Read by Council Hinder design theft

[Calhoun]

Jojomo you do realise that Steam is one of the biggest users of DRM in the online world right? Yet you've spent pages and pages arguing that this is DRM and thats bad. You know why Steam uses DRM? I'll give you a hint, it's to do with piracy.

So yes, Steam is a good example. A good example of what this suggestion would do for starmade's economy and players.

 

[sayerulz]

Alright, can everyone just agree that jojomo is either a troll or simply a very stubborn person who refuses to listen, and is at this point simply not worth replying to or acknowledging. He's said his piece, and people have determined that his argument is invalid.

Back on track, I certainly look forward to running my own shipyard and selling my designs to people on a server. Of course, if anyone has seen my designs, if I manage to sell them, I should consider going into used cars.

 

[Jojomo]

Jojomo you do realise that Steam is one of the biggest users of DRM in the online world right? Yet you've spent pages and pages arguing that this is DRM and thats bad. You know why Steam uses DRM? I'll give you a hint, it's to do with piracy.

So yes, Steam is a good example. A good example of what this suggestion would do for starmade's economy and players.

I'm perfectly well aware of what Steam is. You realise of course that Steam is voluntary DRM? It's the consumer who decides they'll get a game through Steam instead of an illegal free copy. They place themselves under Steam's control (I've done it myself). What you're talking about is forced DRM, without a free (illegal or legal) option.

I didn't say that I like Steam, or that I'm glad they're so successful. The point is they compete against free, illegal copies, and they do it very, very well. They're extremely successful by any measure.

Anyone saying their business can't compete against free, unauthorised copies of whatever they sell is doing it wrong.

 

[Erth Paradine]

Alright, can everyone just agree that jojomo is either a troll or simply a very stubborn person who refuses to listen, and is at this point simply not worth replying to or acknowledging. He's said his piece, and people have determined that his argument is invalid.

Back on track, I certainly look forward to running my own shipyard and selling my designs to people on a server. Of course, if anyone has seen my designs, if I manage to sell them, I should consider going into used cars.

The forum member ignore option works remarkably well

Anyways...some excellent, logically-sound, and well-formed additional justifications have been broached in support of this proposal. Thanks all for taking the time to put those thoughts out here.

 

[Calhoun]

Alright, can everyone just agree that jojomo is either a troll or simply a very stubborn person who refuses to listen, and is at this point simply not worth replying to or acknowledging. He's said his piece, and people have determined that his argument is invalid.

Back on track, I certainly look forward to running my own shipyard and selling my designs to people on a server. Of course, if anyone has seen my designs, if I manage to sell them, I should consider going into used cars.

...

Agreed

 

[Gasboy]

There are a lot of good points in here.

And what is happening here is an old argument: protection of a creator's creations vs allowing the public at large to build upon what has already been done. The original intent of copyright was to allow a creator to benefit from their creations, but in return for a set number of years of protection, the creator had to allow it to become public domain when those years of protection expired. The original proposal was 14 years, as seen in the Statute of Anne, aka the Copyright Act of 1710 in Great Britain. Now, in some places, it's 100 years. I think that might be a tad much, but eeh.

DRM , which is what the OP's proposal is, can be used properly (see Steam) or improperly (see StarForce drm). And there's fine line between the two.

I agree with the basic desire of a content creator to be able to control how their creations are released. At the very minimum, a completed design should have embedded in it the date of its creation, and the name of its creator. There should exist a mechanism in the design, that can be toggled on/off by the creator alone, which prevents duplication of the design. If that design's duplication is off, that design cannot and must not end up on CC. Full stop. Any designs that do go up on CC must have the duplication feature enabled.

In this way, ships can still be given away on a server without worry of them being duplicated through the blueprint or design object. Precious experimental and prototypes can still be stolen, while the design remains safe in the creator's hands. This feature should be IMMUNE to the actions of a server admin.

And anyone downloading something from CC knows that they are freely able to make as many ships as they want.

I think that this is a fair way to deal with the issue.
[doublepost=1475241791,1475239746][/doublepost]

Alright, can everyone just agree that jojomo is either a troll or simply a very stubborn person who refuses to listen, and is at this point simply not worth replying to or acknowledging. He's said his piece, and people have determined that his argument is invalid.

Back on track, I certainly look forward to running my own shipyard and selling my designs to people on a server. Of course, if anyone has seen my designs, if I manage to sell them, I should consider going into used cars.

He may be a troll to some, but his argument is not invalid.

And may I say that you are a stubborn person who refuses to listen if you don't change your mind on this topic or others? This doesn't make a person wrong, necessarily.

 

[KillaKrazy]

There are a lot of good points in here.

And what is happening here is an old argument: protection of a creator's creations vs allowing the public at large to build upon what has already been done. The original intent of copyright was to allow a creator to benefit from their creations, but in return for a set number of years of protection, the creator had to allow it to become public domain when those years of protection expired. The original proposal was 14 years, as seen in the Statute of Anne, aka the Copyright Act of 1710 in Great Britain. Now, in some places, it's 100 years. I think that might be a tad much, but eeh.

DRM , which is what the OP's proposal is, can be used properly (see Steam) or improperly (see StarForce drm). And there's fine line between the two.

I agree with the basic desire of a content creator to be able to control how their creations are released. At the very minimum, a completed design should have embedded in it the date of its creation, and the name of its creator. There should exist a mechanism in the design, that can be toggled on/off by the creator alone, which prevents duplication of the design. If that design's duplication is off, that design cannot and must not end up on CC. Full stop. Any designs that do go up on CC must have the duplication feature enabled.

In this way, ships can still be given away on a server without worry of them being duplicated through the blueprint or design object. Precious experimental and prototypes can still be stolen, while the design remains safe in the creator's hands. This feature should be IMMUNE to the actions of a server admin.

And anyone downloading something from CC knows that they are freely able to make as many ships as they want.

I think that this is a fair way to deal with the issue.
[doublepost=1475241791,1475239746][/doublepost]

He may be a troll to some, but his argument is not invalid.

And may I say that you are a stubborn person who refuses to listen if you don't change your mind on this topic or others? This doesn't make a person wrong, necessarily.

Somewhere along the line this topic got derailed and was never set back on track. The original post was never about protecting the original creator's creation. It is about making a different form of gameplay a viable option. Currently the only way to play is to join a faction or create one, mine your own shit, build your own ships, and fight other factions. It is far easier to mine your own items than attempt to trade with players or run shop to shop looking for items. What the original intent behind the idea was to open up a new type of gameplay. If you don't to be involved in faction politics or wars and instead specialize in building ships and supplying them to the warring factions then you could.

Proposed Idea:
Faction A designs/builds a line of ships for sale. Faction B is interested in buying said ships. Faction A spawns the ships and sets them to non-copy-able. If Faction B wants more ships they now have to go back to Faction A to buy more.

Currently, the first thing anyone does when they get a ship they like is slap a BP to it. They will then just build the ships themselves as it is far easier to spawn your own BPs than go to someone else to do it for you.

Still don't see this as a DRM issue, you are attempting to bring the real world into the game universe. They are different from each other and must be thought of that way.

While I agree ships from the CC should be freely available that would be hard to accomplish with the original post. Which was to set the conditions upon spawning a ship from a BP. Personally, if the buyer was too lazy or dumb to navigate the CC to find the ship then it was his own fault for getting jipped into thinking he was getting a new ship.

No this won't magically fix the economy overnight or with just this implemented. It would though help start the process of fixing the economy.

 

[Gasboy]

Somewhere along the line this topic got derailed and was never set back on track. The original post was never about protecting the original creator's creation. It is about making a different form of gameplay a viable option. Currently the only way to play is to join a faction or create one, mine your own shit, build your own ships, and fight other factions. It is far easier to mine your own items than attempt to trade with players or run shop to shop looking for items. What the original intent behind the idea was to open up a new type of gameplay. If you don't to be involved in faction politics or wars and instead specialize in building ships and supplying them to the warring factions then you could.

Proposed Idea:
Faction A designs/builds a line of ships for sale. Faction B is interested in buying said ships. Faction A spawns the ships and sets them to non-copy-able. If Faction B wants more ships they now have to go back to Faction A to buy more.

Currently, the first thing anyone does when they get a ship they like is slap a BP to it. They will then just build the ships themselves as it is far easier to spawn your own BPs than go to someone else to do it for you.

Still don't see this as a DRM issue, you are attempting to bring the real world into the game universe. They are different from each other and must be thought of that way.

While I agree ships from the CC should be freely available that would be hard to accomplish with the original post. Which was to set the conditions upon spawning a ship from a BP. Personally, if the buyer was too lazy or dumb to navigate the CC to find the ship then it was his own fault for getting jipped into thinking he was getting a new ship.

No this won't magically fix the economy overnight or with just this implemented. It would though help start the process of fixing the economy.

Uhm, no, you don't have to make a faction or partake of faction politics. That is not the only way to play this game. I don't see how you or anyone else could think this at all.

I don't see how my suggestion doesn't result in the proposed idea happening: Faction A designs/builds a line of ships for sale. Faction B is interested in buying said ships. Faction A spawns the ships and sets them to non-copy-able. If Faction B wants more ships they now have to go back to Faction A to buy more. My idea suggests that the content creator has a means of setting a design as non-copyable through blueprint or design object. Thus they can give/sell ships with peace of mind as they cannot be copied easily.

Preventing people from copying a design is DRM. Everything in Starmade is digital. Thus anything pertaining to the prevention of copying is digital rights management. It can be abused, or used properly. I believe my idea is a good balance.

Lastly let me disabuse you of the term "real world". Are you a fiction of my imagination? Is the game not real? This is part of real life, just a subset of it though. This suggestion by the OP is a copyright issue, and if you don't think for one minute a lawsuit cannot happen over someone's misuse of someone else's IP in StarMade, you've got a bad surprise in your future. It's copyright, and the OP's suggestion is DRM, and if this situation isn't handled that way, we're all in for a bad time.

 

[KillaKrazy]

I don't see how my suggestion doesn't result in the proposed idea happening: Faction A designs/builds a line of ships for sale. Faction B is interested in buying said ships. Faction A spawns the ships and sets them to non-copy-able. If Faction B wants more ships they now have to go back to Faction A to buy more. My idea suggests that the content creator has a means of setting a design as non-copyable through blueprint or design object. Thus they can give/sell ships with peace of mind as they cannot be copied easily.

Your post was about protecting the original creator. That may have been a secondary effect but it was not the main reason. The main reason behind this suggestion was to make selling ships an actual viable thing within the game. As I said, the thread got disrailed and became out protecting the original creator and not about adding new game play options.

 

[Gasboy]

Your post was about protecting the original creator. That may have been a secondary effect but it was not the main reason. The main reason behind this suggestion was to make selling ships an actual viable thing within the game. As I said, the thread got disrailed and became out protecting the original creator and not about adding new game play options.

It's still about protecting the creator whether you like it or not.

And the idea as the OP outlined would not make selling more than 1 ship a thing any more than it is now. Making a blueprint isn't the only way to make a ship, it's just the easiest.

As authors, movie houses and music houses have learned, if someone wants to steal or copy something, and is bound and determined to see it through, there's not a damned thing anyone can do about it. Lawsuits don't work, new laws don't work, you have to depend on people's basic honesty.

Which isn't much at times.

 

[KillaKrazy]

It's still about protecting the creator whether you like it or not.

And the idea as the OP outlined would not make selling more than 1 ship a thing any more than it is now. Making a blueprint isn't the only way to make a ship, it's just the easiest.

As authors, movie houses and music houses have learned, if someone wants to steal or copy something, and is bound and determined to see it through, there's not a damned thing anyone can do about it. Lawsuits don't work, new laws don't work, you have to depend on people's basic honesty.

Which isn't much at times.

If you fail to understand the difference about the main reasoning and secondary effects there is nothing I can do for you.

Sure, they can use templates. If they really want to spend the time going through the pains of copying and pasting I will give them a handshake myself.

 

[Jojomo]

The following post may either intensely annoy (apologies if so) or delight some of the people I've been arguing with.

Although my opinion of DRM, and it's negative effects on innovation (in real life or not) remain entirely unchanged - you CAN successfully compete with free, and DRM is unlikely to ever be the best solution for anything - I've just gone back and reread the OP (wanted to check if KK was right about not protecting the creator's ceation), and noticed a sentence fragment I missed before:

"This suggestion is not intended to prevent anyone from repairing their purchased entity, copying an entity block-by-block, or utilizing templates to copy/paste large chunks at a time."

The OP is in favour of allowing protected ships to be copied by template/copy-paste. (I'd previously only registered that sentence up to "block-by-block")

As a result, I think this idea would actually have very little slow-down effect on arms races (so innovation there will be unaffected), and because full-time for-profit designers are not going to exist anyway until the economy is fixed and players per server increase (DRM won't magically make designing for profit a viable full time occupation) there won't be any innovation to slow down there either.

These two areas (arms race slowdowns and reduced financial pressure on for profit designers) were the areas I predicted would be the root of innovation slowdown, but they aren't a concern any more.

I don't think it's at all necessary, but I personally now don't believe the suggestion, as it's written in the OP, in the game as it currently is, would have any negative effect on the game. I would have no objections to the suggestion being implemented.

I will say though, that it isn't going to have the magical effect some people are hoping for, and that if you are someone who wants to run a business it's up to you to tailor your business model to the marketplace (as opposed to complaining about the marketplace and wishing it would change to suit you).

And, people shouldn't get scared and angry when they happen to read/hear opinions that don't match their own. Try to be a bit more mature and objective.

 

[Gasboy]

If you fail to understand the difference about the main reasoning and secondary effects there is nothing I can do for you.

Sure, they can use templates. If they really want to spend the time going through the pains of copying and pasting I will give them a handshake myself.

And if you fail to understand that the main reasoning is flawed and will not work as intended, and only leave the secondary effects in play and their fallout, then there is nothing I can do for you.

As for copying and pasting, they only have to go through that process once. Then they can save the design and make as many as they want. And they can sell those at a discount too. Congratulations, nothing has changed. The proposal, while I agree with it, does nothing to prevent this. It just slows it down for a bit.
[doublepost=1475246195,1475246152][/doublepost]

And, people shouldn't get scared and angry when they happen to read/hear opinions that don't match their own. Try to be a bit more mature and objective.

Hear hear.

 

[Lukwan]

As for copying and pasting, they only have to go through that process once. Then they can save the design and make as many as they want. And they can sell those at a discount too. Congratulations, nothing has changed. The proposal, while I agree with it, does nothing to prevent this. It just slows it down for a bit.

I am fine with that. I don't expect Shine to maintain a bubble around me or my builds to guarantee my safety. Slowing down potential thefts will help tremendously even with loopholes. If someone wants to cut and paste to get around copy-protection 'good for them' I say...that shows initiative few people demonstrate. Just involving the wonky template system would be enough to deter most of this potential theft. They would have to re-link all the logic too so at least they are getting an education with their life of crime. Also if this causes people to learn to use templates then that is a good thing.

I just want to prevent lazy trolls from being able to exploit good builders which under the current system of BPs is easy and unregulated.

 

[Erth Paradine]

There are a lot of good points in here.
...
DRM , which is what the OP's proposal is
...

Wrong. Re-read the original posting. I expect a direct quote from the original posting, taken in context, to refute this, or the whole silly "DRM" derailment in this thread dies here.

I agree with the basic desire of a content creator to be able to control how their creations are released. At the very minimum, a completed design should have embedded in it the date of its creation, and the name of its creator. There should exist a mechanism in the design, that can be toggled on/off by the creator alone, which prevents duplication of the design. If that design's duplication is off, that design cannot and must not end up on CC. Full stop. Any designs that do go up on CC must have the duplication feature enabled.

In this way, ships can still be given away on a server without worry of them being duplicated through the blueprint or design object. Precious experimental and prototypes can still be stolen, while the design remains safe in the creator's hands. This feature should be IMMUNE to the actions of a server admin.

And anyone downloading something from CC knows that they are freely able to make as many ships as they want.

I think that this is a fair way to deal with the issue.

Umm, that's exactly what my original posting asked for: a boolean flag which can be set at time of entity spawn, which permits or denies creation of a blueprint from its design.

In this way, ships can still be given away on a server without worry of them being duplicated through the blueprint or design object. Precious experimental and prototypes can still be stolen, while the design remains safe in the creator's hands.

...and if you can't trust your admin, you really shouldn't be on that server. There are perfectly legitimate needs for entity duplication by an administrative user, the most popular of which have been to refute accusations of lag-inducing entities (without the drama of hassling the falsely-accused), and to assist Schine with acquisition/reverse-engineering of abusive entities (e.g. logic bombs).

 

[Gasboy]

Wrong. Re-read the original posting. I expect a direct quote from the original posting, taken in context, to refute this, or the whole silly "DRM" derailment in this thread dies here.

Digital rights management - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Digital rights management (DRM) schemes are various access control technologies that are used to restrict usage of proprietary hardware and copyrighted works.[1] DRM technologies try to control the use, modification, and distribution of copyrighted works (such as software and multimedia content), as well as systems within devices that enforce these policies.[2]

Request:
Add mechanic to prevent wholesale copying of entities, settable when spawning.

Is that good enough, sir?
[doublepost=1475248820,1475248698][/doublepost]

Umm, that's exactly what my original posting asked for: a boolean flag which can be set at time of entity spawn, which permits or denies creation of a blueprint from its design.

Incorrect.

I added a stipulation that protected designs be prevented from being uploaded to CC.

 

[Erth Paradine]

And if you fail to understand that the main reasoning is flawed and will not work as intended, and only leave the secondary effects in play and their fallout, then there is nothing I can do for you.

As for copying and pasting, they only have to go through that process once. Then they can save the design and make as many as they want. And they can sell those at a discount too. Congratulations, nothing has changed. The proposal, while I agree with it, does nothing to prevent this. It just slows it down for a bit.

That's the whole point of this suggestion: not to eliminate an ability to copy designs, piece-by-piece, or in template-sized chunks, but to make it more difficult for the unauthorized to copy an existing build with quick two mouse-movements.

Digital rights management - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is that good enough, sir?

No, that's not a quote from the original posting, that's a wikipedia link to DRM. The burden is upon you to show the connection between the two: use my words against me, or please stop trolling here.

 

[Gasboy]

That's the whole point of this suggestion: not to eliminate an ability to copy designs, piece-by-piece, or in template-sized chunks, but to make it more difficult for the unauthorized to copy an existing build with quick two mouse-movements.

EDIT: And I agree with that, with the added stipulation that if you don't want people to copy your designs easily, then you don't want it on CC, therefore a rule enforcing that should be in play as well.

No, that's not a quote from the original posting, that's a wikipedia link to DRM. The burden is upon you to show the connection between the two: use my words against me, or please stop trolling here.

Uhm, you've missed the part right below it.

Request:
Add mechanic to prevent wholesale copying of entities, settable when spawning.

That's directly from your original post, is it not?

Digital rights management (DRM) schemes are various access control technologies that are used to restrict usage of proprietary hardware and copyrighted works.[1] DRM technologies try to control the use, modification, and distribution of copyrighted works (such as software and multimedia content), as well as systems within devices that enforce these policies.[2]

And there is the quote from Wikipedia about digital rights management. If you want to "add a mechanic to prevent wholesale copying of entities", then you are "try(ing) to control the use, modification, and distribution of copyright works (your ships)".

DRM in a nutshell.
[doublepost=1475249301,1475249216][/doublepost]

I am fine with that. I don't expect Shine to maintain a bubble around me or my builds to guarantee my safety. Slowing down potential thefts will help tremendously even with loopholes. If someone wants to cut and paste to get around copy-protection 'good for them' I say...that shows initiative few people demonstrate. Just involving the wonky template system would be enough to deter most of this potential theft. Also if this causes people to learn to use templates then that is a good thing too. I just want to prevent lazy trolls from being able to exploit good builders which under the current system of BPs is easy and unregulated.

And as I said, I understand people's need to do that. And it's fine by me.

 

[Erth Paradine]

Uhm, you've missed the part right below it.

That's directly from your original post, is it not?

And there is the quote from Wikipedia about digital rights management. If you want to "add a mechanic to prevent wholesale copying of entities", then you are "try(ing) to control the use, modification, and distribution of copyright works (your ships)".

DRM in a nutshell.

Wrong again. A boolean "AllowCopy" flag on a ship core does not control use, modification, or distribution of the copyright works: you can still fly the ship (e.g. use it), you can still modify it, and you can still give/sell (distribute) the ship to others. Therefore the original posting does not satisfy your criteria of "DRM". Again, what the original posting does, is it increases the level of difficulty to simply copy/paste an original design.

As for the admin topic, I've covered that already; citing legitimate reasons for such an ability (reasons you've not refuted).

Aside from the admin topic, I fail to see how the original proposal differs from your statement:

I agree with the basic desire of a content creator to be able to control how their creations are released. At the very minimum, a completed design should have embedded in it the date of its creation, and the name of its creator. There should exist a mechanism in the design, that can be toggled on/off by the creator alone, which prevents duplication of the design. If that design's duplication is off, that design cannot and must not end up on CC. Full stop. Any designs that do go up on CC must have the duplication feature enabled.

In this way, ships can still be given away on a server without worry of them being duplicated through the blueprint or design object. Precious experimental and prototypes can still be stolen, while the design remains safe in the creator's hands. This feature should be IMMUNE to the actions of a server admin.

You've merely extended upon the original posting by:

• Adding a "creation" date field requirement (entities already have a "lastModifier" date field). Although your rationale is unclear, as Admins can already determine this info.
• Limiting tools available to admins for debugging/support. Where you have not refuted valid rationales.
• Trying to limit uploads of designs to CC. This would would certainly fit the criteria of DRM, and is in-fact a far more complicated topic than the original posting's goal of hindering easy/rapid wholesale duplication of in-game entities...it certainly does not sound appropriate for this thread.

Hmm...I get it now. You're practicing strawman attacks....it's time for you to move on, replies to you are getting tedious. Thanks for playing.

 

[Gasboy]

Wrong again. A boolean "AllowCopy" flag on a ship core does not control use, modification, or distribution of the copyright works: you can still fly the ship (e.g. use it), you can still modify it, and you can still give/sell (distribute) the ship to others. Therefore the original posting does not satisfy your criteria of "DRM". Again, what the original posting does, is it increases the level of difficulty to simply copy/paste an original design.

Increasing the difficulty in copying an original design falls under "try(ing) to control the use, modification, and distribution of copyright works (your ships)". If you read the article linked in my response a bit up the thread, you'll see that copying is a major issue in DRM and copyright.

Dude, I don't see why you're kicking up a fuss about the use of the term DRM. You want to prevent people from simply getting a blueprint, dropping in the required ingredients and getting a new ship. In the hopes of said people coming to you for a second, third, etc., ship. All the musicians wanted was to get paid for their work, not just for one performance of the song. All the authors wanted was to get paid for the acquiring of their material, not for just one copy of the book.

Call a spade a spade, sir.

No one..., well, few people, are arguing against your suggestion being implemented. It doesn't matter what you think it is, it falls under the definition of digital rights management. You are attempting to protect your digital goods so that you might profit from them. Just like musicians and authors and moviemakers and so on.

As for the admin topic, I've covered that already; citing legitimate reasons for such an ability. Aside from the admin topic, I fail to see how the original proposal differs from your statement:

You've merely extended upon the original posting by adding a date field requirement.

Yes, I added a requirement that I believe is necessary. A suggested modification to your suggestion, as it were.