|
Post by Kevin N Payne on Dec 29, 2004 20:05:56 GMT -5
Some publishers express serious concerns about piracy of their games when using CB.
We have to be honest that in this day and age of "Living Rules" on company websites and other resources, there will be a temptation to certain people to abuse the CB system and not buy the actual paper-and-dice-and-counter games.
How can we set the publishers' minds at ease in this regard?
Fritz and I (and some others) were involved in a discussion on this with Charlie and Ed from Clash of Arms today on ConSimWorld.
There is a real concern here, and we must address it.
Thoughts, ideas? How do we help publishers (and designers, and all involved) protect their property from piracy?
|
|
|
Post by Fritz on Dec 29, 2004 20:09:23 GMT -5
This is a copy of what I sent Kevin: Not perfect, but while the faculties still serve: Password-protected Gamebox (GB) is downloaded from hosting website (LYG). User has a copy of rules with unique ID code, but these could be pirated. To get the password, he'll need to contact the copyright holder's website (CoA), thereby providing his IP address. He enters the ID code on rules and gets the password, provided he has registered his copy with the CoA, which already has his IP address from when he registered it. Simple, no real work for LYG, CoA, GB designer, CB author, or anyone else except the pirates. Too good to be true, so where did I go wrong? Fritz
|
|
|
Post by Kevin N Payne on Dec 29, 2004 20:15:51 GMT -5
Hmmm, I don't know why the forum shows me as a Guest when I'm a member. Strange. Anyway.... One idea I offered was password-protected gameboxes, or (if that is not possible) at least password-protected ZIP files of gameboxes (which I know can be done). The idea could be approached from numerous directions, but here is the one I was thinking of: A person buys a game (Byzantine Panzer Corps, a Ty Bomba alt-history opus . They discover there is a CB gamebox and they download it. Before they can unzip the file, they are asked for a password which was listed on the website as "the fourth word in the last sentence in paragraph six on page 9 of the rules". You could also use as a password something from one of the tables or charts or items included in the box that are NOT available as "living rules" on a company website. It's not perfect, and won't stop a determined pirate, but it would certainly stop the casual "opportunity" pirate. It would also show that the CB community takes the issue seriously, at the same time that we want the publishers' on board with us in use of this handy tool for gaming. Fritz had another approach, and hopefully he will post here about it.
|
|
|
Post by Andy Loakes on Dec 30, 2004 9:41:01 GMT -5
Kevin, I suspect that this isn't the solution but you may be showing as a guest if you have logged out (or have been automatically logged out). If so simply log in and you should be shown as member.
As to the protection question I'm afraid that if I am understanding Fritz correctly, that won't work for the many people who have dynamic IP addresses (including me - hence hosting via dyndsl.com).
Kevin's idea seem simple and, though not foolproof, at least gives the publishers far mor control over their games than if no means of producing authorised gameboxes is available. I.e. a CBDO gamebox is guaranteed to have this security in place while unauthorised copies (which is all that can presently be produced in many cases) will almost certainly not have this feature.
A further weakness however is that password protected zip files simply need to be unzipped by someone with the password and then rezipped/distributed without it to defeat this approach. The gamebox password is more secure but I 'think' that only stops it being opened in designer (not player) am I right?
|
|
|
Post by cjnwl on Dec 30, 2004 10:58:59 GMT -5
I read the post on CSW this morning, and have a few thoughts. 1. I have personaly downloaded quite a few gameboxes, for most of the games I own and for which I could find a GB, but also for quite a few other games. As someone pointed out on CSW, this allows one to take a peek at a game, before possibly buying it. Indeed, I have bought a couple of games subsequently to having looked at the GB. And on this point, a badly done GB is a real put-off, so publisher support is a real plus in this respect. 2. Password protection is always far from foolproof, and it would have to be on the GB and not the zip, as pointed out above. But this is probably the best and easiest solution. A PW can be included in each printed game. While an unscrupulous buyer can easily pass it on, it is not really in his interest to do so too much. But he will have to pass it on at least once, to his opponent (presumably you only need one copy of a game to play via CB ?). 3. Personally, I far prefer to have a paper copy of a game in front of me, even when playing PBeM (though I have never actually done that , as I far prefer FtF games, even if they have become few and far between). 4. I would be perfectly prepared to pay a small charge for a well made gamebox, particularly for a new game. Finally, I do believe that active support by publishers can only boost their sales. In any case it is almost impossible to avoid "bootleg" gameboxes, but if publishers provide GBs with the original artwork at the same time as they issue new games, or maybe just a few months after, then it can only give more people an incentive to buy the actual game. But this also implies having the stiocks available. Christopher
|
|
|
Post by Fritz on Dec 30, 2004 11:04:30 GMT -5
I read that to block a dynamic IP address one should list the last digits with"***", as in 12.345.67.*** so wouldn't the reverse work, ie allowing an IP address to register with a publisher as 12.345.67.*** ? We gotta try something. F2
|
|
|
Post by Andy Loakes on Dec 30, 2004 12:43:25 GMT -5
I may be wrong Fritz but I think my IP address can be changed 'entirely' by my ISP.
I think Chris's point about prefering to have access to a paper copy even when PBEMing is pretty common. Fritz, I'm sure you and I have refered back to the hardcopy when we've played.
I'm not sure I can say that seeing a GB has encouraged me to buy a game - since I generally do buy first and download second - but it was largely CB that got me back into the hobby, after a 20 year layoff, two years ago. And if you want anecdotal evidence that CB generates sales (and not a word of this to my wife) I reckon I've doubled my collection in that two years and spent in the region of £1300 ($2600)! Including 8 COA titles. So, even though I've no CB gameboxes for any of the COA titles, they have benefited indirectly from CB.
|
|
|
Post by Fritz on Dec 30, 2004 12:47:56 GMT -5
I wouldn't have a wife if I'd dropped $2600 on games.... I'll start a poll. Fritz
|
|
|
Post by Andy Loakes on Dec 30, 2004 14:14:45 GMT -5
I suspected I knew where you'd got the idea for that poll - and guess how I voted
|
|
|
Post by Fritz on Jan 1, 2005 21:04:16 GMT -5
....my power tool shed is afire. I'm not as worried about whether my bucket's leaky, but whether it'll get enough water to the blaze. I might even wonder whether I've time to run off to my favorite power tool shop and finally get a fire extinguisher before my beloved shed burns down, but a fire's a scary thing. Kevin, you want to have a look at just how many publishers and webhosts you'll have to sell on a word/line/paragraph solution? Nothing final, just some reassurance. All this will change just as the nature of gaming and publishing has, but before some Hasborg paralegal finds WarzoneC and its callous treatment of our copyright laws we'd better grab a bucket. Fritz
|
|
|
Post by Andy Loakes on Jan 2, 2005 5:49:31 GMT -5
Too much cooking sherry over the New Year Fritz?!? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Gary Christiansen on Jan 2, 2005 13:02:48 GMT -5
I think the folk at Warzone C are simply to be treated as an anomoly. That they choose to ignore the copyright issue is their choice, same as the choice made by certain advocates of the unmentioned other PBeM tool's who include rules sets of such titles as Blitzkrieg in their downloads and zip files. (something I take advantage of, but speak out against)
In my mind, the gameboxes at Warzone C tend to be pretty much proof of concept that all people really can do is use a gamebox as a play by email tool. It seems apparent to me since those gameboxes on average are the least visually attractive slapped together email aids and clearly not replacements for the real game.
So if some small minded legal eagle from Hasborg gets upset about Warzone C, we really do need to point out the apparent lack of sufficient detail in those versions making them practically useless as replacements for game sales.
The whole intellectual property argument is overdone for these things. I want to be sensitive to the companies, but it's absurd to think anyone is making money off gameboxes, or that any company could make gameboxes into an asset that creates enough cash to rub together in quantity.
And in spite of company's fears, it appears to me from my experience (anecdotal and not supported by evidence or solid base 'facts') that the companies gain sales by the availability of gameboxes, not lose sales from the handful of people who use living rules and gameboxes to have a copy without buying the game.
As always, your mileage may vary.
|
|
|
Post by Fritz on Jan 2, 2005 19:50:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Gary Christiansen on Jan 2, 2005 22:31:44 GMT -5
One of the odd things the RIAA (which qualifies as a pretty much Simon Legree type of operation) seems to be after is punishing anyone who produces tools that could possibly be used to violate copyrights. They blame the medium for abuses, which can have legitimate uses as well.
Without going too deep in the history of a lot of copyright issues, there's a lot of stuff ignored lately to benefit the greedy and to place limits on the rest of the world. The concept of intellectual property can become rather bizarre given the lifespan of copyrights now and all the legalisms conceal a lot of philosophical issues as well which is pretty odd because ultimately some of this comes across as the ownership of ideas.
Games hold a unique place in this entire legal heirarchy because games can be considered 'ideas', so the RIAA model provided in the article you pointed to is not entirely accurate to our situation.
I don't really want to get into copyright discussion again though, and have already chopped this post down to stop from going far into this topic. The arguments have achieved a national debate level that exceeds the scope of what we can do.
IMHO, what we really WANT to accomplish is to create a cooperative relationship with gaming publishers that gives them a sense they are being protected in a friendly partnership with their customers and at the same time permits us the use of the tools we need as play aids.
|
|
|
Post by Fritz on Jan 3, 2005 8:33:26 GMT -5
My cousin the attorney tells me the prima facie case against CB appears solid. She tells me the best thing we can do (having told her of the rather small size of the world CB community) is download compliance, ie remove any evidence of infringement. While most sites have already done this, there might be a few in nations not covered by Int'l Copyright agreements. I'll be searching, but WarzoneC hasn't answered any email; so, if anyone has a good relationship with Shin Obara, please ask him to talk to us about the "Sword of Damocles" that hangs over the jewel we call CB. F2
|
|