Keeping the Pirates at Bay – Copy and Crack Protection (2001) • Hacker News Board

Re: Keeping the Pirates at Bay – Copy and Crack Protection (2001)

#51

Post by throwawaykf05 » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 9:27 PM UTC

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #39

sosborn wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"They're probably missing out on several tens of dollars." * "The large number of people pirating songs" Yes, they went too far, but for fucks sake, it is really hard to imagine that these acts hurt a company?

I sell doodads. You've never bought one from me. Can I claim that you've hurt me? After all, you've never bought any. (I can show you my bank account balance, I really am hurting). The sticking point, the part that will make it feel to you as if my statement above is non-sensical, is somehow you've managed to attach the idea that they're selling something to the idea that other people have a (very) similar something…

Strawman: by not buying doodads from you, I'm not getting the value provided by the doodads either. That is not the case with digital goods.

Say you created those doodads using your time, efforts and resources. Your doodads provide people some value. People usually buy doodads as recompense for that value. But if someone "pirates" your doodads, it means they acquired the value without fairly compensating you.

So you: invested time, effort and resources to provide value to others. The pirates: benefited from that value and gave nothing back. Is that not unfair?

What if those pirates further shared your doodads with their friends (or, you know, random people on the Internet) further depriving you of people who should be paying you for the value your doodads provided. Now can you not claim that the pirates are hurting you?

You may focus on the zero marginal cost of copying digital music and movies and video games. However, observe that the value is not in the bits you copy but the experiences they provide to your mind. If they are truly worth zero to you, I don't see why you should be wasting your time experiencing them in the first place.

If I were to guess, you have not "cultivated that idea" because you've never created something that people found useful, something which you'd think you deserved compensation for, but which was taken without giving anything in return.

Re: Keeping the Pirates at Bay – Copy and Crack Protection (2001)

#52

Post by AlyssaRowan » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 9:45 PM UTC

yalue wrote: post #6

[deleted] wrote: post #3

[deleted]

As someone else already wrote, it didn't really matter here. They already knew that whatever they did would be crackable, but it would just be a matter of time. They basically did an obfuscated checksum procedure (and they didn't use just one, but multiple checksums of overlapping regions). The thing this helped with was not to prevent cracking, but to prevent trivial cracking. This must have made the attackers think…

Overlapping checksums and delayed trap flags have been completely normal stock-in-trade of copy protection techniques for 30 years - Dungeon Master from the Atari ST was on here not long ago, to give one specific case study.

Another post indicates that attackers have a budget here. That's misunderstanding the nature of your attacker, which is probably "a skilled determined cracker with time on their hands". Challenges interest crackers. Budgets are only really significant if you're talking about hardware dongle analysis, or if you're offering a bounty to a +veteran for something rare and tricky. Software analysis mainly just takes skill, and time - but no, probably not weeks to a skilled cracker, or money. Two, three days maybe (although they will need to actually find the time)?

Perhaps there's a greater emphasis on first-day sales now, but perhaps that's the nature of publishers' expectations at the moment. Some publishers think they benefit from copy protection. Do developers really benefit from copy protection? Do users? Surely not, but it depends on how intrusive the copy protection is - and decades of experience shows that the more effective a copy protection technique is designed to be, the more intrusive and twitchy it is and the more of an inconvenience or disaster it is to the users (who, in such extreme cases, are actually very glad to be rid of it). Meanwhile, a copy protection that tries hard to not be intrusive - Steam - owns most of the PC gaming market by presenting a platform that's actually convenient, inexpensive, and fairly reasonably.

With years of developers viewing copy protection as a publisher demand, hence the lazy crypter-wrapper-based protections which are just plug and go, maybe that's lowered the effort crackers needed to put in too.

If the publishers are demanding more effort into it now (with the games industry thriving from a vibrant indie scene all the way up to Hollywood blockbuster budgets despite decades of nigh-unstoppable piracy) they're only really gradually rediscovering techniques some developers (and a few crackers) have forgotten - and ones the users would like to forget.

I don't know about you, but I don't want a return to the bad old days of words from the manual or black-on-black code wheels.

Re: Keeping the Pirates at Bay – Copy and Crack Protection (2001)

#53

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 11:15 PM UTC

throwawaykf05 wrote: post #51

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sell doodads. You've never bought one from me. Can I claim that you've hurt me? After all, you've never bought any. (I can show you my bank account balance, I really am hurting). The sticking point, the part that will make it feel to you as if my statement above is non-sensical, is somehow you've managed to attach the idea that they're selling something to the idea that other people have a (very) similar something…

Strawman: by not buying doodads from you, I'm not getting the value provided by the doodads either. That is not the case with digital goods. Say you created those doodads using your time, efforts and resources. Your doodads provide people some value. People usually buy doodads as recompense for that value. But if someone "pirates" your doodads, it means they acquired the value without fairly compensating you. So you:…

> Say you created those doodads using your time, efforts and resources. Your doodads provide people some value. People usually buy doodads as recompense for that value. But if someone "pirates" your doodads, it means they acquired the value without fairly compensating you.

Like if they make their own doodad, after seeing mine?

I'm not entitled to compensation for being the first to do something. A society that sets itself up such that people who do something first are entitled to become rent-seekers for all eternity is dysfunctional.

> What if those pirates further shared your doodads with their friends

That'd be awesome. Unless they did a half-assed job of the sharing. I reserve the right to beat them bloody if they release the music as 32k VBR mp3s. I may murder if they're wma format.

No jury in the world could convict me.

Copyright used to encourage the creation of more works that would enter the public domain in less than three decades.

Now it's used to fund bribing Congress to get longer copyrights.

> If I were to guess, you have not "cultivated that idea" because you've never created something that people found useful,

Yeh. You'd like to believe that, because it's easier to see me as some filthy thief than as someone whose ideas might be correct. The former lets you just call me names and move on, the latter would mean changing your mind and thinking about issues like this critically.

Someday I hope that people like myself strip you of all political influence and make this part of the world a better place. You can go live in Singapore with its thousand year copyright durations and felony download laws.

Re: Keeping the Pirates at Bay – Copy and Crack Protection (2001)

#54

Post by sosborn » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 11:41 PM UTC

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #50

sosborn wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I really want or need to acquire your doodad then I am a potential customer and I have three choices. 1) buy your doodad. 2) acquire it without paying money. 3) go without using your doodad. As a business owner, which would you prefer I do? Would option 2 not result in a loss of potential revenue? Would it not be super-harmful if everyone who wanted to use your product chose option 2?

> If I really want or need to acquire your doodad then I am a potential customer But are you a promised customer, one that I own as some sort of cow to be milked when I see fit? Certainly if I repair cars, you don't claim that I get to do all your car work and be paid for it, nor could I sue if you did it yourself. But this is what you're claiming with entertainment... Think about it. I might make the claim that if y…

> But are you a promised customer, one that I own as some sort of cow to be milked when I see fit?

Of course not. See option 3. Again, which option would you prefer I take if you are the business owner? Which would you prefer that I didn't take?

Re: Keeping the Pirates at Bay – Copy and Crack Protection (2001)

#55

Post by gambiting » Fri, Jan 09, 2015, 10:33 AM UTC

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #53

throwawaykf05 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strawman: by not buying doodads from you, I'm not getting the value provided by the doodads either. That is not the case with digital goods. Say you created those doodads using your time, efforts and resources. Your doodads provide people some value. People usually buy doodads as recompense for that value. But if someone "pirates" your doodads, it means they acquired the value without fairly compensating you. So you:…

> Say you created those doodads using your time, efforts and resources. Your doodads provide people some value. People usually buy doodads as recompense for that value. But if someone "pirates" your doodads, it means they acquired the value without fairly compensating you. Like if they make their own doodad, after seeing mine? I'm not entitled to compensation for being the first to do something. A society that sets i…

>>Like if they make their own doodad, after seeing mine?

That's fine. You can make a car that looks like a Mercedes and no one will bat an eyelid, if you really made it with your own hands.

If you look at a game, and make your own that looks similar(or even exactly the same) - again, no one will bat an eyelid. But if you pirate the CAD files used to make said Mercedes and produce it using that then yeah, you stole their work without paying for it. If you pirate the game someone made without paying for it, you are also a scum. Whoever made it is not entitled to compensation, but you are not entitled to use other people's products for free.

Re: Keeping the Pirates at Bay – Copy and Crack Protection (2001)

#56

Post by eurleif » Fri, Jan 09, 2015, 10:44 AM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #55

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Say you created those doodads using your time, efforts and resources. Your doodads provide people some value. People usually buy doodads as recompense for that value. But if someone "pirates" your doodads, it means they acquired the value without fairly compensating you. Like if they make their own doodad, after seeing mine? I'm not entitled to compensation for being the first to do something. A society that sets i…

>>Like if they make their own doodad, after seeing mine? That's fine. You can make a car that looks like a Mercedes and no one will bat an eyelid, if you really made it with your own hands. If you look at a game, and make your own that looks similar(or even exactly the same) - again, no one will bat an eyelid. But if you pirate the CAD files used to make said Mercedes and produce it using that then yeah, you stole th…

>You can make a car that looks like a Mercedes and no one will bat an eyelid

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1085935_spanish-police-bu...

Re: Keeping the Pirates at Bay – Copy and Crack Protection (2001)

#57

Post by gambiting » Fri, Jan 09, 2015, 11:14 AM UTC

eurleif wrote: post #56

gambiting wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Like if they make their own doodad, after seeing mine? That's fine. You can make a car that looks like a Mercedes and no one will bat an eyelid, if you really made it with your own hands. If you look at a game, and make your own that looks similar(or even exactly the same) - again, no one will bat an eyelid. But if you pirate the CAD files used to make said Mercedes and produce it using that then yeah, you stole th…

>You can make a car that looks like a Mercedes and no one will bat an eyelid http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1085935_spanish-police-bu...

Ok, do I really need to spell everything out? You can make yourself, for yourself, literally anything. You can make a pair of shoes that look like Adidas shoes, and you can stick an Adidas logo on them and absolutely no one will object. The same principle applies to everything else. BUT - if you start selling your product pretending it's original, then you are absolutely breaking a number of laws. How is that not obvious?

Re: Keeping the Pirates at Bay – Copy and Crack Protection (2001)

#58

Post by ddingus » Sat, Jan 10, 2015, 5:46 AM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #41

ddingus wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it's more subtle than that. For the vast majority of ordinary people, entertainment dollars are fixed. People have what they have to spend on entertainment, and when it's gone that month, it's gone. What happens is the various content producers compete for their share of those dollars. There just aren't billions out there for entertainment purposes. Wages being flat in the US speaks right to that. People do…

I don't think it's accurate to say that the vast majority have a fixed entertainment budget. But even assuming it's true, piracy would still hurt individual companies or even entire industries. Industries you can't pirate so easily would see a disproportionate share of the spending. DRM would still be very important. People would pirate the stuff that is easy to pirate, and buy the DRM stuff.

You probably should think again.

This varies some, but most people are locked in for most of their dollars. They may have savings, and can vary that budget some, but there just aren't the billions of dollars out there often cited.

There is a delta from what is being sold now. But it's not multiples. Perhaps additional fractions.

As for the hard to pirate industries, who says?

They must compete with easier, more flexible options. They might actually get less spending than they would otherwise with a more flexible and accessible scheme.

Apple showed this with iTunes and the removal of DRM actually drove more sales. Why? Sharing.

Re: Keeping the Pirates at Bay – Copy and Crack Protection (2001)

#59

Post by ddingus » Sat, Jan 10, 2015, 5:50 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #48

ddingus wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it's more subtle than that. For the vast majority of ordinary people, entertainment dollars are fixed. People have what they have to spend on entertainment, and when it's gone that month, it's gone. What happens is the various content producers compete for their share of those dollars. There just aren't billions out there for entertainment purposes. Wages being flat in the US speaks right to that. People do…

I doubt there's a fixed entertainment budget. I could see a fixed maximum , but past a certain threshold of being able to obtain things for free, people will spend less. Even if it was a completely fixed budget, "entertainment" is a diverse category. Movies aren't just competing with other movies, or even just with TV and books and music, but also with things like cake and vodka. Even if the pie is fixed, is it unrea…

Those dollars do vary, and yes a movie company will absolutely compete with vodka and cake.

But there aren't the billions of dollars out there claimed as losses.

And yes, fixed maximum, though there are a lot of options, so people do hit that maximum fairly often.

A quick look through the majority of my peers shows this. They make trade-offs each month. The ones who are better off can flex their entertainment budget considerably. Those who are not, center in on a fairly modest amount, and when it's spent, it's spent. They do other things.

I agree with you about it being equally wrong. It's not zero lost sales, and it's not all lost sales.

However, one must also factor in the network effects of sharing. Mindshare is worth something, and those who have it sell more, and getting it happens through sharing and piracy as much as it does other efforts.

And the opportunity to sell continues to exist despite the piracy too. A few are out there working on that premise.

Re: Keeping the Pirates at Bay – Copy and Crack Protection (2001)

#60

Post by throwawaykf05 » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 8:55 AM UTC

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #53

throwawaykf05 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strawman: by not buying doodads from you, I'm not getting the value provided by the doodads either. That is not the case with digital goods. Say you created those doodads using your time, efforts and resources. Your doodads provide people some value. People usually buy doodads as recompense for that value. But if someone "pirates" your doodads, it means they acquired the value without fairly compensating you. So you:…

> Say you created those doodads using your time, efforts and resources. Your doodads provide people some value. People usually buy doodads as recompense for that value. But if someone "pirates" your doodads, it means they acquired the value without fairly compensating you. Like if they make their own doodad, after seeing mine? I'm not entitled to compensation for being the first to do something. A society that sets i…

>Like if they make their own doodad, after seeing mine?

Copying bits verbatim is not "making" anything. Also we are now conflating patents and copyright, but...

>A society that sets itself up such that people who do something first are entitled to become rent-seekers for all eternity is dysfunctional.

That may be a valid concern in theory, but current and historical evidence overwhelmingly prove this wrong. The most technical innovation has been happening in countries with stronger IP laws, as opposed to, say BRIC. It's not a coincidence.

>If I were to guess, you have not "cultivated that idea" because you've never created something that people found useful...

Way to quote incompletely. Also, nice dodge. Have you created something valuable only to have it ripped off?

>Yeh. You'd like to believe that, because it's easier to see me as some filthy thief than as someone whose ideas might be correct. The former lets you just call me names and move on, the latter would mean changing your mind and thinking about issues like this critically.

Conversely it's easier for you to rationalize your piracy than to acknowledge that your actions could be harmful. I have no stake in this issue, since my livelihood does not depend on copyright. I have been thinking critically and looking at the evidence. Have you?