Export thread

They may grab all your personal information, and text everyone in your contacts telling them you are a pirate. http://www.osnews.com/story/24591/Honeypot_Android_App_Wreaks_Vigilante_Justice

If you download and use what appears to be a version of the commercial "Walk and Text" Android app from a file sharing site, you're in for a surprise. When you run it, it shows you that it's being "cracked" but it's really gathering information from your device, in preparation for an e-smackdown. It sends a bunch of personal information (name, phone number, IMEI) off to a server, and, just for lulz, text messages everyone on your contact list:
“Hey, just downlaoded a pirated App off Internet, Walk and Text for Android. Im stupid and cheap, it costed only 1 buck. Don’t steal like I did!”
Finally, the app displays a scolding message to the user, saying, essentially, we hope you learned your lesson.

Click to expand...

...file sharing site...

Click to expand...

You get what you pay for.

And likely deserve it too.

Huh. I had no idea you could get apps from secondary sites. I'll keep getting mine from the official app stores.

sixpackshaker said:

And likely deserve it too.

Click to expand...

It makes it even better that the app is only a dollar. Try explaining that one to all your contacts.

NICE. Good for them.

Good idea on the developer's part.

It is like the time Sony was rumored to be the one spreading viruses on Ka'zaa and Napster.

Good stuff, but....is that legal to do?

Necronic said:

Good stuff, but....is that legal to do?

Click to expand...

Probably depends on what exactly it does.

If you have your smartphone set up to allow apps access to your info, and you pirate an app, the developer of that app has no obligations to you under any kind of privacy policy.

>>pirating apps

>>can go badly for you

Click to expand...

Gosh, really?

Shakey said:

It makes it even better that the app is only a dollar. Try explaining that one to all your contacts.

Click to expand...

Heh, over here i'd probably have more problems explaining why i spent money on it.

Of course we don't even get the paid android market...

Not nearly as severe, but Garry’s Mod catches pirates the fun way

In short, the game is set up so that pirated copies crash with a bogus error message. Not only that, but the error number is actually the users' Steam ID. When they complain on the forums, the number gets checked against actual purchases, and if there's not a match they get banned.

What kind of moron posts error reports for his pirated game on the official forums... if it's an actual error someone with a legitimate copy would have posted about it already.

And why do they use their actually bought copy of HL2 with a pirated copy of GMod?

Oh, and that wasn't clear, do they get banned from the forums or Steam?

@Li3n said:

Oh, and that wasn't clear, do they get banned from the forums or Steam?

Click to expand...

I think they just get banned from the Gmod forums (not even SPUF). Seems a pretty mild reaction to piracy, all in all.

figmentPez said:

I think they just get banned from the Gmod forums (not even SPUF). Seems a pretty mild reaction to piracy, all in all.

Click to expand...

True, but maybe public shaming will work where threatened legal action does not.

Necronic said:

Good stuff, but....is that legal to do?

Click to expand...

That's why it's called piracy.

figmentPez said:

I think they just get banned from the Gmod forums (not even SPUF). Seems a pretty mild reaction to piracy, all in all.

Click to expand...

Came across a better article and apparently Steam does stop them from using the pirated GMod: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...er_Enables_Error_Message_To_Catch_Pirates.php

Covar said:

That's why it's called piracy.

Click to expand...

I think it has more to do with the program being owned by the developer and the fact that the pirates aren't legitimate customers, so they can't complain about their version not working.

And of course there's also the fact that the "error" doesn't actually send any data forward, so the pirates have to post their SteamID themselves.

I find it ridiculous to pirate anything $10 and under. Seriously, if you can't afford that, you shouldn't have the device that plays it. Plus, Garry's Mod has been like $3 a number of times on sale. As for phone apps? Seriously?

Jiarn said:

I find it ridiculous to pirate anything $10 and under. Seriously, if you can't afford that, you shouldn't have the device that plays it.

Click to expand...

Pretty sure some 10$ games work on very cheap PC's, even hand me downs... and a PC can do wonders for someone's future, so investing in one makes economic sense, and so does internet, but buying games for them not really.

I have no idea what your point in response to mine was supposed to be.

That it's not that ridiculous if you consider certain circumstances?

Now if i could only find that pic of those asian kids playing games in a PC Baang while the whole region was flooded.

@Li3n said:

That it's not that ridiculous if you consider certain circumstances?

Now if i could only find that pic of those asian kids playing games in a PC Baang while the whole region was flooded.

Click to expand...

No. Just no.

I had a more in depth reply ready, but this sums it up exactly.

@Li3n said:

Pretty sure some 10$ games work on very cheap PC's, even hand me downs... and a PC can do wonders for someone's future, so investing in one makes economic sense, and so does internet, but buying games for them not really.

Click to expand...

I have a crazy idea, that I know some people just can't seem to get through their head, but then don't buy the games and don't pirate.

cue people's bullshit excuses.

Covar said:

I have a crazy idea, that I know some people just can't seem to get through their head, but then don't buy the games and don't pirate.

cue people's bullshit excuses.

Click to expand...

But, but, I wasn't even going to buy it so it doesn't matter!

Espy said:

But, but, I wasn't even going to buy it so it doesn't matter!

Click to expand...

And there's no physical product. It's just ones and zeros.

Shakey said:

And there's no physical product. It's just ones and zeros.

Click to expand...

And Shakey said it was cool!

Espy said:

And Shakey said it was cool!

Click to expand...

And that's all that matters...

I kinda see piracy as something you do as a dumb kid, and then grow out of when you realize what a dick move it is.

Covar said:

I have a crazy idea, that I know some people just can't seem to get through their head, but then don't buy the games and don't pirate.

Click to expand...

Why? I mean if i can make myself a hammer that's exactly like the one someone is selling no one will complain that i should have bought it instead.

Seriously, the only actual good objective arguments i've heard are about it are for why you should buy it if you can, not why you shouldn't pirate it.

@Li3n said:

Why? I mean if i can make myself a hammer that's exactly like the one someone is selling no one will complain that i should have bought it instead.

Seriously, the only actual good objective arguments i've heard are about it are for why you should buy it if you can, not why you shouldn't pirate it.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone would complain if you programmed an exact copy of the game or recorded your own version of a song for your own use. No one is going to make their own hammer, and no one is going to make their own game. It's a horrible comparison.

BTW, the post about circumstances is simply meant as an explanation, not a moral justification, because any moral justification would rely on philosophy, and that's way too complex to actually get into and still have any free time so i can play my completely legal copy of Dragon Age that isn't mine, or anyone's in my household, and thus is of dubious legality too, even if i just borrowed it from a friend.

Shakey said:

I don't think anyone would complain if you programmed an exact copy of the game or recorded your own version of a song for your own use.

Click to expand...

Oh really: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-04-12-sega-stamps-on-streets-of-rage-fan-sequel

Shakey said:

No one is going to make their own hammer, and no one is going to make their own game. It's a horrible comparison.

Click to expand...

Some people might (pretty sure there are plenty of people making their own hammers around the world), and for video-games that's illegal either way (the copyright for the hammer would have expired some time around the birth of Gilgamesh though).

Don't forget about the shutting down of the Chrono Trigger 3D and Metroid 2 remakes.

@Li3n said:

Why? I mean if i can make myself a hammer that's exactly like the one someone is selling no one will complain that i should have bought it instead.

Click to expand...

That's an incredibly terrible analogy. You're not making anything when you pirate software. You're taking the intellectual property of someone else without permission or payment. A better analogy would be, why write your own paper for a class, when you can just turn in someone else's.

@Li3n said:

Oh really: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-04-12-sega-stamps-on-streets-of-rage-fan-sequel

Click to expand...

Notice how I said for your own use.

Silly Sega not wanting to loose their trademarks.

Covar said:

Silly Sega not wanting to loose their trademarks.

Click to expand...

Because Evil Sega hates freedom, lulz and living in your moms basement.

Someone explain how they lose anything if the programmers don't charge anything for these games?

Jiarn said:

Someone explain how they lose anything if the programmers don't charge anything for these games?

Click to expand...

They lose control over their product. It is, in the end, their product. Not some bored fans.

Jiarn said:

Someone explain how they lose anything if the programmers don't charge anything for these games?

Click to expand...

Trademarks must be actively used and protected or else they are lost.

Control = ?

Again, how do they "lose" anything by fan made products?

That is what they are losing. They own the game and, whether you like it or not, get to decide when the name and characters are used. It's just the way the law works. I'm not saying it wasn't a dick move, but they had every right to do it.

Not saying they had a right. I'm just curious what they "lose" when a fan makes a game, based on their content, releases it free and it's well recieved. So far only Valve is the only company without their head in their ass, as they showed with the Black Mesa remake.

They could lose revenue from future re-releases, if they choose to do that. People are also stupid, if there is a huge bug/flaw/virus in the game customers may not bother with that brand again even though that particular release was made by fans. It's about controlling the brand name and the image associated with it. They lose that with these fan made games.

If they were planning future re-releases, then yes, I can understand. If not, pointless ass-hattery.

(As of yet, there has been no Metroid 2, Chrono Trigger (done in 3d), or Streets of Rage remakes, so they are currently under ass-hattery department)

Bug/Flaw/Virus in a game they're downloading from a site that clearly states that it's fan-made with virtually no other way of obtaining the game? That, I can't see as a valid point.

Chrono Trigger was re released just a few years ago as a DS title, with bonus content.

Smacking down a fan project dedicated to your game is an unfortunate event, but I understand why it happens. Trademarks have to be controlled, otherwise they fall into open use. If sony made a super mario game without permission, they'd get sued. But if a fan group made it without permission, and nintendo did nothing, there would be precedent for sony to make one, claiming that nintendo is no longer guarding that trademark.

Of course, if sega wanted to be cool, they could have just given those guys a license.

Yes, they ported over the SNES version with some updates. The fan remake was fully 3D. Hence I wrote it the way I did.

I disagree with your example of Sony making a Mario game. Sony would charge for it, and that's where I can see problems occuring. If a game is made and given out free, I don't see the "harm" that requires the game company to step in.

Jiarn said:

Yes, they ported over the SNES version with some updates. The fan remake was fully 3D. Hence I wrote it the way I did.

I disagree with your example of Sony making a Mario game. Sony would charge for it, and that's where I can see problems occuring. If a game is made and given out free, I don't see the "harm" that requires the game company to step in.

Click to expand...

Because it sets precedent. Like Ravenpoe said the way is then paved for anyone to make derivative works.

Think of it this way. If Steamboat Willie went into public domain then anyone would be able to make a derivative work of that cartoon using those characters. This would mean that someone other than Disney would be able to make a Mickey Mouse cartoon, and if someone made an incredibly vulgar and offensive cartoon I assure you that it would be associated with Disney, not the makers.

They do make vulgar cartoons all the time. It's called hentai. It's widely distributed through the internet. Noone is saying that Disney made it. So I still don't see the validity of the point.

Minnie mouse porn doesn't have nearly the appeal a game remake has. Companies have to decide what is worth their time to pursue.

Again, for no reason other than asshattery. (As long as there is not money involved or an exact remake in the works already)

Enforcement of copyright is up to the copyright holder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Enforcement_Responsibility

They don't do it to be asshats, they do it because they see it as a threat. Not all do, obviously. If they felt there would be a benefit, they might encourage it, as some have done. But the benefits are not as clear as the threats are. Why let the genie out of the bottle if he's just going to run away?

MindDetective said:

They don't do it to be asshats, they do it because they see it as a threat.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Minnie porn isn't that big of a threat. A game remake is. Yet, it's two different companies so it really isn't that great of a comparison.[/Quote]

It was as much as a threat as the porn. It was free, there wasn't a remake being made in any of the three cases of the cease and desist orders. So no, I don't see your point.

If the games were degrading, hateful, spiteful or being sold? I'd be with you all in this boat. These were nothing but tributes and fan love put into these games, all of which were placed on cease and desist towards the end of their creation. So yeah, blatant ass-hattery.

Jiarn said:

These were nothing but tributes and fan love put into these games, all of which were placed on cease and desist towards the end of their creation. So yeah, blatant ass-hattery.

Click to expand...

Enforcement on a case-by-case basis is an extremely sticky issue. If they let go an instance like this, a similar project that goes as far in using their IP (but in a way they find objectionable) now has legal precedent for not needing to ask the trademark holder's permission. They would probably still win the first few times, but if they keep tacitly (as opposed to explicitly) allowing fans to push through projects, eventually they would definitely lose the trademark/copyright.

Also, Streets of Rage is currently for sale on iTunes. This means that SEGA would be competing for sales with a derivative work that they did not authorize if they allowed this to go through.

Isn't copyright a "right"? Something they can choose to enforce or not enforce on a case to case basis?

As in, not a defensible use against them if they shut down one thing but not another?

"We choose to let this through, not that and it's our right to make that decision?"

Not exactly. A company can choose whether it's worth it to enforce an infringement of their IP rights, but if a similar infringement of the same scale takes place subsequently, their choosing to ignore the first one can make it difficult (though not impossible) to enforce the second one, and all the others that come after.

That's likely the reason why they didn't C&D these guys until it was definitely going to be distributed. Actual software distribution over the internet using your trademarks is a much bigger scale than 3 guys working on something in their spare time over 5 years saying that they're going to release it over the internet.

So pretty much yeah, ass-hattery. Gotcha.

It is what the copyright holders perceive as a threat to them, not what you perceive as a threat to them. I think that is the part that is slipping past you.

Let me put it another way:

A bunch of guys talking on the internet about developing something that would be an infringement is unlikely to affect future sales related to their IP. Lots of garage-coding projects fall apart all the time, or never even make it past the planning stage. You could spend $thousands in legal fees on discovery and the C&Ds against people who will most likely never get far enough to do anything, so most companies ignore this kind of thing.

Said guys actually release their infringing software. Now there's actually something out there that can threaten current/future sales. It's not talk anymore, it's an actual product, which also makes it much easier to find the perpetrators for. Hence, this is the point where companies tend to act.

Also, I like Valve as much as anyone, but you realize that the Black Mesa re-make is not a standalone game, but a total conversion mod, right?

As in, it's explicitly covered by Valve's mod license, and requires that you own or buy one of Valve's current-gen Source games.

As in, once it's released, there will be a whole slew of people who will have to go out and buy, or re-download, TF2, L4D2, Portal 2, or the Orange Box. There's foreseeable revenue benefits from allowing it to be released for not a whole lot of risk (since HL:Source is not exactly their highest-selling HL game).

Valve aren't saints for overlooking IP infringement or anything like that, they've just set up their entire business to monetize it with every new game they release.

Sega is in a completely different boat with a '91 Genesis game.

Aren't Valve explicitly involved with helping them make Black Mesa anyway? I know they talked about letting them distribute it via Steam, and have given them access to a lot of assets to get it done. Once the company is actively helping you, it's apparent that they ARE defending their copyright by assuring the quality of a tribute to it. Once they got involved, it threw out all the issues.

Exactly. Instead of shutting down the project, they gave the creators an opportunity to continue their work within their company. Aka, not ass hats.

Jiarn said:

Exactly. Instead of shutting down the project, they gave the creators an opportunity to continue their work within their company. Aka, not ass hats.

Click to expand...

The way the IP was being used was not the same in a very big way. Licensed mod /= unauthorized sequel

Whether Valve or Sega are asshats or not has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

AshburnerX said:

Aren't Valve explicitly involved with helping them make Black Mesa anyway? I know they talked about letting them distribute it via Steam, and have given them access to a lot of assets to get it done. Once the company is actively helping you, it's apparent that they ARE defending their copyright by assuring the quality of a tribute to it. Once they got involved, it threw out all the issues.

Click to expand...

They also had them change the name to drop "Source" from the title. I think that's because Source is a trademark issue, not just copyright.

SpecialKO said:

The way the IP was being used was not the same in a very big way. Licensed mod /= unauthorized sequel

Whether Valve or Sega are asshats or not has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Click to expand...

It wasn't a licensed mod. It was a game being developed as a remake using the same source engine. The Streets of Rage remake was completely made from scratch. That's the only difference.

Jiarn said:

It wasn't a licensed mod. It was a game being developed as a remake using the same source engine. The Streets of Rage remake was completely made from scratch. That's the only difference.

Click to expand...

No, it's a mod, and it will require a legally-purchase Source-based game to play. Which is specifically licensed according to the Source SDK licensing clause (2.C) in the Steam Subscriber agreement.

The Streets of Rage remake was a completely unlicensed, unauthorized use of trademark names, designs, and gameplay that belonged to a company which does not provide tools or even limited licenses to mod/copy/distribute such things.

Yes, it's a mod. The thing is, it wasn't created by Valve. It was a group of people, who used the mod software to create their own remake.

Jiarn said:

Yes, it's a mod. The thing is, it wasn't created by Valve. It was a group of people, who used the mod software to create their own remake.

Click to expand...

For the third time, they used the Source SDK. Which has a licensing clause attached to it allowing people who are not Valve to make stuff with it. That's why Valve released it in the first place! So people who were not them could make legal mods with the same tools.

EDIT: You seem to think that Valve did all the legal stuff after the Black Mesa re-make came to light, when they actually did it years before when they released GoldSrc (the modified Quake engine behind HL) to whomever wanted it.

<--- this conversation

MindDetective said:

<--- this conversation

Click to expand...

No kidding...

Agreed.

DISAGREED!

SORT OF AGREED!

MindDetective said:

<--- this conversation

Click to expand...

All you need to take away from this conversation is that anyone who tries to protect their copyright or trademark only ever do it because of some pledge to be an asshat. That's the only reason ever. They want to wear their asses as a hat.

Mickey is certainly a Trademarkable icon for them though.

Super-hero is another interesting trademark, one held jointly by DC and Marvel.

How can Disney trademark Snow White? They don't own the character, she's from a fable that is CLEARLY in the public domain.

They trademark the story they told and the character they designed.

sixpackshaker said:

They trademark the story they told and the character they designed.

Click to expand...

Don't you mean that they copyright the story they told and trademark the visual design of the character?

SpecialKO said:

Don't you mean that they copyright the story they told and trademark the visual design of the character?

Click to expand...

and the point of that post?

sixpackshaker said:

and the point of that post?

Click to expand...

As Tin mentioned, copyright and trademark aren't the same thing. I don't think you can trademark a story, as stories can't be used as representations of your brand or products, as opposed to a character or design of that character.

SpecialKO said:

As Tin mentioned, copyright and trademark aren't the same thing. I don't think you can trademark a story, as stories can't be used as representations of your brand or products, as opposed to a character or design of that character.

Click to expand...

I made a very common mistake, but it does not belittle what I was telling him how Disney can copyright the image they created, and protect the story they told.

It is a rather pointless road to go down. Just distracts, not adds to the conversation.

sixpackshaker said:

I made a very common mistake, but it does not belittle what I was telling him how Disney can copyright the image they created, and protect the story they told.

It is a rather pointless road to go down. Just distracts, not adds to the conversation.

Click to expand...

So what's their really doing is claiming ownership of Disney Presents Snow White, not the entire myth. So basically, the only thing you can't do is name the dwarves.

sixpackshaker said:

I made a very common mistake, but it does not belittle what I was telling him how Disney can copyright the image they created, and protect the story they told.

Click to expand...

Then you could have just said this. Words matter when you're trying to convey information.

It is a rather pointless road to go down. Just distracts, not adds to the conversation.

Click to expand...

Hey, you could have just taken the correction with good grace and moved on.

Well this thread went sideways fast...

The point wasn't about if they needed to do it, but that making a game from original code doesn't matter.


And you can't loose copyright that easily any more, DC vs Fawcett made sure of that.

Ravenpoe said:

That's an incredibly terrible analogy. You're not making anything when you pirate software. You're taking the intellectual property of someone else without permission or payment. A better analogy would be, why write your own paper for a class, when you can just turn in someone else's.

Click to expand...

That's why i made sure to say the hammer was a copy of the design for sale... devil's in the detail you know.

And i'm pretty sure i'm not using any game for material or academic gain, so your example is hardly better then the mine.

You want a really accurate one, why buy a book when i can just copy by hand the copy my friend has (or i could just borrow it and read it, still using it without buying, but i guess there's no copy being made).

Shakey said:

Notice how I said for your own use.

Click to expand...

Thing is, in the eyes of the law (in most places anyway) there's no difference, besides that when you do it for personal use it's harder for anyone to find out about it.
Added at: 07:03

sixpackshaker said:

They trademark the story they re-told with some changes

Click to expand...

And yet there's no connecting your brain to cyberspace yet... should have known they would only be right about the bad stuff (to be fair, the bad stuff is 99% of what cyberpunk is about)...