Hey UbiSoft! How about a SecuROM-less executable?
 

Normally this kind of thing doesn't get under my skin too much, that is "copy protection" build into software. But for some reason, I can't let this one go...After RockinRobbins brought up the SecROM issue in this thread:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=132167&highlight=sony
we were told:

Launching the sh4 executable (at least in the download $9.95 version) creates a Windows process that detects the presence of other running software like Process Explorer (anyway, read the thread above for more info).

All I want is UbiSoft to make good on what they've said. Produce an SH4 executable that only validates the installation and make it available to those of us who purchased the download version.

If by "disk checking" they mean "process checking" then I want to know why those of us who purchased the download version have to put up with it.

Thank God I didn't download online. I'm waiting for the whole enchilada package in stores (if ever they do decide to do that).:yep:

What is the actual problem with it anyway? It's not like it's StarForce and you Optical Drives are dying.

Spell it out:

Has it broken your PC?
Do other games not work now?
Are your Fridge magnets demagnitised?:doh:

Look, let me lay this out.

Unless you play SH4 Multiplayer SecuRom is never used/activated. So, unless you want to keep MP functionality, remove SecuRom from your system because with the advent of the 1.3 patch, the game no longer needs it, because YOU no longer need the disk to play.

I've already posted details about removing it elsewhere. FFS, if you still want to run Process Explorer at the same time, I even have an official fix for that.

This is just more hysteria over protection software when in 99.9% of cases, people don't even know it's running.

STOP! This and the above quoted simply are not true. SecuROM indeed does scan your running processes for a list of undesirable software that contains a host of software that legitimate users may run for honorable and legal purposes. When someone takes control of your property without your consent that is called conversion (if deemed a tort) or theft (if deemed a crime). In no event do the refs call "no foul" when that happens.

I suppose if someone broke into your house and lived in it for a week while you were gone on vacation, so long as they broke nothing and took nothing of yours you would not be offended if the policeman said, "Were your fridge magnets demagnitized? It's not like he burned your house down." SecuROM snuck onto my property without my knowledge or consent, and although the paper tiger is easily tamed, it is not a welcome guest.

Suppose when we bought SH4 there was a disclaimer telling us that along with SH4 another program would be installed for the purpose of protecting Ubi's investment. It would "prevent illegal copying and scan your running processes for <complete! list of "evil" programs including harmless Microsoft utilities> each time SH4 starts. It will take up <amount> mb of space on your hard drive. It will not be uninstallable and will create many large files with illegal filenames so you will not be able to delete them from your machine. Running processes from SecuROM may hamper the performance of your machine and prevent you from running software you may already legally own. No warranties express or implied are represented and all claims for compensatory and punitive damages will be laughed at."

Hell, that's reasonable! Check the accept box!:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

No one would voluntarily enter that agreement, but that is the situation in which we find ourselves. If you have a good and desirable product you need not hide. You need not install it without consent. The means of use show that the companies involved know that they are doing wrong. They condemn themselves.

I'm the owner of my machine. I have the right to be fully informed regarding all the software that is installed on it. Failure to completely inform should be a crime. Jail time for executives of slimey corporations peddling the snake oil should be doled out liberally. They are as bad, and sometimes much worse, than the lousy pirates. If they can sell the "anti-piracy" add-on to the end user, who buys it fully informed as to the consequences, THEN you could justify its existence.

Final absurdity: From the advent of patch 1.3, all through 1.4 to the release of SH4UBM, SH4 did not need this "protection." Now, suddenly the situation requires attack dogs. What has changed? I believe the change was due to a nice sales weasel from Sony showing up at Ubi's offices with some scary stories and some snake oil to sell. After the time period that the game needed no such protection, any arguments that SH4 now needs SecuROM again deserve only laughter and sneers.

Now you've done it. I'm going to have to sink at least two more ships to feel good again...

Personal opinion....Starforce was useless and intrusive. SecuRom is just useless. At least it's a move in the right direction. :D

No it's not hysteria. If you're ok with it, fine. If your ok with the 99.9% of the people not knowing it's running, fine. I'm in the .1% and I find it unacceptable. I find even it more unacceptable that because I downloaded the add-on, that I have to put up with this cr*p while those who purchase the CD do not.

Wrong. I don't play MP and when I start the program, a SecuROM process is started regardless.

I never had any SecuROM cr*p ON my system until I purchased the add-on.

It's not about whether or not I can "do a workaround".

It's about someone telling me one thing, and then finding out "it's not that way". There's an "professional integrity" issue here for me, ok? Evidently, from your previous comment, you don't seem to mind if 99.9% of users don't know they've been "compromised" which is the term I use. You can call it what you will.

BTW, your 'fridge magnets comment and condescending attitude sucks.

Good to know RR. In fact SecureROM will also take up resources with the extra program running in the background. SecureROM to me is an intruder- scanning your system without my permission. Isn't that a form of privacy violation? Does any info taken from your system and collected elsewhere while you're online?

Or btw Danlisa my fridge don't have a door.

That is the most succinct and "to the point" view I've read yet! :up:

Absolutely! Sure, I buy software and it was my choice to purchase UbiSofts' product. But I expect "full disclosure" on what I'm installing and to predicate my purchase on that information. As far as I knew, I was buying a U-Boat add-on with some bug fixes and graphics enhancements.

IF I HAD KNOWN ABOUT THE SECUROM CODE, I PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAVE BOUGHT THE DOWNLOADABLE VERSION!

Hehehehehehehehe
 

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:: rotfl: Surely this is the great quote of the month! Thanks TDK!

@danlisa your fridge magnets comment falls under the category of allowable sarcasm and was winner of the great quote of the month before it was decimated by TDK.

You bought Silent Hunter 4: Wolves of the Pacific, didn't you? That had SecuRom on it. Where's the difference?

You had SecuRom on your system the moment you installed the full game, before you even looked at the U-Boat Addon.

These threads by their nature are flawed, they will never effect any change, the only thing that's likely to happen it that a new form of protection will come along and people will still find objections to it.

Regardless of what inflection you draw from my posts, you're ranting about something that's been discussed before in 2 other threads and that you can't do anything about unless, like my suggestion, you remove the whole issue from your PC.

I'll agree that SecuRom is useless, here's why:

1) Within 24hrs of the v1.0 being released, it was cracked, then so was v1.2. Some protection that.
2) It's no longer needed by the game.

So you have to ask yourself, are you going to devote energy to an arguement which will have no positive outcome (need I remind you, we went through this with StarForce and Ubi switced to SecuRom:rotfl: ) or are you actually going to do something about removing SecuRom from your system?

Ok, so I have a question. Seeing how I am the owner of a legal copy of SH4, and if I wanted to make a backup for protection sake, like in case my original gets damaged, would this Securom prohibit me from making a backup of something I legally purchased?? Back in the day, when the compac disk first came out, they were referred to as "practically" indestructable. This we all know, came to be proven false. I like to have a backup of my software.

I haven't played SH3 in years, Vista won't even let you load anything related to starforce.

My com. goes kinda nutty.

I wish that were true. SecuROM was not installed from either the DVD or 1.4 patch. I run a process scanner (Process Explorer) and use dll dependancy tools constantly. I also track changes to files on my HDs and SecuROM never showed up. It was not until 1.5 that this became an issue, and that's one reason it bugs me so much.

I used to make a living as a programmer and Systems Admin. I pretty well know my way around the MS OS... ;)

phewww !!

this is a hot potato -

and i really dont know or understand it all - it is interesting reading though

so could i just ask this...

i have sh4 and i am getting the add-on tomorrow and want a clean install on my 'windows' system, have not installed it all before....am i likely to run into any of the problems you talk of....

many thanks :ping:

Partly correct.;)

Here's the DVD v1.0 specs:
Title: Silent Hunter 4 Wolves of the Pacific
Version: v1.0
Developer: Ubisoft Romania
Publisher: Ubisoft
Language: English
MediaType: DVD
Protection: Securom 7.31.0011

Whereas the 1.4 patch did not have SecuRom (infact even 1.3 was SR free).

Still, my solution is not a 'workaround', it's a legit way to remove a piece of software that is redundant on your system.

FYI, I too know my way around an OS, which is how I know the process required to remove SecuRom. Wanna Dance?:p

I like the way you think, sir:up:

The copy protection issue has been with us since I can remember. It basically is as useless now as it was in the BBS days. Where there is a will to crack it, it will be cracked. The only ones who are inconvenienced by copy protection are the people who legitimately purchase the software.

I won't start with the whole Sony rant because, frankly, my balance is too bad to be climbing up on a soap box.

Taking an "oh you can remove it later" attitude is not the sensible approach. Voicing concern over the invasion of our computers by the likes of Sony's (oops, I said that four letter word) viruses and rootkits is the only way to effect any changes. It may be a bit of "tilting at windmills" but so many "revolutionary" ideas started as just that.

If we say we are POed about this crap and nothing happens, then so be it, but if we never complain about the crap to begin with, then we deserve it.

<climbs down from soap box to the tune of the Who's "We're Not Gonna Take It">

Nope!
 

No foul there. The downloaded installation file is easily and without restrictions able to be burned to a CD. You could conceivably save it to Filefront too, if you just wanted off-site backup. Finally, Direct2Drive lets you redownload previously purchased software that you have bought from them.

So that part is fine.

Edit: oops I thought you were talking about the add-on. The original CD does have copy protection and a normal copy will not work at all. There are ways to make a copy, which is allowed under law, but I understand the tools themselves to produce these allowed copies cannot be specifically discussed here. As a website owner you can't afford the consequences of someone stealing software based on instructions they received on your website. We don't encourage or condone piracy here. Piracy is why we've got our panties in a wad as it is.:rotfl:

Sure.. let's rhumba... ;)

Ok, just to verify something... I completely stripped all SH related files from my system, cleaned the registry, etc. and re-installed Sh4 1.3 from the DVD.

There are no SecuROM files or processes installed or running on my PC...

Installed the 1.4 patch. No SecuROM...
Installed the 1.5 downloadable add-on. NOW I've got SecuROM.:down:

So, if SecuROM should have been installed at 1.3 and was not (at least in my case), then there is something fishy about either SecuROM or my OS... either and/or both would not be beyond suspicion...

[EDIT] A quick disassembly of the original 1.3 sh4.exe file shows a .securom code section. Hmm, wonder why it didn't execute before?

Um, you won't have SecuRom if you installed directly to v1.3, cos it was dropped with that patch. However, the DVD v1.0 did have SR on it, which is what I said in my post.

These versions have SecuRom:
v1.0
v1.1
v1.2
v1.5

These do not:
v1.3
v1.4

Now, that said, I entirely agree with you. Why have SR reinstated in the v1.5 patch?

While I take acception to it's inclusion, I can understand the reasons why, but I have taken it upon myself to remove it, and why not?:D

STOP!!!!!! Danlisa is assuming you install from an original SH4 1.0 DVD. They included SecuROM. Round awarded to DeepIron. Sorry danlisa, it was close.

Now in addition to our original ammunition, DeepIron reveals that UBI sold DVDs without protection. That really strengthens our position. What changed? The nice sales weasel with the scary stories, that's what!

I'm getting off the thread. The SecuROM situation is important to protest once in awhile, but there is a point of propriety. We're there.