Rockstar Ships Max Payne 2 Cracked By Pirates 340
Posted
by
CmdrTaco
from the its-getting-steamy-in-here dept.
from the its-getting-steamy-in-here dept.
Jamie noticed a fairly amazing little story about Rockstar shipping a version of Max Payne 2 via Steam that was actually cracked by pirates to remove the DRM. The going theory was that it was easier for them to simply use the pirate group's crack than to actually remove their DRM themselves.
Same story different players (Score:5, Insightful)
But...? (Score:2, Insightful)
Couldn't the pirates sue them for unauthorized use of their code?
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I wholeheartedly and resoundingly agree with what they've done. They may as well get at least some benefit from piracy...
But it would be awesome if they got sued for copyright infringment on the modified bytes. In an alternate reality it could happen...
Re:But...? (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, but (Score:3, Insightful)
Did they remove the rootkit?
Expediency (Score:5, Insightful)
Most likely they simply found themselves unable to build the old codebase. You'd need a seven year old version of whatever build environment they were using, tons of other severn year old bits and pieces and a seven year old OS version. You'd probably need a seven year old machine too, and all the peripherals that go with it. Bits rot when left alone..
Using a cracked version is expedient, and clever.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
On top of that they're using someones elses work and profiting from it.
I wonder if the pirate's code was published via a version of GPL? /sarcasm
I'm sure that if the original 'crackers' sued them Rockstar would be happy to meet them in court.
When you break it down, this isn't news. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But...? (Score:5, Insightful)
The bigger problem is the game industry is always telling us game cracks are full of viruses and trojans. And while I generally don't believe them, I wouldn't use a 3rd party game crack on a pc that had any sensitive information on it. In this case, they are redistributing a binary that they didn't code, and without extensive analysis (ie more work then creating a new patch from scratch) have no way to tell it does not contain malicious code. The fact that Rockstar distributed a binary of unknown origin with no Q+A done on it is a bad, bad thing.
That ruins the usual argument ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The usual argument is that cracked software is dangerous, because it contains malware of various sorts. Rather difficult to support that argument, when you then go out and ship the same "malware" as a legitimate part of a software release.
Re:When you break it down, this isn't news. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the fact that the code is to circumvent DRM measures, and was written by people that said programmers treat as "the enemy," makes the story a bit more interesting, doesn't it?
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
If you steal your own wallet back from a pickpocket, you're not going to jail.
Re:Same story different players (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone needs to tell the Bioshock 2 ppl. Because thats what's making me not purchase it.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually, I wholeheartedly and resoundingly agree with what they've done. They may as well get at least some benefit from piracy...
I hold an opposite opinion. I'd rather they incur the costs to remove their fucked up decisions of the past. Perhaps then they'd think a LITTLE harder before adding the DRM to begin with. As it is, this might make companies more willing to add the DRM since they know eventually if they want it removed for after-market sales, they can depend on the free efforts of others. Others they likely tried multiple times to sue into the poor house already.
Re:Expediency (Score:4, Insightful)
Erm... I'm afraid they do, actually.
Well, bits themselves don't rot, but the hardware that runs them certainly does. PSUs fail, hard disk motors seize up, motherboards start inexplicably misbehaving. The only reason it's not a huge problem for Windows shops right now is that XP has been available for an unusually long time, otherwise I could genuinely ask "can you get drivers for modern hardware to run on the version of Windows you were running 7 years ago?" and there's a good chance you'd have to think very carefully before answering. I wouldn't bank on that being a silly question in a few years time.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
Writing the crack could be justified under fair use. Distributing it was certainly illegal, because that overstepped the bounds of fair use.
If I cracked a game that I bought and wrote a no-CD crack for my own personal use, would the game company then be able to come along and claim that they owned all rights to the crack I had put my own hard work into producing for my own personal use?
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets say a paid slashdot editor uses Firefox to do whatever it is editors do (clearly it's not edit). Firefox is someone else's work, and the editor just used it to make money. Illegal, then? I once read a book that agreed with you. But, in the real world, you can use somebody else's stuff to do whatever you feel like, even make money. If you buy photoshop, you can touch up pictures you took, then sell those pictures. Crazy, huh? You can't sell copies of photoshop, mind you, but you can sell pictures you edited with photoshop, even though Photoshop was "somebody else's work". (Oh, that book? A teacher read it to the class in Elementary. Don't remember the name. But, some kids working at cafe made their boss a mint when they invented a nostalgic milkshake made with brownie cake mix, tastes just like licking the bowl when mom makes brownies. Well, the boss was quite happy until the police came and arrested him. Seems Sara Lee or whatever fictional variant existed in the book was pressing charges for using their mix without a license. The moral of the story was, I suppose, obey your corporate overlord).
At any rate, what work of MYTH did they use? The patcher? Yes, they (apparently) ran it, though they could have downloaded the pre-cracked binary, we don't know. But, they're not distributing the crack, they're just distributing the pre-cracked binary. So the question is, does the pre-cracked binary belong to the developers, or to the pirate group? The answer is, the developers. Rockstar didn't have to pirate the patcher, because the pirate offered it for free, so that wasn't a violation. And so, they used a tool that they legally obtained, to make modifications to their code. Code that they own the copyright to. In the same way that running a photo through a photoshop filter doesn't transfer your copyright to Adobe, running a binary through MYTH's patcher doesn't transfer copyright of the binary from Rockstar to Myth. Thus, the binary is the copyright of Rockstar still, and they have the exclusive right to distribute it.
Legally, the patched binary is a derivative work of the original binary. Under copyright law, only the creator of a work has the right to create and sell derivative works. However, just because you don't have the right to distribute your derivative work, doesn't mean the original artist has it. It depends on the nature of the changes. If it's a significant and transformative change, then you have copyright over your changes, so neither party can distribute it, unless you can make a fair use argument as to why you can distribute it. In no case can the original artist distribute it without permission, though. However, if the changes are minor, you have no copyright on them, and thus, the derivative work contains only the copyrighted material of the original artist. Thus, distributing it is only a copyright violation of the original artist's copyright. As such, they are fully within their rights to distribute it.
So, it could be argued that the patched binary would also be copyright of the pirate group. But, its a very weak argument. The patch didn't change the game play at all. So, comparing it to the DVD version: The unpatched DVD version needed the DVD in it to play. The cracked, steam version needs Steam to play. To a user, there's no change except for the medium of delivery. From a purely technical point of view, there is no creative work put into NOOPing around the DRM calls. All in all, there's no way I see it being decided that the patch is copyright of anybody. As such, the patched binary is wholly the copyright of Rockstar, and they can distribute it legally. Were they distributing the crack, then running the crack as part of the install process, it would be different. But as it stands, it might make them look like tools, but it's legal.
Looking at it in terms of tangible property rights: If you find an empt
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:2, Insightful)
Analogies between physical items and software just don't work. Please stop.
The basic fact is that Rockstar took code they didn't own and put it into their product.
Re:Rockstar engaging in copyright infringement? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to continue with your car analogy, but... :)
A lot of the "standard" equipment in modern performance cars were inspired by "hotrod" enthusiasts of the 1930 and on, who would take a vehicle, lighten it swap engines, modify away from factory specifications, end up with a much more powerful cars. As it became apparent that consumers would spend good money for the same type of performance, these changes were adopted in. Being that the major manufacturers started adopting these changes in, the aftermarket crowd has continued to improve them even more.
Significant time and money was spent by enthusiasts and aftermarket companies to develop and test their aftermarket parts, which some of have eventually shown up in factory vehicles. I doubt even a small percentage of the people who put in the work got any sort of reimbursement from the manufacturer. It's never been a game of "I hope I impress the manufacturer and get a job". It's always been "I want my vehicle to be bigger, better, and faster". For most of us, when we see a car that includes the changes we would have done on previous generations, we're impressed.
Now on the topic at hand, I do agree that it was wrong for the author to use code by a third party. I'm sure many (likely including the author) were happy that it was done, so the modifications were no longer necessary. It would not have been practical for them to attribute the work to the third party author, so maybe by leaving enough of his code in so the top of their banner was visible was all the attribution they could give. It may not have been a "FU, we stole your code", but a "thank you, we liked your change so we included it."
Since these cracks and cheats are done (primarily) for free, and handed out liberally, there is no monetary loss, because there was no monetary gain to begin with.
Re:OK, but (Score:3, Insightful)
And usually, it's the UNCRACKED software that includes a rootkit these days.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
This sounds very similar to the remix cases in the music industry.
A musician creates a work, another does a (very popular) remix - a derivative work. Now, whether or not the original artist gave the second permission to use his work, he doesn't have distribution rights on the derived work (even if he can get an injunction to stop its distribution).
So why would copyright law be any different for software?