Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rockstar is selling cracked game copies on Steam

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 259 posts

Re: Rockstar is selling cracked game copies on Steam

#91

Post by freejazz »

wongarsu wrote: post #79
jiofj wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could. They would lose, though

A No-CD crack might not be transformative enough to warrant copyright protection as derivative work in the US. But they could sue in a jurisdiction that is more likely to give them a favorable outcome. Handling of derivative works and the minimum threshold for copyright varies considerably between countries.

I don't think people on HN understand what a derivative work is, considering how often I see it referenced incorrectly. You can't make a derivative work without a license. That's why it's derivative. It derivates from the copyrighted work and is therefore within the domain of the copyright and under the control of the copyright's owner.

A Harry Potter spin-off about Hermione (I don't know anything about HP, sorry in advanced) is a derivative of the original Harry Potter work. As I'm sure you are well aware, you cannot sell copies of your Hermione spin-off, because that'd be copyright infringement, because it is a derivative work.

Re: Rockstar is selling cracked game copies on Steam

#92

Post by gamblor956 »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #40
gamblor956 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a no-no under the DMCA regardless of underlying ownership The "regardless" part is wrong. It is permissible for the owner of the software to include software for the express purpose of bypassing the protections they themselves placed on their software. Why would you think that the software owner isn't allowed to do that?

It would be permissible, if the "software for the express purpose of bypassing the protections they themselves placed on their software" was their own software. It's not permissible for them to make available other people's "software for the express purpose of bypassing the protections they themselves placed on their software" without the express permission of those other people . Neither statute nor case law sets a…

without the express permission of those other people.

That is false. They simply have to use the other software, i.e., the crack, within the terms of its license.

In this case, the crack was distributed widely with a permissive use license. My hazy memories of that era specifically mention giving them credit and nothing else. There was definitely no commercial use restriction.

Re: Rockstar is selling cracked game copies on Steam

#93

Post by CobrastanJorji »

Many years ago, I worked on a product that provided a bunch of old emulated games. We properly licensed them, but many of the license holders no longer had the original ROMs, ripping the game data off of some of the really old consoles was quite difficult, and the only ROMs available publicly were cracked copies with demo's added. That was the birth of the demoscene, which was awesome, but bad for us trying to legitimately provide these games. So we ended up cheating. We used the cracked versions of these games, but we always loaded the games from a state just past when the demo would play, making them look normal and legit. Thank God all those early cracks put their demos only at the start and not, like, between levels 1 and 2, or we'd've been screwed.

Re: Rockstar is selling cracked game copies on Steam

#94

Post by anakaine »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #40
gamblor956 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a no-no under the DMCA regardless of underlying ownership The "regardless" part is wrong. It is permissible for the owner of the software to include software for the express purpose of bypassing the protections they themselves placed on their software. Why would you think that the software owner isn't allowed to do that?

It would be permissible, if the "software for the express purpose of bypassing the protections they themselves placed on their software" was their own software. It's not permissible for them to make available other people's "software for the express purpose of bypassing the protections they themselves placed on their software" without the express permission of those other people . Neither statute nor case law sets a…

There is the matter of enforcement, however. If something is completely unenforceable, such as in this case where the owner is using a pirate groups bypass, then it may as well be permissible. It's not expressly permissible, but the perceived breach is also not enforceable, so the argument becomes a moot point.

Also, the patches typically had no license terms attached to their usage, or if they did it came in the format of attribution. The implications here is debatable, but we again come back to enforcement to close out the otherwise circular argument.

Re: Rockstar is selling cracked game copies on Steam

#95

Post by paxys »

toast0 wrote: post #82
paxys wrote: post #56

While not too big a deal on its own, if the binary was doing something it wasn't supposed to (which was/is common with cracked games from untrustworthy sources) it would open Rockstar up to a mountain of liability. I'm guessing this is some subcontractor taking shortcuts rather than an official company policy approved by legal.

Razor1911 isn't an untrustworthy source though.

Just because it says Razor1911 in the binary doesn't mean it actually came from that group though.

Re: Rockstar is selling cracked game copies on Steam

#96

Post by dragonwriter »

freejazz wrote: post #91
wongarsu wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A No-CD crack might not be transformative enough to warrant copyright protection as derivative work in the US. But they could sue in a jurisdiction that is more likely to give them a favorable outcome. Handling of derivative works and the minimum threshold for copyright varies considerably between countries.

I don't think people on HN understand what a derivative work is, considering how often I see it referenced incorrectly. You can't make a derivative work without a license. That's why it's derivative. It derivates from the copyrighted work and is therefore within the domain of the copyright and under the control of the copyright's owner. A Harry Potter spin-off about Hermione (I don't know anything about HP, sorry in…

> I don't think people on HN understand what a derivative work is, considering how often I see it referenced incorrectly.

Very true.

> You can't make a derivative work without a license. T

You can, but it is a copyright violation to do so unless an exception (like Fair Use) applies.

A derivative work is also a work eligible for copyright in its own right, and as such is copyright by the creator by operation of law when fixed in a tangible form, whether or not it also violates someone else’s copyright.

> It derivates

“derives”

> from the copyrighted work and is therefore within the domain of the copyright and under the control of the copyright's owner.

No, producing it is within the legally exclusive rights of the copyright holder subject to the limitations on those rights, but once created the copyright in the derivative is not under the control of the copyright holder of the original (though transferring or licensing back may be part of the resolution of copyright violation lawsuit over its creation.)

Re: Rockstar is selling cracked game copies on Steam

#97

Post by rootw0rm »

bonestamp2 wrote: post #7
robbiet480 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The game shown here, Midnight Club II, required the CD to be in the drive to play it. With the advent of Steam and companies releasing older games on Steam, they needed a way to bypass that check. Bypassing a CD (commonly called No-CD) was a very common crack/DRM bypass back in the day. Rockstar didn't want to bring up old source code and find someone who understood it enough to remove the check, so instead they just…

That's hilarious. I wonder what the license model is for the crack that they used.

it's the "all rights reversed" license

Re: Rockstar is selling cracked game copies on Steam

#98

Post by readyplayernull »

tpmx wrote: post #68
OnlyMortal wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh. I recall their demos on the Amiga.

Probably Norway's most long-lived and industrious software export success. Founded in 1985.

Somehow I expected them to be founded since 1911, cracking those Analytical Engines.

Re: Rockstar is selling cracked game copies on Steam

#99

Post by elil17 »

qingcharles wrote: post #84
elil17 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine you did this and ended up in court. If you admit you lied on the DMCA request, you'd be admitting to perjury. If you continue to claim to be the cracker, Rockstar could sue you for damages from IP theft.

Perjury is only if you make a statement under oath knowing it to be a lie. The DMCA doesn't require you by statute to tell the truth. As long as you tell the truth under oath on the witness stand, if it got that far, then you'd be fine from a criminal prosecution perspective. Of course, you'd probably get counter-sued for a number of civil torts for being a fuckhead.

What you said is not true. The text of the law specifically clarifies that a false DMCA takedown request is perjury.

Re: Rockstar is selling cracked game copies on Steam

#100

Post by tj-teej »

Related story, I remember years ago as a kid I bought a Prince of Persia PC game at a yardsale (on a CD), but early on in the game there was a riddle where you needed a password to get through this door, it was some cryptic message of a few numbers.

I don't remember the exact format but it turned out the riddle was instructing me to go to page X, line Y and character Z of the manual for the game!

I remember being so sad that I couldn't play anymore because I didn't have the manual but in retrospect I wonder if this was an anti-piracy strategy

Post reply on HN