Ya—er, ahem

March 30, 2010 8:30 PM

The developers of erotic game maker Cross Days use DRM to humiliate would-be pirates
posted by Rory Marinich (35 comments total)

Clever. I wonder how well that would work for non-erotic games, though...
posted by danb at 8:35 PM on March 30, 2010

Fake trojan? It pretends to be a malicious program hiding inside another more innocuous program, but actually is not? Because it sounds like a real trojan.

And then they use the fact that it has rooted your computer to... offer you a survey? Are these the same people who design sketchy porn sites?
posted by idiopath at 8:35 PM on March 30, 2010 [1 favorite]

Even if they are more upfront about the use of trojans than, say, Sony was with XCP this is still a really bad idea. Really bad.
posted by threeze at 8:43 PM on March 30, 2010 [1 favorite]

Um. I was disappointed to find that this was a post about media piracy, and not, you know, actual pirates. Yo ho.
posted by the_royal_we at 8:49 PM on March 30, 2010 [3 favorites]

Can anyone explain why this license agreement might be less valid or enforceable than the average EULA?
posted by finite at 9:05 PM on March 30, 2010

Me too, I suppose. But, you know, networked copyright infringement has been called piracy since a least the early 80s when I entered the relevant community. I'm sorry but you've lost this linguistic battle, the_royal_we.
posted by Trapped Vector at 9:06 PM on March 30, 2010

This is the kind of thing that needs to be soundly and universally decried. Only since the advent of DRM has it somehow become expected that a consumer product would dare to spy on you. Never mind if you wouldn't buy such a game; never mind their motivations; never mind the conditions to which they say they will limit themselves - this company thinks they have the right to information that does not concern them. They're wrong, and it's wrong.

And to let this pass without comment is to create just a little more tacit acceptance of the erosion of the expectation of privacy, and the rights of the consumer. It's your computer just as much as it's your TV or your car. If Tivo changed their software to publicly broadcast details of your recorded programs whenever it thinks its DRM is hacked, people would be justifiably upset. Putting a EULA to 'cover' bad behaviour with legalese does not make it right.
posted by Hardcore Poser at 9:07 PM on March 30, 2010 [13 favorites]

We need more test cases regarding EULA's (and ToS), these 'agreements' seem to consistently make wild assertions about the ability to reduce the users rights.

Clever to work the shame angle - shame implicate in both the piracy and the content being pirated.
posted by el io at 9:10 PM on March 30, 2010

view http://blog.livedoor.jp/insidears/archives/52256874.html to see what the trojan actually posts online (it is in asian letters)
posted by rebent at 9:17 PM on March 30, 2010 [1 favorite]

To be fair, Overflow hasn't put the trojan in their actual game. It's hidden inside a fake installer, which would presumably be scattered around the places online where "pirates" could find it, kind of like a mousetrap. But even so, this ignores the possibility that someone might buy a legitimate copy of the game and still need an installer. (If they didn't wanted to play it straight off the hard drive, say, without inserting a DVD.) And anyway, spreading malware around the internet isn't something a legitimate company should do.
posted by Kevin Street at 9:26 PM on March 30, 2010 [1 favorite]

Japanese game studio 0verflow is populated by geniuses. Rather than combat piracy with oppressive DRM, the developers of erotic title Cross Days is tackling the thieves in a more direct way -- wielding abject humiliation as its weapon.

A fake trojan has been released online, hiding within a fake installer for Cross Days. Once installed, the trojan will then gather data from the pirate's computer and poses a fake survey for the player to fill out. Once the survey is done and the program is finished gathering data, everything is posted to a public Web site, alongside a screenshot of the "victim's" desktop.

Well, that's not really any type of "DRM". Also, how is that even legal? But I guess lawsuits in Japan aren't very common, people are much less likely to sue over stuff like this.

(Also, these guys write Erotic manga games isn't this something of a pot-kettle-black scenario)
posted by delmoi at 9:27 PM on March 30, 2010

Are sketchy file-sharing type people really that willing to honestly fill out detailed, personally identifiable information in a survey that mysteriously pops up on their computer? Isn't that kinda, y'know, stupid? I must be missing some important detail, or these otaku are unbelievably gullible and naive.
posted by The Winsome Parker Lewis at 10:14 PM on March 30, 2010 [2 favorites]

or 13 years old...
posted by Throw away your common sense and get an afro! at 10:27 PM on March 30, 2010

delmoi: "(Also, these guys write Erotic manga games isn't this something of a pot-kettle-black scenario)"

How so?
posted by brundlefly at 11:10 PM on March 30, 2010

I'll bet this guy wishes he'd just gone ahead and bought the damned thing.
posted by revmitcz at 11:16 PM on March 30, 2010

Me too, I suppose. But, you know, networked copyright infringement has been called piracy since a least the early 80s when I entered the relevant community. I'm sorry but you've lost this linguistic battle, the_royal_we.

Nah, it goes back a few hundred years, to when printers in Scotland were knocking off books written in England. I think.

Arrr.
posted by sebastienbailard at 11:20 PM on March 30, 2010

To be fair, Overflow hasn't put the trojan in their actual game

To be fair, violating someone's privacy is not validated by the attempted theft of some ones and zeroes, regardless of delivery method.
posted by Mikey-San at 11:22 PM on March 30, 2010 [1 favorite]

I was replying to Hardcore Poser's comment where he said that a consumer product shouldn't be expected to spy on its user, by saying that this wasn't quite the case here. But he and you are quite correct about privacy, of course.
posted by Kevin Street at 11:51 PM on March 30, 2010

this is still a really bad idea. Really bad.

Why, exactly? You steal shit from a store, they get to put a photo of you stealing it on their window if they're so inclined.

To be fair, violating someone's privacy is not validated by the attempted theft of some ones and zeroes, regardless of delivery method.

You don't steal their shit, they don't put your stuff online. I suppose you cry about speeding tickets, too.
posted by rodgerd at 1:34 AM on March 31, 2010

Neither of the two scenarios you have described could potentially disclose information from parties other than the person who did the actual downloading. This person may not even own the computer whose screen was just shown to the world.
posted by Mikey-San at 2:01 AM on March 31, 2010

s/actual downloading/actual crime/
posted by Mikey-San at 2:01 AM on March 31, 2010

You don't steal their shit, they don't put your stuff online. I suppose you cry about speeding tickets, too.

The article linked says...

A fake trojan has been released online, hiding within a fake installer for Cross Days.

So nothing has actually been stolen, if the installer is fake the only thing "real" would be the trojan on your machine, so it's more akin to say stealing the display box for a game thinking it's real and when you open it up it's got one of those explosive dye packs inside.
posted by MrCynical at 2:13 AM on March 31, 2010 [1 favorite]

Are sketchy file-sharing type people really that willing to honestly fill out detailed, personally identifiable information in a survey that mysteriously pops up on their computer?

This was my first thought. Why would anyone decide to enter any real information? On the flip side though...

It would be interesting to arrange a desktop so that personal information, bank details, credit account numbers, and the like were obviously visible and then 'fall for' this.

I wonder if they would try to justify publicly posting your sensitive data for criminals and everyone else to see after they admittedly wrote malicious software for the purpose of tricking you into giving it to them. Wouldn't that put them on pretty shaky moral/legal ground?
posted by Avelwood at 2:59 AM on March 31, 2010 [1 favorite]

A few years back, there was a guy who got tired of his video-converting Mac app not being paid for and so he released a new update where, if you put in a hacked serial number, it deleted your entire home folder
—your documents, photos, music, movies... poof!, all gone.

I seem to recall that there was such an outcry that within days he had pulled down all forms of the software and essentially put himself out of business.
posted by blueberry at 3:07 AM on March 31, 2010

You steal shit from a store, they get to put a photo of you stealing it on their window if they're so inclined.

Yeah, but they don't get to break into your house to get a photo, dumbass.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:27 AM on March 31, 2010

The first time a legit user gets hit by this is going to be fun for a few lawyers...
posted by DreamerFi at 3:45 AM on March 31, 2010

el io, the validity of EULAs is pretty well established in case law. No one's bothered to contest it in decades, because courts are really uncomfortable interfering with contractual relationship, and, well, this is a contractual relationship. At best, you might get a mandatory arbitration or forum selection clause thrown out, but only where it violates a state statute. But this is a valid contract on its face, and courts will not restrict software developers'/publishers' ability to enforce their rights over their portfolios.

Users, qua users, have no inherent rights with respect to software they do not create themselves. Deal with it.
posted by valkyryn at 5:29 AM on March 31, 2010

How is this not blackmail, which is pretty clearly illegal?
posted by bystander at 6:32 AM on March 31, 2010

How is this not blackmail, which is pretty clearly illegal?

I'm no lawyering fella but I'm pretty sure if you enter into a contractual agreement which is illegal, the contract is not enforceable. At least in US law. Since this is Japan, *shrug*?
posted by device55 at 6:54 AM on March 31, 2010

I normally would not comment in a thread like this, but I just read this thread and it finally caused me to reach a tipping point:

Analogies are useless in this situation.

This is not like someone breaking into your house, or like shoplifting, or like anything else, really. To those who are trying to discuss the complexities of the actual issue: good on you. To those who are tossing out analogies in the hope of backing up your opinion: you are, at best, over-simplifying and, at worst, completely misrepresenting the problem.
posted by nosila at 6:57 AM on March 31, 2010 [1 favorite]

Meh.

Once you start playing the "I'm so clever, I can find my way around this copy protection" game, it seems a trifle starry-eyed and one-sided to expect that the company in question might not be clever in return. Assuming that companies will just want to roll over and not do anything because you're doing them the big-big favor of playing their game for free, c'mon, now.

"But, but, but I am giving them, uh, publicity by playing it! I will tell my friends about it!" You mean, what, the friends who ask you for the cracked copy you have?

I am no fan of DRM, but I have had a bellyfull of the nerdrage about how they're doing everyone a huge service by copyright infringement.
posted by adipocere at 7:50 AM on March 31, 2010 [4 favorites]

Wow, in the screenshots, one of the pirates has a Yahoo toolbar. That's really embarrassing.
posted by desjardins at 10:20 AM on March 31, 2010 [1 favorite]

the validity of EULAs is pretty well established in case law. No one's bothered to contest it in decades, because courts are really uncomfortable interfering with contractual relationship, and, well, this is a contractual relationship.

Luckily, my desktop background is an image which reads: "By posting this image to your website, you hereby agree to transfer ownership of all internet domains and all private property to..."
posted by Avelwood at 12:44 PM on March 31, 2010 [1 favorite]

"Peculiarly, on December 5, 0verflow announced that a set of USB teledildonics, collectively known as SOM, would be compatible with Cross Days, manufactured by Goods Land.[16][17]" - Wikipedia

Welcome to the future, kids.
posted by egypturnash at 3:31 PM on March 31, 2010

You steal shit from a store, they get to put a photo of you stealing it on their window if they're so inclined.

Yeah, but they don't get to break into your house to get a photo, dumbass.

Your well-reasoned, carefully expressed arguments have inspired me with new respect for both your logic and you personally, fuckface.

I am no fan of DRM, but I have had a bellyfull of the nerdrage about how they're doing everyone a huge service by copyright infringement.

Quite. There's a large difference between, say, the Sony rootkit, or similar mechamisms that hurt people who wish to give money to people who create music, games, or what-have-you, and something that hurts only people who nicked the product, anyway.
posted by rodgerd at 9:21 PM on April 1, 2010