#143216 - keldon - Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:08 pm
On another note I just realized that if you're going to copy protect your product you should have your program verify that the disk cannot be copied. If it can read invalid sectors then the disk is invalid, so try to read those faulty sectors and that way you can force the pirates to create a crack. And make it harder to make the crack work by generating thousands of [unpredictably placed] faulty sector checking methods, where it is impossible to create a single algorithm to identify the positions - forcing a crack to require lots of work.
That's for the PC, for the PSP and DS, you could probably use access times of backup media vs official media to identify a copied product.
</pointless blog style article>
#143225 - Mighty Max - Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:15 pm
Copy protection does not work.
Never did, never will. Since Bob = Mallory, the only principle that can be applied is obscurity, and this is well know to be only illusionary.
What works better then any freaky system is to make good software ppl are willing to pay for. The costs of copyprotection software and the lawsuits when it fails (see Sony BMG (iirc)) should make up for those that still want to have everything free.
_________________
GBAMP Multiboot
#143227 - gauauu - Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:36 pm
It works a little bit, in that if it's difficult to copy software, only the determined and the real geeks will do it. If it's really easy, then everyone will do it.
I'm not saying the end result is worth it, because I think most copy-protection is extremely annoying and poorly done.
But having an annoying hurdle to get over is enough to deter a large portion of the population.
#143230 - Mighty Max - Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:56 pm
| gauauu wrote: |
It works a little bit, in that if it's difficult to copy software, only the determined and the real geeks will do it. If it's really easy, then everyone will do it.
|
I disagree in all points:
1. it is not true, that everyone will do so, if it is easy.
Proof: There is currently a band in the top 10 (at least over here) who is selling their work for "as much as some wants to give" and are getting an average of 6? (if i remember the numbers right). 2/3rd of all downloaders pay. From the 1/3rd that does not are probably a good amount of >lost the file<, >need another copy an a different PC<, >download was corrupt< or whatever. Sure there are ppl that are never willing to pay for sthg they might get for free, but it is a minority
2. If it is more difficult, it only changes the time until the tools are released that allows every fool to copy it. Are 1-2 months worth the millions, if there is still no additional customer?
| Quote: |
I'm not saying the end result is worth it, because I think most copy-protection is extremely annoying and poorly done.
|
Correct. But you know who is annoyed the most? The honest customer, who bought it but still has problems to use it. (And this happens a lot)
| Quote: |
But having an annoying hurdle to get over is enough to deter a large portion of the population. |
Correct. Slap your customers and you have the same effect tbh.
_________________
GBAMP Multiboot
#143235 - keldon - Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:05 pm
That is definitely not a "proof", not even by a long shot. Now I never at any time suggested fool-proof piracy protection. Copy protection is just one measure used, i.e. at least stop people from being able to copy it with nero, or being able to mount/burn an image once it has been carefully extracted without the faulty sectors.
Of course you can [for example] create a [custom] virtual drive, emulating the faulty sector.
Note [also] that I implied that the copy protection can be broken, that is inevitable by the simple fact that your machine can read it. But that is not to say that you can make it much more time consuming to create a crack for your program.
Any copy protection system requires the assistance of hardware, i.e. the faulty sector on the CD media. It's not copy proofing, just protection to make it much more difficult to copy, but not impossible.
#143243 - Mighty Max - Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:26 pm
| keldon wrote: |
| That is definitely not a "proof" |
I would call a example working against a theory pretty much as proof of the thory beeing false. Just like "all women have blond hair" can be proved wrong by finding only one who does not have blond hair.
Even the hardest defenders on copy protection seem to realize that they are nothing but hurting themself. Or do you have a different idea why more and more online-(music)stores (i.e. iTunes) are selling un-DRMed software (in the example for iPhone) and music?
This is for sure not because they sell less copies/earn less money if they do so.
So who is affected by copyprotection systems
- a "release"-group doesn't care much about copy protection. They solve that problem usually within few days if not hours.
- the honest customer feels accused to be a thief in general "If we didn't take measures you would have stolen our work". I generally don't like that. do you?
- the honest and not so lucky customer, can not use the software he has licenced, because the copy protection won't let him run it. HDMI anyone?
- the actual "thief" has no problem, he visits one of the .torrent search sites, finding the work of the "release"-groups with ease
So really. Double check:
What does copy protection want to achieve?
What does copy protection actually achieve?
How many does the copy protection cost the developer?
How much more income does the developer gain due to the copy protection?
Don't get me wrong. I don't want piracy to happen too, but that is not solvable by technical means. The solution to piracy can only be a social one, as the cause of piracy is within the pirating personality, not in his computer.
_________________
GBAMP Multiboot
#143245 - gauauu - Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:54 pm
I dunno...I read today on slashdot that more copies of the cd were downloaded via "pirated" means than through their website. So go figure.....
#143248 - Mighty Max - Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:02 pm
You did read that article you have just linked?
Because the conclusion they come to, is just what i said previosly
| your source wrote: |
Radiohead's actions are a wake-up call which we should all welcome and respond to with creativity and energy
|
It's not that i am from yesterday, i am completely aware that the download of whole collections with this title included (i.e. the whole charts) might massively exceed the amount of direct downloads. But i can not see the intend to download exactly that title from this. If i am missing a fact here, explain it to me.
Also there is - in the second line - a explanation why these numbers are not representative, which makes them void as the base of an serious debate.
| again your source wrote: |
this was probably more out of habit than malice
|
_________________
GBAMP Multiboot
#143253 - Optihut - Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:54 pm
The problem with copy protection is that people who want to get a copy are still able to do so, while the person who buys something gets an inferior product, where his right of a backup copy is infringed on.
It's a vicious cycle of companies inconveniencing their customer base until they are driven off from the product. As a result the sales will drop and then the companies lament about piracy and how they need to further inconvenience the honest customer as a counter measure...
#143256 - tepples - Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:23 pm
| Optihut wrote: |
| The problem with copy protection is that people who want to get a copy are still able to do so, while the person who buys something gets an inferior product, where his right of a backup copy is infringed on. |
You have no right of a backup copy. This is gbadev.org, not P****t H****n. Read the rules.
;-)
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#143270 - keldon - Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:40 am
Yes, finding a blonde woman is a disproof to "all women are not blonde". The statement, "if it's really easy, then everyone will do it" logically would probably read something like, "the probability of a person using a pirate product is reduced based on its difficulty to use. For example if copy protection involves 10 hours of work per person then much few would do it". So a disproof would be a proof that contradicts the relation for most cases.
That is what I'm talking about (reducing the likelihood of piracy through difficulty). ----
Either way increasing the difficulty reduces the casual pirating. Although I don't want to create another thread, change topic or branch, I have noted that much of piracy is more related to sharing than stealing. For example you say, "listen to this song I have", not "come steal the copy rights to this song". You say, "come play my playstation game", or "borrow my playstation game", not "use my license" or "borrow my license". We share experiences, hence "file sharing networks" as opposed to "rights stealing networks"!!! <thinks to self>maybe I should have a column, I'm so contraversal ^_^ Of course there is another school of action where your intention is to steal the rights, although my personal experience has been to just mess around with some random app for learning, or recording a song I like from the TV/radio (much the exact same thing in the viewers mind as downloading a song to hear it). Even though I refuse to download songs I don't own, I still listen to evanescence on youTube, so technically I'm a pirate, my action is no different to someone who downloaded it really (is it)
Last edited by keldon on Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:58 pm; edited 1 time in total
#143274 - zzo38computer - Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:17 am
I don't want to copy protection my product, whether or not the copy protection actually works.
_________________
Important: Please send messages about FWNITRO to the public forum, not privately to me.
#143282 - Mighty Max - Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:17 am
| keldon wrote: |
The statement, "if it's really easy, then everyone will do it" logically would probably read something like, "the probability of a person using a pirate product is reduced based on its difficulty to use.
|
Nope: Show that in the given environment (easy to copy) there is at least one that does not follow the statement ("everyone"), which i did do.
| Quote: |
For example if copy protection involves 10 hours of work per person then much few would do it". So a disproof would be a proof that contradicts the relation for most cases.
|
This would be a example against "The more difficult it is the less ppl would do so" but this is neither what the previous statement was about, not what i wanted to show wrong.
| Quote: |
Either way increasing the difficulty reduces the casual pirating
|
Nope. It might only increase the time until it happens, not the amount itself imnsho. And if it is leaked before release, chances are that it was an insider, in which case knowledge about the copyright protection is present and the avoidance easy.
_________________
GBAMP Multiboot
#143291 - keldon - Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:01 am
| Mighty Max wrote: |
| keldon wrote: | The statement, "if it's really easy, then everyone will do it" logically would probably read something like, "the probability of a person using a pirate product is reduced based on its difficulty to use.
|
Nope: Show that in the given environment (easy to copy) there is at least one that does not follow the statement ("everyone"), which i did do. |
You don't disprove a probabilistic statement in that sense. For example there is medical proof that smoking increases your chances of lung cancer. The 50% of people who don't die from smoking related illnesses are a proof that "not all smokers will die as a result of their smoking", but not a disproof to its lung cancer link. Probabilistic statements are about chance not deterministic outcomes, so a single case would not disprove it since the proof does not say that all people will copy.
Note: I studied logic&proof, specification&reasoning, so I'm not trying to argue here, I have both practical and theoretical knowledge on proofs and disproofs and that is how they work.
Also note that I mentioned the process of the user using the cracks as opposed to the cracking of the product.
Copy protection is not about making the product piracy proof, its about making it [slightly more] difficult for a casual user to make a copy for their friend. Try copying all of your movies for a friend using Nero, some will work and some will fail. What do you do when it fails? Give up now or look for another solution? So you look for another solution, you find a program that claims to circumvent copy protection. It works on all of your movies up to 2003 releases, then you find no other program. What do you do now, give up or continue searching? So you search and find *****.exe, which can break the newer protection methods but the server is down; you also search forums and find that that is the only program that does it but the server has been down for the last 3 months. What do you do now, give up or continue searching?
Your claim is that the difficulty of the process has no effect on the number of people who find the solution (providing there is one). My claim is that each stage filters through the numbers, reducing the number who find the half solution, and further reducing the number who discover *****.exe, and further reducing [still] the number who discover the solution.
If your claim is true then either all people will either find *****.exe or all people will give up at the stage prior to finding the solution, or that all people will give up prior to finding the existence of the solution, or that all people will give up at the stage prior to finding the half solution, or that all people will give up after Nero fails!
If my claim is true then some will filter at each stage, which I'm sure we can all see is the most likely reflection on reality.
Also note that to claim a single case disproves a statement is to claim that the statement it disproves implies this is the case for all people. The reason for this is the the disproof for the truth of such a statement is a proof that it is the case for all people. However you could state [correctly] that that A implies B even if B is false, but that statement is only satisfied if A is also false.
#143295 - Mighty Max - Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:27 am
| keldon wrote: |
| Mighty Max wrote: | | keldon wrote: | The statement, "if it's really easy, then everyone will do it" logically would probably read something like, "the probability of a person using a pirate product is reduced based on its difficulty to use.
|
Nope: Show that in the given environment (easy to copy) there is at least one that does not follow the statement ("everyone"), which i did do. |
You don't disprove a probabilistic statement in that sense. For example there is medical proof that smoking increases your chances of lung cancer. The 50% of people who don't die from smoking related illnesses are a proof that "not all smokers will die as a result of their smoking", but not a disproof to its lung cancer link. Probabilistic statements are about chance not deterministic outcomes, so a single case would not disprove it since the proof does not say that all people will copy.
|
Why do you instist that i am making the proof against "most"? If i have a simgle example against an "all" statement, then this "all" statement is false. No matter how many times it was correct.
| Quote: |
Note: I studied logic&proof, specification&reasoning
|
Ok, so i can use modal logical explanation here for what i explained in common words:
Let P(X) the property of "X will copy software illegal if it is an ease for X"
EX~P(X) -> ~(AXP(X))
| Quote: |
Also note that I mentioned the process of the user using the cracks as opposed to the cracking of the product.
Copy protection is not about making the product piracy proof, its about making it [slightly more] difficult for a casual user to make a copy for their friend.
|
There is no difference in the difficulty/time to achive for some time now. This was true when software as tools/patchers and knwoledge were not shared within seconds.
As soon as the first cracked it, the casual user will use the given resources with ease. There is no difficulty in surfing to gamescopyworld & co.
| Quote: |
Try copying all of your movies for a friend using Nero, some will work and some will fail. What do you do when it fails? Give up now or look for another solution? So you look for another solution, you find a program that claims to circumvent copy protection. It works on all of your movies up to 2003 releases, then you find no other program. What do you do now, give up or continue searching? So you search and find *****.exe, which can break the newer protection methods but the server is down; you also search forums and find that that is the only program that does it but the server has been down for the last 3 months. What do you do now, give up or continue searching?
|
I do NOT BUY copyright protected movies. I have the right - written into the BGB (citizens law) - to make private copies. If there is a movie i need to watch i'm either paying for the cinema, or the costs of the TV.
On Computergames/Software it is the same. I will not buy by any mean Bioshock due to the copy protection.
And i'm not alone with this opinion. The customers you scared away won't pay for this game, and probably for none of the following products. Are you really sure that the copy protection is worth a pissed of customer base?
| Quote: |
Your claim is that the difficulty of the process has no effect on the number of people who find the solution (providing there is one). |
Nope this is not my claim. You should read it again. I claim that
1. It is wrong to say copy right protection works (technically)
2. It is wrong that every customer will use illegal means if it is easy for him
3. Copy right protection does do a lot of harm to those who are honest (the developer has loss of income, the user loss of trust/problems using it)
| Quote: |
My claim is that each stage filters through the numbers, reducing the number who find the half solution, and further reducing the number who discover *****.exe, and further reducing [still] the number who discover the solution.
|
If you think the common customer of your software is that stupid to not find the files, i am happy to not be one of your customers.
| Quote: |
If your claim is true then either all people will either find *****.exe or all people will give up at the stage prior to finding the solution, or that all people will give up prior to finding the existence of the solution, or that all people will give up at the stage prior to finding the half solution, or that all people will give up after Nero fails!
|
Once again: To disproof a "all" statement, i don't need to disproof it for everyone, but a single one. Logic 101
| Quote: |
| Also note that to claim a single case disproves a statement is to claim that the statement it disproves implies this is the case for all people. |
No.
To stay in the example form a few posts back
"All woman have blond hair" is proved wrong by the first redhead (i think you agreed to that). But that proof does NOT imply that "all woman have not blond hair"! So why should this be the case for my statement against "all users would if they could"
_________________
GBAMP Multiboot
#143303 - keldon - Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:36 am
| Mighty Max wrote: |
| Why do you instist that i am making the proof against "most"? If i have a simgle example against an "all" statement, then this "all" statement is false. No matter how many times it was correct. |
Yes, that disprooves all, we can all agree on that - that is basic logic, yes. But I was saying that the said statement is [probably]not about all (in general context), do you get what I am saying? Also note that I personally diverted to that, which is that my first post was about, not about unbeatable copy proofing.
| Mighty Max wrote: |
Let P(X) the property of "X will copy software illegal if it is an ease for X"
EX~P(X) -> ~(AXP(X)) |
True, yet I never ever ever said I agree with X, in fact I made it clear I did not.
| Mighty Max wrote: |
There is no difference in the difficulty/time to achive for some time now. This was true when software as tools/patchers and knwoledge were not shared within seconds.
As soon as the first cracked it, the casual user will use the given resources with ease. There is no difficulty in surfing to gamescopyworld & co. |
This I agree with, it is [relatively] easy, hence if someone wants to do it they generally will.
| Mighty Max wrote: |
| I do NOT BUY copyright protected movies. I have the right - written into the BGB (citizens law) - to make private copies. If there is a movie i need to watch i'm either paying for the cinema, or the costs of the TV. |
Fair enough, but I was demonstrating how levels of difficulty deter the average user. I do the exact same thing my self, plus with my DVD-rental-by-mail service I usually copy the film onto my hard-drive so that I can send the film back on the same morning and watch the film later so that I don't send it after the post man has collected (deleting them immediately after). I also use it when the DVD does not like the real disk (for some reason, which always puzzles me).
| Mighty Max wrote: |
| And i'm not alone with this opinion. The customers you scared away won't pay for this game, and probably for none of the following products. Are you really sure that the copy protection is worth a pissed of customer base? |
I've installed FM2008, and the copy protection showed no signs of pissing off any customer base, apart from the very few who care that it uses Macrovision and the [also] few who back up their media rather than request a replacement disk (like myself ^_^)
| Mighty Max wrote: |
Nope this is not my claim. You should read it again. I claim that
1. It is wrong to say copy right protection works (technically)
2. It is wrong that every customer will use illegal means if it is easy for him
3. Copy right protection does do a lot of harm to those who are honest (the developer has loss of income, the user loss of trust/problems using it) |
1. Never ever ever said that, and I have clearly stated that I do not. Although we should be more clear on what we are saying. Copy protection is not copy proofing, i.e. with protection the copying is still possible, just more protected than [say] being able to copy with minimal ease using any burning software
2. Very true, yet again I never ever said every customer will use illegal means if it is easy
3. Partly true, I have a game that does not work on my machine due to some lame copy protection. Copy protection in general does cause problems when you genuinly want to back up your media - for example I missed out on Blade Runner because it broke. Having said that if you register you will be given a copy in the event of failure, so maybe I should have just registered.
| Mighty Max wrote: |
| If you think the common customer of your software is that stupid to not find the files, i am happy to not be one of your customers. |
I think that 90% of the population who have had the desire to use such a program as *****.exe gave up after the Nero stage ^_^
| Mighty Max wrote: |
| Once again: To disproof a "all" statement, i don't need to disproof it for everyone, but a single one. Logic 101 |
True but I never ever said that you would (you must have misinterpreted what I was saying). I said to disprove an "all-statement" you just need a single case, and I then said that claiming that "a single case disproves a [particular] statement" implies that the said statement claims that the case is "for all" (which you agree with). I am not talking about, and never did intend the topic to be about all.
| Mighty Max wrote: |
No.
To stay in the example form a few posts back
"All woman have blond hair" is proved wrong by the first redhead (i think you agreed to that). But that proof does NOT imply that "all woman have not blond hair"! So why should this be the case for my statement against "all users would if they could" |
I never ever said it did imply that all women have hair that is not blonde. Note again my statement that followed, which generally says this:
- "the chance of an individual going through the process of circumventing copy protection is reduced by the difficulty of the process and the time it takes to perform it"
#143304 - Mighty Max - Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:49 am
| keldon wrote: |
| Mighty Max wrote: | | Why do you instist that i am making the proof against "most"? If i have a simgle example against an "all" statement, then this "all" statement is false. No matter how many times it was correct. |
Yes, that disprooves all, we can all agree on that - that is basic logic, yes. But I was saying that the said statement is [probably]not about all (in general context), do you get what I am saying? Also note that I personally diverted to that, which is that my first post was about, not about unbeatable copy proofing. |
This is not what you said. If you didn't do so, i wouldn't have said anything. Let me quote you:
| Quote: |
That is definitely not a "proof", not even by a long shot.
|
After i replied to gauauu. Who instisted that "If it's really easy, then everyone will do it."
_________________
GBAMP Multiboot
#143311 - keldon - Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:57 am
| Mighty Max wrote: |
| Quote: |
That is definitely not a "proof", not even by a long shot.
|
After i replied to gauauu. Who instisted that "If it's really easy, then everyone will do it." |
Ah, that would explain it ....
| gaugau wrote: |
| It works a little bit, in that if it's difficult to copy software, only the determined and the real geeks will do it. If it's really easy, then everyone will do it. |
I have highlighted what I saw, so the last line (in liew of the previous statements) gave me the impression he did not mean it literally, more that if it's easy then everyone [who wants to do it] will do it.
And looking back over the posts we are talking about two completely different things!!! So rather than everyone doing it, which is a claim I doubt anyone would ever believe, let's resume back to what I was talking about because we can both agree that none of us believe that all people will pirate if they can.
#143316 - gauauu - Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:48 pm
Blah...this argument has gone on way further than I care to debate.
No, I didn't mean literally that EVERYONE would copy the software.
I just meant that copy protection, whether good or bad (I tend to lean towards generally bad), although never completely effective, discourages casual piracy amongst the less-technical folk of the world.
Feel free to continue debating if you like, but I'm done.
#143321 - keldon - Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:36 pm
That's exactly what I thought you meant too. Although half of the conversation between myself and Mighty Max has been down to us talking about completely different things (IMO) if nobody else has noticed.