Rockstar Ships Max Payne 2 Cracked By Pirates 340
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.
Hypocrisy (Score:5, Interesting)
So Rockstar needed crackers help to release an old game in a digital download version? Maybe now it makes companies think that games without DRM are superior to DRM-laden versions, if even they need cracked versions to re-release the games whose developers are already gone.
On top of that they're using someones elses work and profiting from it.
Someone at kotaku's comments [kotaku.com] also noticed they're using cracked executables [tinypic.com] for the original Max Payne.
An Easier Route (Score:5, Interesting)
"Pirates sue Rockstar for using and distributing unlicensed cracks."
There's another way you can sue them. Abondonware rights were added to the DMCA [joystiq.com] that made it legal to crack games that are "no longer being sold or supported" for your own personal purposes of archival. Now, it's still illegal to distribute those cracked games. So the people who cracked it might have a claim that they cracked these games for their own archival purpose after Max Payne left stores and did not distribute them. But the great part is that you don't need to sue them, you can write that up in a letter notifying the ESA [wikipedia.org] who will take them to court and, effectively, may sue the copyright holders for distributing a cracked game even though they own the copyright on it. After all, it just might fit the description of abandonware and set precedent one way or the other.
I hope the crackers seriously stick it to them. Copyright length, game DRM and licensing really don't make any sense to me. Honestly I really am upset that I paid for ~$40 for Contra on the NES back in 1990 only to have to pay $8 for it on the Wii today with no ability to transfer it from that device to another [wired.com]. How many more times must I pay for the Contra license to what is the exact same game?
more obvious explanation (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the Rockstar coders was a member of Myth.
(you think I joke, but crack / warez teams are often loaded with industry insiders...)
Waste not, want not.... (Score:5, Interesting)
JMS even mentioned one of these being shut down, but being impressed by the quality of these models, apparently made with nothing more to go on than screen caps.
In an episode soon afterwards one of the characters on the show was shown using a very detailed model of one of their ships... when questioned whether these two events were related, JMS' only response was "waste not, want not..."
Re:Same story different players (Score:5, Interesting)
Not exactly.
The original DRM was removed, since steam is a central DRM provider, and having two DRM systems would be extremely undesirable.
It is a kind of snapshot of the waste that is DRM, but that's not really any different from any sort of licensing being non-productive overhead. It's a cost of doing business.
Re:Expediency (Score:3, Interesting)
B.S. Bits don't rot. Out of negligence, laziness, or stinginess, companies throw away/re-purpose machines that they should probably leave in the vault untouched.
If you have older products that are in the maintenance phase that you may have to re-support one day, you need to keep the environment that is required to build/support it.
Re:But...? (Score:5, Interesting)
Did anyone state that no QA had been done? I would assume (read: HOPE) that Rockstar had the brains to test the hell out of this binary before saying "Well, let's just release it and see what happens..." Granted, probably as much maybe a little more work than patching it themselves, but it would behoove them not to check the code or at least monitor the data paths of the executable before blindly putting it to market. Maybe they even worked WITH the cracking group to gain the source-code so they could ensure there was nothing malicious(er) going on.
DRM is bad even for the companies that use it! (Score:2, Interesting)
This seems to prove that DRM is bad even for the companies that use it.
DRM on old software no longer maintained could make it difficult for companies to redistribute their old software via new channels in the future. Imagine how many DRM'd CD/DVD games there are that may never be made available through online distribution systems like Steam because the copyright owner can't break the CD/DVD requirement mechanism and are unable to recompile the code to remove that restriction.
Do you think the people who implemented such DRM back in the 1990s and early 2000s ever thought about such a possibility?
What future distribution channels will be created that current software won't be distributed through because of limitations created through implementing DRM? Maybe there's a whole new industry about to be born around legally cracking DRM for copyright owners? Or does the DMCA make cracking DRM illegal even if it's done by or on behalf of the copyright owner?
Re:Expediency (Score:3, Interesting)
In which case, why bother messing around with a debugger when someone else has already done all the hard work for you?
more proof pirates are providing a better product (Score:3, Interesting)
Unclean hands (Score:4, Interesting)
This is large scale commercial piracy. This is exactly the kind of thing that copyright laws are supposed to protect against.
But the warez group won't bring suit because of its own unclean hands [wikipedia.org].
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:3, Interesting)
In this case, it appears that the "pickpocket" added a fair amount of value to the wallet before it was stolen back.
But they did so illegally, thus, they get no claim to it.
It's like stealing someone's Van Gogh, fixing up all the wavy lines, and wind up having the original owner steal it back. The original owner then decides he likes it, and puts it on display in a gallery, and it sells for millions of dollars. The thief gets no claim to the work or the money, because he had no right to alter the original piece. That the injured party decides he actually likes the vandalized work makes no difference.
Re:more obvious explanation (Score:4, Interesting)
That was my very first thought. It's entirely possible that the original crack was someone from Rockstar who compiled a version of the executable without the DRM crap included. Throw in a Myth header and job done. 10 years later when it comes time to release it on Steam, they just pull up the no-DRM version (possibly not even realizing that it's labeled as Myth's) and send it off for release.
Re:OK, but (Score:4, Interesting)
Just about any other attack vector for malware, specifically rootkits, will have so much better penetration than a game crack that it's essentially a waste of time to a) crack the game so it works without the DRM (and yes, other crackers can figure out what you did to crack it), b) write undetectable malware to include in it, c) build a reputation good enough to allow the release of the crack, d) get your crack done and out the door before anyone else so yours doesn't get nuked, and e) harness the very few people who will receive the crack.
Keep in mind that a, b, c and d can all be undone by a single person in the distribution chain nuking your release because it's suspect or was released five minutes after someone else's working crack.
In other words, you don't know what you're talking about but LET'S ALL HOP ABOARD THE INSIGHTFUL TRAIN HERPA DERPA DERP.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:4, Interesting)
That's false. If you hit the pickpocket while getting your wallet back and your wallet has an extra $20 in it, then you will be required to return the extra money because it would be illegal for you to keep it, and you could be charged with assault as well. The precipitating event could be deemed an extenuating circumstance, but in no reading of the law do you get to keep the extra $20 just because he harmed you before, and assault is still illegal.
It's like stealing someone's Van Gogh, fixing up all the wavy lines, and wind up having the original owner steal it back. The original owner then decides he likes it, and puts it on display in a gallery, and it sells for millions of dollars. The thief gets no claim to the work or the money, because he had no right to alter the original piece. That the injured party decides he actually likes the vandalized work makes no difference.
But, that is illegal. That it will go prosecuted is irrelevant. The first question of legality is easily answered. They *do not* own the new derivative work. There's no provision in copyright for invalidating the copyright on derivative works because of illegal actions.
If there is something I missed, point it out. If there's case law, point it out. But stating your personal opinion about whether you think they would win a court case because of extenuating circumstances is irrelevant to what the law actually says. And I've seen and heard of nothing in the law that comes close to agreeing with you.
Re:OK, but (Score:3, Interesting)
so your saying software cracking is peer reviewed
Re:I can see the headlines... (Score:3, Interesting)
since all derivatives that are not fair use are owned by the original copyright owner
That is wrong, or at best it's oversimplified to the point of being misleading.
Copyright law is often bizarre and complicated, but this part of the law is pretty simple. Every author owns the copyright to whatever they write or create. A derivative work contains content from multiple authors, and each author holds the the rights to their own portions. A derivative work with multiple authors cannot be copied or redistributed unless you have permission from ALL of the rightsholders.
The Myth group would (and presumably did) infringe Rockstar's copyright by distributing the combined work. Rockstar would (and presumably is) violating the Myth member's copyright by distributing the combined work.
Unless Rockstar actually signed some legal agreement with the crack creators, there is no real doubt that this is copyright infringement and that the Myth people could step forward and sue. There is little doubt that the Myth people could get an immediate court injunction prohibiting any further distribution of their work (shutting down sales), and in addition the two sides could sue each other for damages.
In fact Rockstar could quite easily wind up on the massively losing side of the situation. Rockstar's infringement is indisputably commercial-infringement-for-financial-gain and falls under criminal copyright infringement statutes. Depending on the circumstances Myth might easily avoid the financial-gain statutes and stay under purely civil infringement. And again depending on circumstances, it is at least conceivable that Myth could cite Steam sale numbers to establish the larger actual damages. Myth could, at least conceivably, wind up winning the larger award in a lawsuit crossfire.
In general Rockstar has far more to lose. This was an incredibly STUPID move unless Rockstar actually licensed the crack from Myth. And even if they did license it would still be incredibly stupid just for the public relations disaster of it. Stupid stupid stupid stooooopid.
The one thing that might seriously threaten the Myth side is that they might get nailed under the criminal circumvention DMCA provisions. That can mean up to five years in prison, however in the 12 years the law has been on the books it has never once been successfully used in court. And the five year maximum DMCA sentence happens to be the exact same five year maximum that the Rockstar side could face with under the commercial criminal copyright infringement statutes.
Both sides are legally wrong (unless the crack was licensed), but the company probably has more to lose. If Myth were to step forward Rockstar would have to chose between the better business decision of coming to a settlement with Myth or taking a principled but bad-business stand against the evilz piratez. The very first thing that would happen in a fight is that a court would issue an injunction shutting down sales.
Personally, watching such a situation play out would be most entertaining. It would certainly provide a windfall for Slashdot page views :) I bet Groklaw would enjoy a similar surge :)
-