OT: SPYWARE/TROJAN and Off Topic!

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
There's a world of difference between destroying things you own, and destroying things other people own, which is illegal and immoral. Excuse me if I don't have much respect for someone who's admitted that they don't respect the property of others.

There is, of course, a minor point: The property in question is entirely mine, the code in question never intended for distribution. As such, any unauthorized individual found to be running it is automatically the enemy, having stolen it from me, and deserves his fate. Destruction of stolen item was deemed to be of paramount importance, and all else was deemed collateral damage. Being that the damage was inflicted upon those also complicit, I see nothing wrong with this.

Illwinter, perhaps, would not do exactly that, as the PR gained from destroying a user's computer would not really benefit them much, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they covertly gathered information for other commercial uses, or attempted to take control of your computer's resources to sell them off to others. Such behaviors ARE known to occur, and somebody pointed out, the target tends to be the average user, who will not notice the resource drain and data theft.

[PvK]

Originally posted by Zen:
...
They have every right and should use every measure they have at their disposal to combat it as it is their product that is being pirated, not yours.

No, perhaps they have the right to use every measure for which there is not a good reason they shouldn't. Protecting a product doesn't give carte blanche. Moreover, what the customers do have is their own computer, private information, and Internet access. Software vendors do not, I think, have the right to materially misrepresent what their software does, nor to use their customers' computers for whatever they feel like. I tend to think that if a program is going to "phone home" that it should be explained to the user what it's going to do, and the user should be allowed to refuse permission, without having to bring in their own third-party software to find out about it and stop it.

Now, what would be completely reasonable, would be to make a program which explains a "phone home" check is required to use whatever features, and then to obtain permission before doing so. This protects both the product from piracy, and the user's computer and Internet connection from unauthorized use. Of course, people can still suspect software of doing other stuff than it says it does, but generally those white hack hacker types will notice quickly if it does, and in that case the company responsible should be held accountable.

I know I won't ever buy Turbo Tax again after they included a hidden install of such stuff without telling.

I also have plenty of good faith in Illwinter, and don't think there's a real problem in this case. However in principle I think the program should explain and ask permission up front before phoning home.

PvK

[SurvivalistMerc]

Let me see if I understand this. I'm probably not as computer-savy as the rest of you and I'm not a conspiracy theorist. But something here doesn't add up.

If Norfleet is correct, the new patch...and I'm still quite happy with 2.06...gets in touch with either an Illwinter or Shrapnel server...looks like Illwinter from Gandalf's Posts...whether in SP or in MP mode.

Yet Kristoffer O posted:

Gandalf is right. It's a multiplayer CD-key check. Nothing more, nothing less.

If it's a MP CD-key check, why is it contacting another server in SP mode? Or is this a "bug?"

I for one would have nothing against a subroutine that contacted a vendor server prior to playing a MP game to verify there are independent copies of the game playing in MP mode. But...correct me if I'm wrong...it's doing it in SP mode too?

[PrinzMegaherz]

I'm amazed that this otherwise friendly atmopshere has come down to personal attacks between posters.

Anyway, I still think that this CD check is useless.
Why?

For every major game out there you will find a download spot and the appropriate crack to make it work. By now, Dominions 2 played in a minor league, consisting of fans willing to pay money for the game.
This might have changed with increasing popularity, and I wonder how long it will take until you can find a "non Spyware" starting exe for dominions that simply skips the part where the data is send.
If you really want to play dominions 2 without buying it, this method wont stop you. It will, however, annoy those Users who bought dominions 2.

I personally dont care about this, but I can see Norfleets point to a certain degree

[Kristoffer O]

Originally posted by PvK:
However in principle I think the program should explain and ask permission up front before phoning home.

PvK

Good point.

[Peter Ebbesen]

I do not really have a problem with applications phoning home... Assuming I have been told about it and have accepted it. What is unacceptable to me is applications taking over my (supposedly) secure connection for their own purposes without ever alerting me to the fact.

A crack check with keys vs a known server? Fine, assuming I have been informed that it will happen.

In the long run it is possibly going to be more annoying for a few of those who have bought their games as keys are stolen/reverse-engineered and they get Banned, but for that to become a problem, it requires a lot of players playing the game in the first case [hopefully most of them paying], so from a software developers' point of view it is an acceptable loss.

[I still remember the great annoyance of being unable to play Counterstrike MP with the provided keys because they had been hacked]

Bottom line? Do not use my connection for your own purposes without telling me up front.

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by PrinzMegaherz:
For every major game out there you will find a download spot and the appropriate crack to make it work. By now, Dominions 2 played in a minor league, consisting of fans willing to pay money for the game.

This is heard in every such discussion. It doesnt stop it so why bother. That can be said of any law and punishment. However, stopping it isnt the complete purpose. If it was then it would be a total bummer to anyone that tried.

The effort is to make it as hard as possible for as many as possible for as long as possible. In the case of pirating its not really the pirates that are the targets. Its the good honest citizens who wouldnt stop to think of it as stealing if they could give a copy to a friend. Its referred to as "casual copiers" in the software world. Thats the target of protection schemes with real pirates being a fun side-game. Of course that has to be balanced against how much trouble it puts to the honest buyer. All such protections have some problems.

Companies FAR larger than Illwinter and Shrapnel (no offense guys) have looked at this. Not just game companies but all software companies. Business people with college degrees who work in nothing but hard numbers have set the guidelines. We should be happy that in this case its being decided by people who happen to love gaming since they obviously didnt go for the recommended extremes but preferred something more user friendly. Believe me the extremes are available without having to program them from scratch. You can buy them and add them just like the compression programs and installers they use.

[PhilD]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
As the saying goes, it is better to be perpetually suspicious than occasionally cheated.

Is that really your point of view?

I much, much prefer to be occasionally cheated, if it allows me to live a simpler, quieter life.

I don't drive a card, but I do ride a bike to work, occasionally. Then I have to make a choice, whether to "simply" lock my bike outside the building I work in, or take more drastic measures and take my bike to my office so I can keep an eye on it.

I would never choose to take my bike into my office, simply because it's way too much trouble. I leave it outside, with a reasonable lock on it, and if someone really wants to steal it, I lose a bike. But I believe that's acceptable risk for all the times I don't have to bother taking my bike in, with the associated trouble of not leaving mud all over the place, and so on.

Of course, if the stakes were much higher, I might get worried. But my bike isn't a very fancy one, and that's a significant part of it.

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PvK:
However in principle I think the program should explain and ask permission up front before phoning home.

PvK

Good point.

---

If it was "opt in" as in a button you have to push saying you agree to having it phone home before you can play a multiplayer game then it will still may noise. People will come here saying they baught a game THEN found out they have to be willing to allow this. Maybe fewer complaints, Im not sure.

[ April 08, 2004, 13:25: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[PhilD]

Originally posted by Norfleet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
There's a world of difference between destroying things you own, and destroying things other people own, which is illegal and immoral. Excuse me if I don't have much respect for someone who's admitted that they don't respect the property of others.

There is, of course, a minor point: The property in question is entirely mine, the code in question never intended for distribution. As such, any unauthorized individual found to be running it is automatically the enemy, having stolen it from me, and deserves his fate. Destruction of stolen item was deemed to be of paramount importance, and all else was deemed collateral damage. Being that the damage was inflicted upon those also complicit, I see nothing wrong with this.

---

Someone stealing your stuff doesn't entitle you to steal theirs, or destroy it. This looks more and more like vengeance, and less and less like justice - and the two have nothing to do with each other.

I'm also worried about your use of the word "enemy" in this context.