passed on October 12, 1998 by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) and signed into law by President Bill Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton) on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_17_of_the_United_States_Code) of the United States Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code) to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of on-line services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_service_provider) for copyright infringement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement) by their users.
What's this part about criminalizing circumvention of access controls? That sounds like a catch-all that could make preventing a program from going online to authenticate itself a criminal act. It's obviously written by the copyright holders for the purpose of punishing their customers in the name of fighting piracy.
It's as bad as onerous deed restrictions at a condominium, coupled with the power-mad condo associations. Many of the stories coming from those condos are quite entertaining looked at from the outside, but for those unfortunate enough to live there, their entire investment in their property could be at risk.
FIREWALL
12-10-10, 02:11 AM
I stumbled across this old thread by accident as it's not in the Search or SH5 Archives.
After a good nights rest I will answer tomorrow, a the question that was put to me.
Did I remove SH5 after I saw it would still work after, I got a refund ? :)
I stumbled across this old thread by accident as it's not in the Search or SH5 Archives.
After a good nights rest I will answer tomorrow, a the question that was put to me.
Did I remove SH5 after I saw it would still work after, I got a refund ? :)
by far my favorite thread :P
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.