Read by Council Hinder design theft

[Edymnion]

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.

Steam isn't voluntary DRM, its mandatory DRM.

Or at least last time I checked there wasn't a way to play games like Skyrim or Civ V on the PC without using Steam. You can't unhook them, you can't play them at all without a Steam account, and there is only so long Steam will let you go in offline mode before it spontaneously turns back on and starts snooping.

Steam is DRM masquerading as another service.

 

[Lukwan]

Food for thought:

We have many different perspectives on this issue and some confusion due to vague or lack of terminology. First some background. A Blue print must assume the roles of multiple documents that don't currently exist in SM. A blueprint currently is:

1) A schematic that includes all details of design. (When we are building a ship)

2) A work order. (When the BP is half filled but there are more steps before completion & sale.)

3) A bill of goods. (When the ship has been sold and the BP acts the place-holder for the actual ship.)

4) A bill of sale or receipt. ( The Ship exists as a thing but the 'BP' is attached to the design as an archival record of what it was when it was sold)

Herein lies the problem. IRL when you sell a product it does not get shipped with the schematic, exploded views, parts list or anything else required for service. If they did there would MUCH more design theft. This is the reason why companies don't give away this proprietary information with a sale. Also IRL companies get around theft by creating 'proprietary components' that no one else can make. This prevents others from servicing or copying their designs. Do I need to point out that in SM we don't have ANY proprietary parts?

Our unique and original designs ARE our proprietary parts.

 

[Gasboy]

Steam isn't voluntary DRM, its mandatory DRM.

Or at least last time I checked there wasn't a way to play games like Skyrim or Civ V on the PC without using Steam. You can't unhook them, you can't play them at all without a Steam account, and there is only so long Steam will let you go in offline mode before it spontaneously turns back on and starts snooping.

Steam is DRM masquerading as another service.

I get what he is saying though. You know full well what Steam is when you download it and start buying games.

What he would consider involuntary DRM is the shit they surprise you with. Like, oh, you can only install it three times, then sucks to be you. Or not informing you that you have to be connected to the internet at all times for it to work (thanks Adobe Creative Cloud).

At least that is what I am guessing he meant.
[doublepost=1475251136,1475251043][/doublepost]

Our unique and original designs ARE our proprietary parts.

And something else people don't understand: Everything we create is automatically copyrighted. Proving it's ours, on the other hand, is sometimes the hard part.

 

[Edymnion]

I get what he is saying though. You know full well what Steam is when you download it and start buying games.

What he would consider involuntary DRM is the shit they surprise you with. Like, oh, you can only install it three times, then sucks to be you. Or not informing you that you have to be connected to the internet at all times for it to work (thanks Adobe Creative Cloud).

At least that is what I am guessing he meant.
[doublepost=1475251136,1475251043][/doublepost]

And something else people don't understand: Everything we create is automatically copyrighted. Proving it's ours, on the other hand, is sometimes the hard part.

Either way, its one reason I hate Steam and I refuse to use it unless I have absolutely no other choice (and even then I will only use it for top of the line stuff like Skyrim, if I see a game I want to try that says it uses Steam, I put it back down).

Steam is active poison to me, if I see that logo I won't buy the product unless its literally a game of the year level title.

 

[HolyCookie]

Until then, let's make this idea Schine!

Jojomo You know why Steam uses DRM? I'll give you a hint, it's to do with piracy.

Alright, can everyone just agree that jojomo is either a troll

link established, jojomo = pyrate.


This was all nice and such... let's not repeat it I loved reading the last 8 pages :P (assume I am not from north korea North Korea bans sarcasm. Really )

What could possibly be added to the simple suggestion of adding a way to patent your ship? (I did read the extra 3 options whammy) I'm going to try to get it on the phabricator work board with the last bit of my draining council abilities (yesterday the term ended)

 

[Gasboy]

Either way, its one reason I hate Steam and I refuse to use it unless I have absolutely no other choice (and even then I will only use it for top of the line stuff like Skyrim, if I see a game I want to try that says it uses Steam, I put it back down).

Steam is active poison to me, if I see that logo I won't buy the product unless its literally a game of the year level title.

So, then, in your opinion, is the OP's suggestion a form of DRM?

And would it prevent you from wanting to acquire a ship of their (or anyone else using the DRM) design?
[doublepost=1475252492,1475252151][/doublepost]

What could possibly be added to the simple suggestion of adding a way to patent your ship? (I did read the extra 3 options whammy) I'm going to try to get it on the phabricator work board with the last bit of my draining council abilities (yesterday the term ended)

Oh gosh, patents? Do you really want to open that can of worms? :P

 

[HolyCookie]

welllllll that's just me using a different word after reading DRM in too many hatefull contexts.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

I thought you guys might like that... :D


So... We just ended a flame war. I'm hoping we don't pour gasoline on the smoldering remains with another round of pointless arguments.

Regarding Community Content; I can appreciate Gasboy's concern. On the other hand, my addition to the suggestion can easily cover that. "Licensed blueprint" and "Blueprint copy" can prohibit copying the design, saving it locally or uploading it to CC, while "Licensed blueprints" have no such restrictions and allow full save/copy/repair capabilities.


Gasboy, I'd like your input as well. Please read the options I've offered below and let us know what you think.

UPDATED

You build a ship/station/structure, and when saving the bluprint, at which time you select one of these three options.

- Create "original blueprint" which allows full repair, copy, editing, CC upload etc. Basically full ownership of the design.

- Create "blueprint copy"; used for spawning a single entity but does not allow copying, CC upload or repair. You have to go to the manufacturer for service.

- Create "licensed blueprint" used for spawning a single entity and allowing other shipyards to repair it. Copying and CC upload are not permitted.

If you select 'blueprint copy' or 'licensed blueprint' you will be prompted to enter a code then which saves the blue print with the desired protection level and also applies this protection to the structure you've just saved. The protection will take effect when you exit the structure. Re-entering the core/build block of this same structure then attempting to save a blueprint from it will prompt you to enter the code which will bypass the copy protection for as long as you occupy the structure.

For "blueprint originals", no code is entered. This would be useful for less complex builds that you either don't care about copyrighting or are too tedious to want to encode. Examples; small drones, power armor, point defense turrets, decorative components, etc.

All assigned protection levels persists within the blueprint files themselves so you can give someone a structure and its code so that they can have access to it. ...or to remove protection completely from a structure, re-save your it as an 'original blueprint'.


This system would keep copy protection in the hands of the creator without making it unnecessarily restrictive.

Your thoughts?

 

[HolyCookie]

I thought you guys might like that... :D


So... We just ended a flame war. I'm hoping we don't pour gasoline on the smoldering remains with another round of pointless arguments.

Regarding Community Content; I can appreciate Gasboy's concern. On the other hand, my addition to the suggestion can easily cover that. "Licensed blueprint" and "Blueprint copy" can prohibit copying the design, saving it locally or uploading it to CC, while "Licensed blueprints" have no such restrictions and allow full save/copy/repair capabilities.


Gasboy, I'd like your input as well. Please read the options I've offered below and let us know what you think.

Maybe also an option to bind your player name to a blueprint description? wherever it goes (downloads copies uploads etc)

 

[Edymnion]

So, then, in your opinion, is the OP's suggestion a form of DRM?

And would it prevent you from wanting to acquire a ship of their (or anyone else using the DRM) design?

I would not use any ship design made with such a system, no.

I find it unfeasable in that I have never found a design I liked 100% out of the box, there is always something I change about it to make it fit what I like in a ship better. The only way this would work is if it was entirely impossible to edit the ship and resave, which would completely destroy the use of it for me.

For example, there is a now very old Nova class Star Trek ship out there. I'm talking so old it was using the original "Thrusters act like power generators" to the point it doesn't have enough thrust to move as built. The hull design is fantastic, but the outdated system design and ungodly amounts of wasted interior space due to pointless RP rooms make it unusable. I've gutted that thing down to just the hull multiple times and rebuilt the insides into various usable ships. I'm all for the original maker getting due credit, but if this system were in place I would be circumnavigating it like crazy. Copy bits to templates and re-building them in a separate ship, or even just flat out copying it block for block by hand.

Or hell, I'm a programmer by trade. Going into the actual file I could strip out any kind of copy protection from it and then use it how I wanted in the first place.

Unless we get a system where designers are getting paid real money for their designs, I don't see a point in this other than pissing everyone off. If you think so highly of your designs, don't give them away. Either keep them for yourself to show off on your server with everything set to private, or give them out to everyone. Anything else is just being a bit of a dick, IMO.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Maybe also an option to bind your player name to a blueprint description? wherever it goes (downloads copies uploads etc)

I think that's a good idea too. Credit the original designer so that everyone knows who originally built it.

It's a shame that some people are still giving into their emotions and ignoring our attempts to make a workable plan that is agreeable to everyone. After all, existing CC builds would be left unaffected by default and any player who makes CC submissions obviously doesn't have a problem posting them for public use. Those designs that you see on the dock in picture form, but never available for download on CC are going to remain restricted with or without this idea being implemented.

In contrast; this idea is more likely to tempt more secretive designers to 'loosen their grip' on some of those goodies (even if just on specific servers) due to reduced threat of plagiarism and tactical exploitation. I know I would.

 

[Erth Paradine]

Maybe also an option to bind your player name to a blueprint description? wherever it goes (downloads copies uploads etc)

There's a mechanic built-into the existing blueprint system to do that: it saves the original ship core names (copy your BP to a linux or OSX system, and run the command "strings" on it). This particular function was incredibly useful when dealing with some major server abuse issues a while back.

The existing system could be made a bit more robust though. Instead of depending upon the existing ad-hoc metadata storage method, could each BP instead by cryptographically signed, using a public/private key system akin to PGP/GPG. Existing PGP public/private key implementations could be essentially copied verbatim, right down to a keyserver; where players can upload as many public keys as necessary, and associate them with their playername, as long as they have their star-made.org (e.g. StarMade registry) password in-hand. This ensures all players could continue to sign new designs under an existing ID, even if said player lost an earlier public/private keypair (e.g. PC lost, no backups, etc).

Such a system would do nothing more than definitely associate a design with a particular player, which essentially prevents anyone from stealing a blueprint/design verbatim to call their own. Identification of players also serves as a very useful abuse mitigation tool. At its core, such a function would only prevent raw EDITING of a file; it does nothing to prevent anyone from copying or reading the blueprint/design's contents itself, and it's a standard-enough function that tools like SMEdit could readily integrate supporting functionality as well.

If someone wanted to steal a BP to call their own, they could still work around this identification strategy by spawning a ship, and then creating a new BP from that spawned entity...although design theft using such techniques seems like far more tedious than its worth...more an edge-case.

Although going down this road starts digging into a topic of player tracking...that's a both a welcome (hinders ban evasion) and unwelcome (tracking could be abused) idea IMHO.

 

[Gasboy]

I thought you guys might like that... :D


So... We just ended a flame war. I'm hoping we don't pour gasoline on the smoldering remains with another round of pointless arguments.

Regarding Community Content; I can appreciate Gasboy's concern. On the other hand, my addition to the suggestion can easily cover that. "Licensed blueprint" and "Blueprint copy" can prohibit copying the design, saving it locally or uploading it to CC, while "Licensed blueprints" have no such restrictions and allow full save/copy/repair capabilities.


Gasboy, I'd like your input as well. Please read the options I've offered below and let us know what you think.

Your idea is quite usable. It addresses the OP's concerns, and mine, and others in this thread.

I would suggest that there be protections from server admins as well. The only thing a server admin should be able to do is either remove the blueprint/design from the server, or to add the blueprint/design to the server. I have heard of, but never experienced, server admins stealing/copying blueprints. I can understand people having a bit of paranoia about this.

I think HolyCookie's idea of adding some meta info concerning ownership is a good idea. Something that people can see, for example, when someone hits R on the core and then enters build mode, they could see the ownership details.

 

[Erth Paradine]

Your idea is quite usable. It addresses the OP's concerns, and mine, and others in this thread.

I would suggest that there be protections from server admins as well. The only thing a server admin should be able to do is either remove the blueprint/design from the server, or to add the blueprint/design to the server. I have heard of, but never experienced, server admins stealing/copying blueprints. I can understand people having a bit of paranoia about this.

I disagree with you on the server admin's access; administrative level entity duplication has proven a necessary evil. Quite frankly, if you can't trust a server admin, you really shouldn't be there.

Although thinking about this more...in pursuit of the original posting's intent (to hinder easy wholesale entity duplication), I could agree with you on this point. Admins still have the option of copying raw files from the server, using the commands /change_sector_for_copy or /change_sector_copy and/or of capturing an entire sector for evaluation in SP, so we could still capture an entire (abusive) design if deemed necessary.

Preventing the in-game capture by admins just makes it more difficult to do our jobs. As an Admin myself, I have mixed-feelings about that, on one hand I imagine that all responsible admins have zero interest in theft/redistribution of designs, I also understand a player's desire for an illusion that an Admin can't steal designs. Abusive designs have proven a fairly serious, but also rare, issue: so I'm OK putting in the extra duplication effort if it means players feel their designs are more protected, and therefore are more apt to play.

My original frame of mind when including "...Entity flag can be set either by admin (anytime) or by player (only when spawning)..." was to enable an ability for admins to toggle that flag: so that if a player spawned an original design, they could ask an Admin for help to reverse that decision in the future (e.g. if the player had applied major revisions, and wanted to re-blueprint). In hindsight, to fulfill this particular objective, the game could just permit the original spawner to toggle this flag anytime.

I think HolyCookie's idea of adding some meta info concerning ownership is a good idea. Something that people can see, for example, when someone hits R on the core and then enters build mode, they could see the ownership details.

The game's existing BP system does already store such metadata, and BP ownership is already visible in-game. I also agree that existing entity metadata should be generally visible to players, such as the existing "spawner" and "lastModifier" fields.

What I believe HolyCookie is seeking, is a means of tying that information to blueprints as well, and making that information more readily visible to all players, preferably using processes that could not be unduly manipulated once someone has a raw BP file. PGP/GPG style signatures on blueprints would help fulfill that criteria.

 

[Gasboy]

I disagree with you on the server admin's access; administrative level entity duplication has proven a necessary evil. Quite frankly, if you can't trust a server admin, you really shouldn't be there.

If you can't trust a fellow player/customer...

The point being, no one hops onto a server expecting to be shafted by a server admin.

 

[Erth Paradine]

If you can't trust a fellow player/customer...

The point being, no one hops onto a server expecting to be shafted by a server admin.

The difference between players and admins is an apples to oranges comparison.

While an Admin can play on a server, they will also always have the ability to purge everything you have, to block or otherwise impair your ability to access that server, to modify a spawnpoint, copy raw database entries (e.g. your entities), to suddenly TP you all over the galaxy, or to be abusive in other ways. If you cannot trust an admin to refrain from such behaviors, why are you there in the first place?

A player on the other hand is by-and-large restricted from such abilities, by the in-game mechanics and existing ACLs.

 

[Gasboy]

The difference between players and admins is an apples to oranges comparison.

While an Admin can play on a server, they will also always have the ability to purge everything you have, to block or otherwise impair your ability to access that server, to modify a spawnpoint, copy raw database entries (e.g. your entities), to suddenly TP you all over the galaxy, or to be abusive in other ways. If you cannot trust an admin to refrain from such behaviors, why are you there in the first place?

A player on the other hand is by-and-large restricted from such abilities, by the in-game mechanics and existing ACLs.

If you are able to trust the admin to not abuse their power and position, then you can definitely trust a player to not abuse the blueprint. Obviously you don't need your proposal then?

My suggestion, as built onto yours, prevents abuse at all levels. It keeps the admin, players and creators from abusing the blueprint system. Why are you only concerned about players? Just because you haven't been on the receiving end of abuse from an admin does not mean others haven't, or that you won't at some point in the future.

Why half-ass it?

 

[Erth Paradine]

If you are able to trust the admin to not abuse their power and position, then you can definitely trust a player to not abuse the blueprint. Obviously you don't need your proposal then?

My suggestion, as built onto yours, prevents abuse at all levels. It keeps the admin, players and creators from abusing the blueprint system. Why are you only concerned about players? Just because you haven't been on the receiving end of abuse from an admin does not mean others haven't, or that you won't at some point in the future.

Why half-ass it?

Inferring both players and admins should be equally trusted and/or distrusted is nothing short of a compositional fallacy; just because something is true of a part, does not mean the same truth applies to the whole.

With that said, I can see your concern, and in the spirit of the original proposal (e.g. to hinder easy/quick wholesale entity duplication) I have already expressed a concern with making legitimate admin tasks more difficult, but then immediately followed with an understanding of a way to agree with prevention of admins from toggling an entity's "AllowCopy" flag.

As for limiting design uploads. That really is a separate discussion from this thread. This thread seeks to hinder easy, wholesale, unauthorized entity duplication in-game. The topic of flagging (and tracking) individual designs/blueprints and preventing CC postings, is (while a valid goal) also an incredibly complicated topic that does not seem appropriate for this thread.

At its core, the original proposal could be distilled down to nothing more than an additional permission, much akin to various faction permissions, and existing blueprint permissions, all already in place: is anyone but the original spawner of an entity permitted to create a BP/design from it? That's it.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Allow me to add some input.

I have personally witnessed and experienced less than honorable behavior from certain admins in StarMade. Are all admins like this? Absolutely not. Most admins I've met are pretty cool but some can let the power associated with being an admin go to their head. People are people after all.

I see this every day with a coworker at my IT job. The guy is a complete ass; letting his position go to his head, talking down to our end users, and/or flat out dismissing their concerns. He does this because he knows that he holds a lot of power over their ability to do their jobs.

Instead of debating the need for admins to be able to copy BPs, why don't we concede that anyone who uses copy protection should do so at their own risk and are not entitled to admin assistance; should they end up 'locked out' of their own designs?

This is a risk I am personally willing to take until I feel I can trust the admins on the particular server I'm on; at which point I will eventually 'relax my security' a bit. Until that day comes, only I can be at fault if something breaks and I lose a design to a bug and I'm totally ok with that.

After all, we did ask for this.

Thoughts gentlemen?

 

[Madman198237]

I like the idea of permanently tying a player's name and/or SMD/Registry account to blueprints. Also, I would prefer to disallow the use of templates from ships protected in this manner. Because (Dangerous territory, I know) no computer manufacturer ever pulled somebody else's motherboard out of a computer and used an identical design in another computer. The point being, of course, that allowing users to pull 10x10x10 or even 50x50x50 chunks out of ships and copy them, while tedious, is much worse than what I'd like to see: Forced block-by-block copying. Why? Because you can't just jump into a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier and learn everything about it. You have to pull it apart piece by piece, in a tedious and lengthy process, before learning all of its secrets.

OR, you do the smart thing, where you investigate only those systems superior to those, and then figure out how to use them to improve your OWN carriers/powerplants/radios/etc.

Also, admins have access to all BPs now. That might as well continue to prevent the sort of player abuse of intentionally laggy designs that is occasionally seen.

No player should ever be unable to save their own ship. If they've set it to protected, let them save it regardless. It should be protected from others, not the designer.