ZeroPaid.com » drm

Humble Indie Bundle 3 Earns Over $1 Million

Drew Wilson — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 22:29:31 +0000

We've been watching the Humble Indie Bundle releases since the beginning and the Humble Indie Bundle 3 is no exception. Recently, with a little less than a week to go, the latest iteration of the sale, the Humble Indie Bundle 3, went over the million dollar mark.

For those who have been following ZeroPaid for several months now know that we've covered previous iterations of the hugely successful Humble Indie Bundles. The first Humble Indie Bundle, which, no doubt, exceeded expectations by a long shot, raked in $1,275,000. The Humble Indie Bundle 2 surpassed that total with well over $1.3 Million and closed with earning roughly $1.8 million. Then, the Humble Indie Bundle FrozenByte was also raking in a huge sum of cash, easily getting in to the 6 figures. Well, the latest installment, the Humble Indie Bundle 3, is currently going strong. The sale has raked in over $1 million. Very good for independently produced video games. The sale is much like the other sales. DRM free. Pay what you want. Optionally support charity as well. This particular sale features Crayon Physics Delux, Cogs, VVVVVV, Hammerfight, and also And Yet it Moves. As an added incentive, people who by the Humble Indie Bundle gets Steel Storm for free as well as being able to play MineCraft for free for a limited time. Included in this sale is the option to support charity - namely Child's Play and the EFF. As of this writing, there is just over six days left of the sale. True to form, there is a video included in this too: What I like about all of this is the fact that being open to your customers and not treating them like criminals can be a very profitable thing. These types of sales prove that using things like DRM isn't the only way to sell a video game these days. Treat your customers with respect and they will return that respect in kind. Personally, I think it's very uplifting to see things like the Humble Indie Bundle be a success. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Canada’s Election: A Review of the Liberal Platform on Digital Issues

Drew Wilson — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 07:31:45 +0000

We've already reviewed the Conservative Party's platform on digital issues. Now we are reviewing the Liberal Party of Canada's platform on digital issues.

Canada is in the midst of an election. The question is, do different political parties stand for what you stand for when it comes to political issues? We went digging to find out and now, it's the Liberals turn. The Liberal Party's platform is available on the Liberal Party's website. We'll be taking notes from the Full PDF located on the right column of the web page. The Liberal Platform We begin on Page 21. The PDF viewer says it's page 21, but the pagination on the bottom right corner says it's actually page 19. The page number difference is due to the two cover pages at the beginning of the PDF counting in the PDF viewer, but not in the pagination.

Fair balance Between Creators and Consumers. Digital technology offers many new opportunities, but enjoying content without compensating its creators shouldn’t be among them. At the same time, consumers should have freedom for personal use of digital content they rightfully possess. Liberals have worked to pass effective copyright legislation, including a private copying compensation fund instead of any new tax on consumers.

This is a rather loaded paragraph. On the one hand, you have that eerie similarity between propaganda pushed by foreign record labels (CRIA) and the line about not allowing consumers to not pay for creators work. On the other hand, you have the more optimistic line about allowing creators to actually use something they legally paid for. The first part of the last sentence where they say they are working to pass effective copyright legislation is actually vague. Is the Liberal Party referring to Conservative legislation where they may have offered contributions or Bill C-60 back when they were last in power? The last part is interesting, but vague. If the Liberals aren't going to expand on the private copying levy as seen on CDs and DVDs and find a different way of compensating some artists (all artists would be far too hopeful as not all creators get compensated for the current private copying levy - namely smaller independent creators like myself) for private copying, what exactly is in the cards? I have a hard time picturing how more money can be found if it's not tacked on to the price of blank media. So, after some unpacking of the paragraph, it's actually hard to really pin an exact place where the Liberal Party stands on these issues based on this paragraph. Finding any reference to surveillance was a challenge. There is, however, the following paragraph:

Protection from Digital Threats. Just as openness and transparency are the sources of boundless innovation and creativity on the Internet, these same features are too often exploited for criminal purposes causing significant personal and economic disruption, harm to children, and even threats to national security. A Liberal government will make security a priority in Digital Canada, working to advance it with the private sector and other governments at home and abroad.

It's really hard to gauge from this paragraph exactly what is meant. Is this referring to Lawful Access or something else? One could dig and find meaning for Lawful Access, but it's so vague, one can't exactly say for certain that this is referencing Lawful Access or something else. Overall Impression The platform does have its cryptic moments to say the least. The copyright issues seem to point both directions. The Liberal Party might push copyright laws that is balanced and keeps consumers in mind or they might just copy the wish list of foreign record labels that don't have Canadians interest in mind and paste it in the next copyright reform bill. It's hard to say for certain which direction they intend on going. So, it's probably best to look at the Liberal Party's track record on this issue. When the Liberals were last in power, they introduced a copyright reform bill known as Bill C-60. Bill C-60 was blasted by its critics as being the Canadian DMCA. In fact, the idea of a Canadian DMCA first emerged from Bill C-60 and carried on through to the Conservatives Bill C-61. Many pointed to the flaws of the Canadian DMCA and noted how those flaws are being imported to Canada without public consultation. In a rather famous scene during the elections at the time, Sam Bulte, the Liberal heritage minister, remarked that she wouldn't listen to Michael Geist, the EFF and his "pro-user zealots". That led to bumper stickers of people being proud of being a "pro-user zealot". Ultimately, she lost her seat. Many people cite her track record on copyright and the famous incident as contributors to her downfall - sometimes going so far as to say that she lost her seat because her stance on copyright. In short, the Liberal track record on copyright when they were in power is pretty brutal. Still, after they lost power, Liberal MPs have been known to voice concerns over the Conservatives copyright reform bill. One key issue not mentioned in their platform, but mentioned in parliament in the past was the concerns over the digital locks provisions. They picked up on the concerns of DRM overriding consumer freedoms and raised the issue on a couple of occasions. Why that's not more directly in the platform is a mystery to me. Overall, I think the Liberals have a long way to go to redeem themselves over the mess they created with Bill C-60. The platform says that it's on the Liberals mind, but the direction is a little vague. On the front of privacy related issues, the platform really doesn't say a whole lot about surveillance or Lawful Access laws. So, we do have to turn to the track record of the Liberals. In 2005, the Liberals introduced Bill C-74. For those having a hard time remembering anything about this, CIPPIC discusses Lawful Access at length while referencing Bill C-74. Let's just say that the bill, in the views of privacy experts, was a train wreck and sparked major concerns for privacy. Unlike the issues with copyright, the Liberals lobbied hard for the Conservatives to re-introduce the legislation. Lawful Access in it's more recent iteration, would remove court oversight and give near wholesale access to private communications for the RCMP. As I've discussed in my previous review, this could very easily open the doors for abuse. So, in short, the Liberals track record on this issue is abysmal. Judging by the platform, it's really hard to say that the Liberals really turned a new leaf on this issue and listened to Canadians. In my personal opinion, when it comes to issues like copyright and privacy, it's hard to trust that the party will get the balance right. Their track record - particularly when they were last in power - really undermines a lot of the progress they've made in actually considering what Canadians concerns are. If the election was based on these issues, I can't say I'd be prepared to vote Liberal at this time. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Canada’s Election: A Review of the Conservative Platform on Digital Issues

Drew Wilson — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 05:43:26 +0000

Recently, Canada was called in to an election. Now that all the political parties are on the campaign trail, what are they promising to those who watch the copyright and privacy file? Well, we went digging to find out.

A Brief Introduction When an election is called in Canada, it means all of the bills that have not been passed has died on the order paper. That means Bill C-32, Canada's copyright bill, and Bill C-50, C-51 and C-52, the lawful access bills, is no more. Whichever party wins the election may decide to re-introduce whatever legislation was previously introduced in the last session of parliament. Now that we are in an election, the different political parties are publishing their party platforms - effectively, promises they are issuing to the public should they get elected. Granted, political promises are generally cheap during an election because, as many Canadians know, countless promises have been broken before after the elections are over. Still, it is interesting to see what is being promised right now. We begin with one of the two largest parties in Canada and the party that was elected in the previous election, the Conservative Party of Canada. The Conservative Party platform is available via their official website. The Conservative Platform The issues we are covering start on page 15 under the title "Digital Economy Strategy" What is interesting is the following:

A Stephen Harper-led majority Government will also reintroduce and pass the Copyright Modernization Act, a key pillar in our commitment to make Canada a leader in the global digital economy. This balanced, commonsense legislation recognizes the practical priorities of teachers, students, artists, families, and technology companies, among others, while aligning Canada with international standards. It respects both the rights of creators and the interests of consumers. It will ensure that Canada’s copyright law will be responsive in a fast changing digital world, while protecting and creating jobs, promoting innovation, and attracting investment to Canada.

This is clearly a reference to Bill C-32. This is a bill that we reviewed thouroughly in the past. The major flaw in this particular bill is the provisions surrounding digital locks. If you want to remix or innovate in any way or even do some time-shifting or media shifting, a digital lock will legally trump all of that and make you legally a copyright scofflaw. DVD's with their CSS, for example, will prohibit many of the activities that would benefit consumers or even creators for that matter. BluRay with its BD or BD+ copy protection is in the same boat as well. In short, it's a DMCA-style provision that has contributed to the stunting of innovation in the US for years. Innovation legally stops at a digital lock in this case. Another point is found on pag 50 under the title "Reintroduction of Law-and-Order Legislation". The point is a little buried in a mix of other points, but it is there:

give law enforcement and national security agencies up-to-date tools to fight crime in today's high-tech telecommunications environment;

This is quite cleverly worded because if you do a word search for "Lawful Access", you will find nothing. Interestingly enough, "privacy" doesn't show up either. Still, this is very likely a reference to the Lawful Access bills C-50, C-51 and C-52. These bills would have allowed RCMP to conduct an investigation into someones internet activity without a court order. They would have access to, among other things, e-mails, text messaging, instant messaging and a whole lot more under the proposed laws. In short, it will completely strip away expectations of privacy from the prying eyes of the unchecked government. One of the big concerns with this is the potential for abuse. Say someone in the force suspects someone else of, say, cheating on them. They can simply go to the ISP and demand all the information about that particular person and pry in to their private lives. It's not hard to imagine a court rejecting such a thing, but without court oversight, who is going to stop such activity? I'm not saying that the RCMP have no right to do investigations on someone if they are merely on the internet, but I think many Canadians would feel a little better knowing that there is some sort of court oversight preventing any sign of abuse. Without checks and balances in place, I think such a thing is a very hard sell for those who have any concern for privacy in Canada. Overall Impression Copyright issues has had an interesting journey over the past few years. There were town hall meetings and an online consultation to at least give the impression that the government is listening. There were issues of those who were trying to push for more strict copyright laws shutting out those who disagree part way through, but at least the consultation existed in the first place. The Conservative government does have a mixed past when it comes to copyright. Last session was Bill C-32 where DRM stifled innovation, but it did have some interesting ideas in the bill as well (i.e. the YouTube provision), but the presence of DRM would cancel all the legal exceptions anyway. In the session before, the Conservative party introduced Bill C-61 which was essentially a wish-list of a few foreign record labels that really would have decimated Canadian innovation in all areas, not just in technology, but also music and freedom of expression. It's not hard to argue that if it wasn't for public outcry over the years on this issue, Bill C-32 would have likely been a carbon copy of its predecessor. Ultimately, though, the DRM issue is still there through both bills. Quite frankly, the Conservatives need to permit the exceptions even in the presence of DRM. Otherwise, the bill risks missing the point of copyright as being a tool to help creativity by simply hampering it. The situation with the Lawful Access bills is far worse. It's essentially what the Liberals wanted to pass when they were in power and the Conservatives merely copied it over into their version of the legislation. It was very unpopular when the Liberals were in power and such legislation won't exactly be getting any praise from those who are concerned about their privacy online. So, in general, I think the Conservative party are way off the mark when it comes to digital issues. The plans for copyright are still quite flawed in that they are still too strict and the Lawful Access plans are abysmal when it comes to addressing privacy. If the Conservatives are hoping to win over voters who are of a similar mind-set to me (values privacy and wants to be allowed to be innovative in creative works rather than be worried about being hampered by DRM), they need to seriously revamp their strategy quick. If things stay the way they are for the Conservatives position and the election were decided merely on these issues alone, the Conservatives lose my vote. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Third Installment of Humble Indie Bundle Rakes in Over $500,000

Drew Wilson — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:28:45 +0000

The Humble Indie Bundle gained quite a following by being an overwhelmingly successful pay-what-you-want DRM free sale. Now, the latest version of the famous sale has netted over half a million dollars in its first few days.

At it again. Video game developer Wolfire has posted the third instalment of the Humble Indie Bundle known as Frozenbyte after the featured developer FrozenByte. Like other bundles, a portion of the proceeds will go to the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Child's Play which is customizable for the contributor. The games featured this time around are Trine, Shadowgrounds: Survivor, Shadowgrounds, a pre-order of Splot and a prototype of Jack Claw. The games are DRM free and most of them are cross platform. As of ths writing, this sale has earned a total of $568,439.63 from a total of 110,708 sales. Last year, the original Humble Indie Bundle earned nearly $1,275,000 while its sequel, the Humble Indie Bundle 2, earned over $1.8 Million. The latest sale launched just three days ago and currently has just under a dozen days left. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Hollywood Does Not Take Piracy Seriously

Bruce Lidl — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:29:15 +0000

The Hollywood film industry, or at least its official representatives in the MPAA, likes to talk tough about efforts to combat movie piracy on the internet. They rabidly support DRM systems to supposedly keep their content locked-down (CSS, AACS, etc.), they push hard for new laws to control how video moves around online (like ACTA and COICA) and they will happily sue sites or individuals they feel to be contributing to mass copyright infringement (too many to name). Nonetheless, a more objective examination of how movies get onto file-sharing networks, and then how those video files get distributed, would clearly show that the movie studios’ anti-pirate endeavors are fundamentally off-target. Widespread DRM systems, like CSS on DVDs and AACS on Blu-Ray discs, have absolutely no bearing on how or whether movies end up online, as the primary leaks invariably come from within the production process. DVD and Blu-Ray sourced files appear online *before* the date those discs are actually made available for sale. And not just a few days before, but usually weeks if not months before the official DVD release to the public. Someone in the production chain of Hollywood itself actively puts the video files online for anyone to download for free, and does so *before* any DRM protection can be applied to the film. It strains credulity to think that the film studios that contract out these services could not increase pressure on their employees and partners to prevent this kind of leak. Yet, in the decade or so since large-scale online copyright infringement began, they have never done so effectively. Even more telling as a demonstration of Hollywood’s lack of seriousness about piracy, however, is the annual decision by the film studios to distribute DVD “screeners” to members of the film community in the period before and during “award season” leading up the Oscar ceremony. Despite explicit knowledge that these critically acclaimed films will immediately be uploaded for mass distribution, and even while the movies themselves are still in theaters, and months before they are scheduled to come out on DVD, the studios continue the practice. There have been half-hearted attempts in past years to devise a more secure system for distributing these screeners, but they proved unwieldly and ineffective. Yet the crucial point is that according to Hollywood’s own cost-benefit analysis, the supposed lost sales from the piracy of its own best films is overwhelmingly out-weighed by just the mere opportunity of these films receiving a publicity bump from winning awards. In their own calculations, Hollywood values the increased revenue an Oscar traditionally generates far more than they fear what a leaked copy loses them. Such a decision is at minimum an admission by the people who should know movie finances best that what is gained by the screener policy is vastly larger than any fear of possible losses. And just to underscore the point, I looked at a few of the highest profile films from the recent Golden Globes, that had screeners leak long before their DVD release dates. In the case of Black Swan, a good quality version of the film from an awards screener appeared on file-sharing networks barely two weeks after the initial limited opening on December 3rd. The film has nevertheless earned over $73 million in box office revenue and is likely to receive a great deal more publicity when Oscar nominations come out. Another high profile film, The Fighter, had a screener copy leaked three weeks after its release on December 10th, something that the producing studio, Paramount in this case, had to know would happen if they chose to make screeners available. The MPAA and its member studios are quick to bemoan their fate in a piracy-riddled internet, seemingly robbed of “billions” of revenue (at least according to the statistics they cite). Yet it is hard to take their arguments seriously when they routinely chose to engage practices like sending out award screeners that has proven repeatedly to foment illegitimate distribution of high-profile films. The possibility must exist therefore that Hollywood does in fact realize that the supposed damages from piracy are actually not as substantial as they so often claim.

A Discussion With Russell McOrmond on Hollywoods New Intel Chip

Drew Wilson — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 07:27:19 +0000

Just shortly after new years, news surfaced on multiple websites where Intel was developing a chip that would support high definition copy protected content for streaming purposes. The news intrigued us, so we discussed some of the issues that came up with coordinator of Digital Copyright Canada and Canadian consultant Russell McOrmond.

Intel recently revealed what it calls the second generation Intel core processor. While there was many interesting things about this chip, one thing stuck out to us at Computer World:

Intel is also upgrading its Wi-Di technology, which enables users to wirelessly transmit images and video from a PC to a high-definition TV. Users will now be able to stream 1080p content, an improvement from the previous 720p resolution. Users will also be able to stream protected movies from the Intel Insider feature, Regis said.

Here's what CNet mentioned:

Access to Hollywood content is also baked into the chip--a technology called Intel Insider. "This will unlock premium high-definition content, like movies, to your PC," Kilroy said. "We've gone out and engaged with the studios. So, you'll see Warner Bros. and Fox at launch [of Sandy Bridge] and several other studios to come. They're eagerly embracing this platform as a distribution means for premium high-end content--as Internet content [offered] directly to the end user." Kilroy continued. "What Intel Insider does is deliver HD digital distribution rights to the PC. This could be enabled through multiple content storefronts through OEMs (PC makers), retailers like Best Buy. Essentially, the PC now becomes an on-ramp for HD 1080p movies," he said. And Intel has added security features to protect the content. "And we've built in security capability into this platform that will enable end-to-end hardware protection for the content. So, it will protect the premium content rights of the studios," according to Kilroy.

The idea that Hollywood is influencing hardware development is certainly interesting. With a form of digital locking built right in to the chip being discussed, we thought it would be interesting to speak to someone about this. We asked him about what this means when these chips will be able to play protected content - that maybe it doesn't mean much because really, this kind of streaming might only affect protected content in the first place. "What does "only on protected content" mean?" Asked McOrmond, "All you can do with content is encrypt it such that you need the right decryption keys to access. All of what we call "DRM" is in software (which includes firmware) which runs on hardware. It is dishonest to "sell" someone hardware without giving the owner the keys to what they own. By falsely passing off a vendor-dependent content delivery system as if it were copyright related, we then don't regulate it correctly. These schemes can not and do not protect copyright, but allow the vendors to circumvent the traditional contours of copyright, contract, competition, privacy, property and trade law. It allows those vendors to replace legal code with unaccountable software code." We also asked via e-mail about if this is all part of the Trusted Computing some have been warning us about in the past. McOrdmon said, "having cryptography in the GPU is the same theme but different than what the trusted computing folks were doing with the separate trusted platform module. It is still locked hardware/firmware within a theoretically general purpose computer where the owner is treated as the attacker." He added, "It is hardware that is positive security where owner holds keys, but in my mind morally repugnant when the owner is denied keys." When the news was first circulating, we wondered if the mentioned digital locks could spark anti-trust suits from other chip manufacturing vendors. McOrdmond was skeptical with these theories, "I wish. I have been talking to folks at the Competition Bureau about this for many years now." McOrmond then explained things from a policy standpoint, "As long as people (policy makers, lawyers, copyright holders, etc) are confused into thinking TPMs have anything at all to do with copyright, it will be very hard to regulate appropriately." "As soon as this is understood as a vendor-dependent content delivery platform, all the existing regulation including competition/anti-trust will come into play." "It will also allow copyright holders to make informed decisions about how to distribute and license their content, allowing for revenue streams they are currently giving up due to their confusion. They don't realize this is a beta-vs-vhs battle all over, and they are deliberately choosing not to offer any content legally on VHS." Certain forms of copy protection often seem like they are designed to circumvent certain copyright laws in a given country. Canada is a great example where copyright reform has been pushed several times, but never passed in governments in the past and in the current government - at least, the major pieces of copyright reform like Bill C-60 under the Liberal government, Bill C-61 under the Conservative government previously and, now, Bill C-32 under the current Conservative government. McOrmond addressed how TPMs can affect copyright laws: "If TPMs are protected in copyright, it allows a TPM vendor to replace the traditional contours of copyright (and other laws) in software. This means any aspect of copyright (what it regulates, limitations, exceptions, term, etc) have no meaning at all in the presence of a legally protected TPM. No further changes to Copyright required for a majority of scenarios -- Copyright law only applies in analog/unencrypted scenarios." We also asked McOrmond about how digital locks aren't protected by Canadian copyright laws and he commented, "Digital locks aren't protected in Canada at all at the moment. This is unfortunate as they have legitimate purposes under contract, e-commerce, privacy and other laws. I have been writing my provincial MPP in Ontario (currently also the Primier) suggesting modernization in these areas, but without the industry backing this direction it is unlikely. The legal community generally sits entirely confused about the whole question." "Bill C-32 protects Access Control TPMs (the relevant type) for non-copyright-infringing activities, and explicitly states that the new very limited fair dealings enhancements do not trump digital locks. This means that in the presence of a TPM the contours of copyright don't matter." "Time/device/format shifting with an analog VCR is legal, but with DVD and PVRs it is not." McOrdmond smiled, "Better grab those VCRs from landfill" We then also asked McOrmond to elaborate on whether the development of this chip is a move towards trusted computing or if this is a move in a completely different direction, "This is a language issue." "TPM could mean "Technical protection measure" (Bill C-32) or it could mean Trusted Platform Module." "Issues with the Trusted Platform Module are not technological, but legal." "When the owner of the device holds the keys to the TPM, then this is an instrumental tool to protect against malware and intrusions. This allows the owner to ensure that no unauthorized modifications can be made without them being detected. This is a critically important tool for the future of computing. This is especially critical in mobile." "When someone other than the owner of the device manages the keys, then the TPM circumvents the legal rights of the owner and can itself be considered a form of malware that enforces unauthorized modifications to the system." "In some cases the owners will outsource key management to an IT firm. But this must be the choice of the owner, not something imposed by the collusion of hardware manufacturers and confused politicians/lawyers." "Identical technology has opposite purposes depending on who holds the keys. "The law should protect the right of the owner to control who has keys, and should make it clearly illegal for someone other than the owner to treat the owner as an attacker. This should be protected in property law, and has nothing to do with copyright." "Confusion by parliamentarians about technology and copyright is being abused to flip the law on its head and legally protect abuses that would otherwise be legally prohibited." "The term "Trusted Computing" is like TPM -- it has different, and sometimes opposite, meanings depending on who you talk to. Everything comes down to the question of who owns what is locked, and who controls the keys." One thing that also came to mind with regards to this chip is any potential impact on, say, the Linux community. McOrmond commented, "If the owner of the computer doesn't hold the keys and can't make their own software choices, then they can't chose Linux. "But this isn't about Linux. It is about protecting the rights of computer owners to manage the keys and make their own choices. MS Windows and MacOS are legitimate choices, just not legitimate to impose." "Now lets flip back to content for the moment. Having more and more content encrypted to only work with specific brands of technology is a lesser but still critical problem. It is saying that in order to fully participate in Canadian culture you need to "chose" from a subset of technology brands." "It is like saying that in order to participate in Canadian federal politics you must be a member of the Liberal-Conservative party (the one from Confederation). You are free to make any choices you want, and you are free to not participate in politics, but it is an illegal circumvention of the Trusted Politics Measure (TPM) to participate in politics as a member of the Reform, Bloc, NDP or any other third party." It was at this point that we mentioned the story about the Playstation 3's root key being discovered and said how that, given this is just the latest protected mechanism that has been cracked, would this chip with its own "copy protection" eventually see a similar fate. McOrmond responded, " I wouldn't use the word "copy protection" as that is a vague marketing term and not a specific technology that can be discussed in a way that would have meaning. "The hardest thing for people to realise is that the Access Controls on content aren't all that relevant to copyright. The potentially anti-competitive cryptographic tie between encoded content and specific brands of technology only needs to be unlocked by one person among the 6.5+ billion people on the planet. The now unlocked content can be unlawfully shared the same as if the lock never existed. It will be from these sources that a vast majority of average (less technical) citizens will get their infringing content." "As an alleged form of "copy protection", this is pretty much useless." "The non-owner locks on our hardware/software is a different scenario. While it is true that if you put a safe and the key into the home of a safe cracker that the safe will be opened, especially if he bought the safe and is morally (if not legally) correct in believing it is his/her right to open it." McOrmond seemed to be skeptical of relating the two scenarios, "The issue is that unlike with the content scenario, each lock on hardware/software can have its own key and thus opening one doesn't open it for everyone. If you find the root key and can create a generic unlocking tool usable by average citizens then great, but that isn't always or even often going to be the case." "This means that most peoples hardware/software will still have non-owner locks on them which will limit what the owners can do. These limitations have absolutely nothing to do with copyright, and everything to do with third parties other than the owner having control over the means of production and distribution in the knowledge economy. The harmful repercussions of this are considerable on society, and relate to many other activities we have laws on the books for, but these harmful activities have little if anything to do with copyright." "What I find sad in this fight for basic digital rights is that we have to try to convince so-called Conservatives and other mainstream political parties about the value of protecting private property rights, and trying to explain to them all the social, economic and political problems that can result from this lack of protection." McOrmond, at this point, reminded me of his article on "The Two Locks of DRM" and said, "Getting people past thinking this is about so-called "copy control" and encrypted content is the most important part of the battle." "DRM = Dishonest Relationship Misinformation." "The term Digital Rights Management begs the questions: which and whose rights, and is "management" just a euphemism for circumvent?" "IE: Digital property rights circumvention? Digital contractual rights circumvention? Digital privacy rights circumvention?" As our conversation ended, he said, "My concern with all of this really has nothing to do with copyrighted content, and everything to do with the non-owner locks on our hardware/software" We would like to thank Russell McOrmond for discussing these issues at length with us. For more commentary by Russell McOrmond, you can visit his blog at Digital Copyright Canada. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

PlayStation 3 DRM Falls – Root Key Found

Drew Wilson — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 22:42:03 +0000

If you've ever wanted to create home brew video games for the PlayStation 3 (PS3), you may now be one major step closer. A user by the name GeoHot, the same user who helped to crack the iPhone, has posted the root key - a critical part of code signing. By using this code, anyone with enough technical expertise can run home brew games on their PlayStation 3.

Home Brew video games have been around for a long time. Developing such games enables users to sharpen their coding and development skills. Still, with the root key found, this becomes a double-edged sword as it also helps users play downloaded games directly on to their PS3. "Props to fail0verflow for the asymmetric half. No donate link," GeoHot wrote, "just use this info wisely. I do not condone piracy" There's always an interesting twist to this sort of thing. Does the person that cracks your security protection you spent who knows how much time, money and effort in to become an enemy or the kind of person you would want to hire because that person was clearly smart enough to crack that protection in the first place? "If you want your next console to be secure," Geohot added, "get in touch with me. "any of you 3. It'd be fun to be on the other side." Kotaku made an interesting observation:

Crucially, because this key lies at the very heart of the PS3 hardware itself, it appears that if it has been cracked, it will be almost impossible to repair (even via firmware updates), as altering the existing key would run the risk of rendering all existing PS3 software inoperable.

What I think will be interesting in the months ahead is if this sparks a new console generation wars with another generation of consoles. One thing is for sure, if this key is legit, copy protection for the PS3 will be about as useless as the CSS copy protection on DVDs. [Via /.] Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Report: Ubisoft Releases Patch That Removes ‘Always On’ DRM Requirement

Drew Wilson — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 23:40:59 +0000

It may have been the most draconian and ill-advised copy protection of a copyrighted product since the Sony Rootkit scandal, but now, reports are surfacing that says that Ubisoft has released a patch for the games (including Assassin's Creed 2 and Splinter Cell: Conviction) affected by the infamous "always on" DRM system. The patch will no longer require a constant internet connection, but will still require an internet connection every time the game is turned on.

Ubisoft made headlines back in August last year over a highly controversial DRM system which they ultimately backed off and used Steam for their products. The controversy began when games like Assassin's Creed 2 required a constant internet connection to play. The, at the time, new copy protection, or DRM, was hailed as a breakthrough in stopping piracy when it was released - that finally there was a copy protection that would stump video game pirates in their tracks. It all went downhill from there for Ubisoft. Just 24 hours after the game was released, the copy protection was cracked and then re-cracked to defeat the copy protection just 24 hours after the commercial release. This allowed the unauthorized downloading and playing of the video game anyway. Many were already pointing out that the constant internet connection of the game for authorized copy was really degrading the gaming experience - particularly for those with flaky internet connections. This meant that those who had the pirated version enjoyed smooth single-player action while those with authorized copies would have the game freeze on them in mid-play whenever their connection gave out. As one could imagine, fans of the game were furious over having such a highly strict copy protection while the same system wasn't stopping pirates from playing the that game. In short, why should I put up with the game constantly freezing on me because of the DRM when I can go download the pirated version on BitTorrent and basically improve the performance by defeating the copy protection instead? The issue went from bad to worse for Ubisoft. Shortly after the game was cracked, the servers responsible for the DRM went down. This caused the perfect storm for Ubisoft. Everyone with unauthorized copies were playing their games without a hitch while everyone who legally paid for the game found themselves locked out. If you paid for the game, you were punished for it. If you were pirating the game, you were rewarded handsomely in comparison. Assassin's Creed 2, as we pointed out when the story was initially making headlines, will probably go down in history as a shining example of how DRM can ruin the gaming experience. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to assume that this is an incident Ubisoft would rather forget. Shortly after the controversy erupted, Ubisoft did back off and start using Steam for the games, but the copy protection issue remained for other versions. Now, a report has surfaced saying that Ubisoft has released a patch for the games affected by the "always on" copy protection. The patch drops the requirement for a constant internet connection and, instead, requires an internet connection for starting up the game. This means that after you boot the game properly, you can shut off your internet connection and still enjoy the game if you so choose. While some are commending Ubisoft for taking a step in the right direction, I'd say the damage has already been done for disenfranchised users who now think that Ubisoft games don't work. Maybe it shows my age a little, but I think that requiring an internet connection for playing a video game in a single player mode is excessive and ridiculous. Even with copy protection, shouldn't the only internet connection requirement be for authenticating the game? When someone buys a game and plays it in single player mode, that copy isn't going to magically become pirated on their own. The company made their money on that copy, leave the user alone I'd say. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Pay-What-You-Want Game Sale Closes Totaling $1.8 Million

Drew Wilson — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 07:57:00 +0000

The Humble Indie Bundle 2, a sequel to the overwhelmingly successful Humble Indie Bundle pay-what-you-want model for selling games closed earlier this week. The sale by independent video-game developer Wolfire earned a total of $1,824,476.16, easily surpassing the previous total of $1.27 Million.

Since the sale has earned more than $1.75 million, Wolfire has said the promise made of releasing the source code of Revenge of the Titans will be kept. While Wolfire is no doubt happy with the success of the sale and fans of the sale are cheering about the success of the alternative business model for video games, there was some controversy along the way. Some have questioned whether or not such a model is sustainable - particularly for mainstream game development companies. Another criticism is whether or not such models erode the overall gaming industry. An example of this criticism is if someone is use to paying 60 dollars, sees the sale and realizes they can pay 5 dollars instead, would that erode prices and, thus, reduce the quality of video game development because people are expecting the price tag to be lower now that competition is reducing the expected cost of a video game? Personally, when I examine the criticisms towards the success of the Humble Indie Bundle, I actually think of sports. Is it typical that a football player wears pink and yellow over-sized polka dot pants and goofy goggles while playing their games? No. If it helps that player win the Super Bowl, who are people to complain about it? It's what business in a competitive market does, find something that works and benefits the company and take full advantage of it. Already, there are surveys coming out recently saying that 65% of internet users pay for content. Really, taking all of this in to account, a success is a success. If the pay-what-you-want model ultimately fails in the long run, then the market will probably either revert to the old system of paying for games or someone else will come up with something better and gamers will migrate to that method instead. In the mean time, what would it hurt to watch how these types of sales turn out and take notes? Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Pay-What-You-Want Videogame Sale Rakes in Over $800,000 in 3 Days

Drew Wilson — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:16:48 +0000

It's called the "Humble Indie Bundle 2" where people can pay what they want and have the money go to whoever they choose. The famous video game sale by Wolfire is back and already, the sale has become hugely successful.

Back in May, an independent videogame developer created the Humble Indie Bundle - a sale that allowed users to pay what they want to get a set of DRM-free videogames. they even allowed the users to choose where the money would go - to the developers, to charity or a mixture in between. While some in the industry would consider the sale crazy, the sale did manage to net over a quarter of a million dollars in 24 hours and closed at nearly $1,270,000. For an independent video-game producer, that's nothing to sneeze at. So what happened since then? It turns out, Wolfire launched the Humble Indie Bundle 2 three days ago and, already, the sale has earned well over $800,000 with four days left to go. The sale looks like it is on track to match its previous success already, but we don't know for sure if it'll beat the previous sale total. The sale features Braid, Machinarium, Osmos, Cortex Command, and Revenge of the Titans. Like before, the games are platform independent. The charities involved are EFF and Child's Play. The video: What I think is cool is the fact that this proves that the first sale wasn't a one hit wonder. It's back-to-back success is showing that such a business model is, indeed, viable. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.