[Jeysie]

You've never heard horror stories about Microsoft's software blowing up people's computers? Why don't those stories stop you from using Windows?

Microsoft Windows = Necessary for the functioning of many programs.

Microsoft Windows = No real alternatives unless you're very tech/programming saavy (Linux) or you don't mind the fact that you can't run a lot of stuff or you have to use a bunch of emulators to do it (MacOS/Linux).

StarForce = Not necessary to the functioning of any programs.

StarForce = Plenty of alternative options for the company.

Conclusion: Bad analogy.

Peace & Luv, Liz

P.S. I would *love* to use something other than Windows if it wasn't for the fact that I'm not saavy enough to know how to get all my Windows-and-DOS-dependent programs and games running on another OS. Heck, I don't even want to upgrade to XP because of all the irritation I've heard about people trying to play DOS games on it.

[playing_games]

I do not think I have ever heard of Star Force damaging hardware physically. What I have heard is that it can mess with the drivers so that some CD and DVD burners stopped functioning properly even though the burners themselves were fine. Reinstalling Windows would resolve the driver issue and the burners will function again.

[fov]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

StarForce = Not necessary to the functioning of any programs.

The developers and publishers who are trying to make a profit on the games they produce would beg to differ, I think.

[Jeysie]

Fov: My point is, if you're going to try to make an analogy between Windows and StarForce, then the operative question is: If you removed each item in question, would the program still run?

You need some sort of OS to run your computer, and it's still hard to use something other than Windows without a lot of fuss.

On the other hand, if the companies didn't use StarForce and used some other CP method instead (or none at all), the game itself would still work.

Therefore, I consider that analogy to be pointless. If you have a logical reason why I should allow something that is unnecessary for the actual functioning of a program and can possibly screw up my computer to be installed, when there are plenty of other methods for achieving the same function that don't muck with my system, I'd love to hear it.

I don't have any problems with companies trying to combat piracy. But I need my system functioning as properly as I can get it more than I need a computer game. If it's not required for the program itself to run, I don't want to install it.

Although, truth be told, I think that without a paradigm shift of some sort you're never going to block the real problem anyway, which is dedicated software copying/cracking rackets. IMHO the only way you're ever going to significantly reduce piracy is when somebody can think up some method that makes buying a game more convenient and desirable than hunting down a pirated version. IMHO things like StarForce make it *less* convenient and desirable to buy a game versus hunting down a pirated version.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Aj_]

Some of the bugs have been fixed, but that doesn't mean that you can't install older versions with older games. This software is secretly installed on your computer, and stops you from backing up your software that you bought. It suggests that the automatic position they use, is that you are infringing copyright. Starforce controls your computer, without your permission.

Originally Posted by fov

The developers and publishers who are trying to make a profit on the games they produce would beg to differ, I think.

Do they define the word "functioning" differently to the rest of the world? Interesting, some people describe their software as "something that makes me money" where others describe it by what it does.

[fov]

Oh, I understand that Starforce and Windows are not directly comparable. It's the rationale I don't understand. The fact that games are non-critical programs and Windows is essential for using a PC, as if that somehow makes it okay for Windows software to break your computer but not okay for Starforce to break your computer, just reinforces the problem. People are willing to overlook the same kinds of issues in one type of software (Windows) because they have "no choice," yet try to drive a company like Starforce out of business over issues that haven't even been proven to be true. It's a double standard, not to mention a mob mentality thought process that's gotten way out of control. Good for Starforce for trying to put a stop to it.

The statistics we're throwing around are meaningless, but you said earlier that if there's a 1 in 50,000 chance that Starforce is going to screw up your machine, you don't want to use it. I'd argue that if you install 50,000 different things on your computer over a period of time, the chances are pretty high that at least one of those times, something's going to go wrong. I'm not trying to pick on you, but this is the sort of thing people say about Starforce all the time without any facts to back it up, and I just don't understand it. There's a much higher chance of screwing up your computer by browsing the internet or receiving email and inadvertantly downloading a virus or a worm. How come the same people who rant and rave about the evils of Starforce aren't out there ranting and raving about the evils of email?

People are vilifying Starforce based on information that has not been proven to be true (and in some cases has been proven to be false), and it's clearly had an impact on the company's reputation. That's why they're "dishing out threats," and it's well within their rights to do so. Frankly, I'd love to see them take up a defamation of character lawsuit against some of the people spreading this so-called information about them, and win.

Originally Posted by Aj_

Do they define the word "functioning" differently to the rest of the world? Interesting, some people describe their software as "something that makes me money" where others describe it by what it does.

When they're in it to stay in business, yes, making money off of it is part of the software's purpose.

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by fov

The fact that games are non-critical programs and Windows is essential for using a PC, as if that somehow makes it okay for Windows software to break your computer but not okay for Starforce to break your computer, just reinforces the problem. People are willing to overlook the same kinds of issues in one type of software (Windows) because they have "no choice," yet try to drive a company like Starforce out of business over issues that haven't even been proven to be true.

It's not OK for *any* software to break your computer, IMHO. As you said, people often have no choice but to use Windows, so while it's still wrong for Windows to screw up your computer - erm, you have seen the large amount of outcry made over things like security issues in Windows, haven't you? - there's not much you can do about it unless you're willing to put in a lot of fuss.

On the other hand, avoiding having StarForce possibly muck up your computer is easy... just don't install a game that uses StarForce. (Or at least, it would be easy if companies were more upfront with what type of CP they were using...)

Originally Posted by fov

It's a double standard, not to mention a mob mentality thought process that's gotten way out of control. Good for Starforce for trying to put a stop to it.

If they don't think the complaints are valid, then just release statements addressing the specific complaints and explain with checkable facts why they aren't valid. That way they defuse the slander *and* leave us worried folk with figures and facts to evaluate to help decide whether the software will harm our computers or not.

I've seen a few articles that offer examinations on how the software seems to work and why it might be potentially harmful... how about just having some similar articles from the StarForce folks explaining how it really works and why it's not potentially harmful? Problem solved, or at least more firmly grounded in trading facts.

I don't see how sending out letters like "Dear Sir, calling StarForce 'Anti-copying malware' is a good enough cause to press charges and that is what our corporate lawyer is busy doing right now. I urge you to remove your post from boingboing.net because it is full of insults, lies, false accusations and rumors." is helpful to the cause. How about including some reasons proving why the statements in the article are "insults, lies, false accusations and rumors"? Bingo, no problems with anyone thinking you aren't justifed in sending them threats.

Or, better yet, you make an effort to win over somebody who was against you. "I'm sorry that you were misled into thinking our software is harmful. Here's some reasons why it really isn't harmful. I hope you will retract your statement and help us combat all this misinformation."

Being able to have a big popular site like BoingBoing saying they can prove StarForce isn't harmful after all would be a big PR help. You don't get that by automatically assuming the site is a criminal trying to slander and hurt you and threatening them. You give them the initial benefit of the doubt and treat them as someone trying to provide to their readers information that they think is correct and helpful, but you think/know is wrong.

All that the StarForce folks are doing with the sort of tactics they're using are ruining their reputation even further.

Originally Posted by fov

I'd argue that if you install 50,000 different things on your computer over a period of time, the chances are pretty high that at least one of those times, something's going to go wrong.

True, but then, the things you specifically install you usually do so because they do something for you. They run programs, they play media files, they tweak performance, they provide eye candy, etc.

Stuff that gets installed without your specifically doing so and does nothing for you tends to get labelled as "malware" and "viruses" by the public.

Originally Posted by fov

There's a much higher chance of screwing up your computer by browsing the internet or receiving email and inadvertantly downloading a virus or a worm. How come the same people who rant and rave about the evils of Starforce aren't out there ranting and raving about the evils of email?

Because e-mail and browsing the internet, when "used as intended", isn't harmful. It's only when people misuse e-mail with spam and virus-laden attachments and people put spyware installers and embedded viruses in their webpages that either becomes harmful.

Plus e-mail and browsing the internet, when used as intended, is useful to the customer, as opposed to StarForce, which, when used as intended, is only useful to the company.

Plus you can protect yourself against the misuses of e-mail and internet while still keeping the intended uses of both. If you protect yourself against possible damage by StarForce (by not installing it) you cannot use the program it's attached to.

Furthermore, again, you have seen the outcry of people against insecure e-mail and browsers that leave you open to things like virus and worms, haven't you? So, why so surprised when things like StarForce that are believed to have the potential to mess up your system also cause an outcry?

Again, not good analogies.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[fov]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

On the other hand, avoiding having StarForce possibly muck up your computer is easy... just don't install a game that uses StarForce.

And if that's all people were doing, I wouldn't have a problem with it. You don't want to use Starforce, then don't buy the games that has it. That simple.

It's the smear campaign that bothers me. The internet is a scary thing when it comes to word of mouth. This could just as easily be done to smear ANY company that someone has a bone to pick with, and I believe strongly in a company (or individual's) right to protect themselves, legally, from public defamation and slander. I really don't care what people say or choose to do, individually, regarding Starforce. But I don't like that they're being further vilified for trying to stand up for themselves. (Not necessarily by you. I'm talking about the tone of the original post and public sentiment about Starforce, in general.)

If they don't think the complaints are valid, then just release statements addressing the specific complaints and explain with checkable facts why they aren't valid. That way they defuse the slander *and* leave us worried folk with figures and facts to evaluate to help decide whether the software will harm our computers or not.

They did.

Okay, maybe what they proposed was a bit sensationalist, but so is the internet. Still, the fact they didn't even get one entry says something (to me, anyway) about the validity of those rumors.

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by fov

And if that's all people were doing, I wouldn't have a problem with it. You don't want to use Starforce, then don't buy the games that has it. That simple.

True, you can do that *now*. But what happens if most game developers eventually decide to use a certain CP method? It starts being a bit more of a problem when you effectively have to swear off almost all games. People want to make sure that the CP method that gains the most market share isn't one that's going to cause problems.

Originally Posted by fov

It's the smear campaign that bothers me. The internet is a scary thing when it comes to word of mouth. This could just as easily be done to smear ANY company that someone has a bone to pick with, and I believe strongly in a company (or individual's) right to protect themselves, legally, from public defamation and slander. I really don't care what people say or choose to do, individually, regarding Starforce. But I don't like that they're being further vilified for trying to stand up for themselves.

I don't have a problem with them trying to stand up for themselves. I just don't really like the way they're doing it. For instance, I've seen a few places where they claim anyone who's having trouble with their systems after installing StarForce is a hacker or pirate of some sort. Unless they have some proof to back that up, that comes off as a very "jerk" statement.

I mean, after all, Doroposo says he thinks StarForce ruined his drive's function... Hmm. Doro, is there something you're not telling us?

And I've more or less addressed my issues with their treatment of BoingBoing.

Here's another article for some food-for-thought.

Originally Posted by fov

They did.

Okay, maybe what they proposed was a bit sensationalist, but so is the internet. Still, the fact they didn't even get one entry says something (to me, anyway) about the validity of those rumors.

It does make me feel a little better, although I might point out that they can claim anything they want, including that they didn't get any entries. But I still don't see any factual, detailed, official rebuttals of why the software can't cause problems

I'd feel even more better if I could see an "official" statement on exactly how StarForce works and what it does so I could judge for myself if it would cause problems. That sort of tactic would go a long way towards quashing misinformation without resorting to threats.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Aj_]

They wanted someone to visit Moscow to recreate a hardware fault and win $10,000? Surpisingly, they didn't get any takers.

1) They admit that their drivers did create a security hole in windows, their defense is that Windows users in general don't act in a secure manner, so it doesn't effect them. This might be true, but the Windows users that do act sensibly should be damned anoyed.
2) The DMA stepping down thing is probably not recreatable.
3) They use the excuse that their software *now* doesn't have these bugs.

The legal threats, and claims of harassment, are a form of coercion to try and silence someone's right to free speech and opinion through legal bullying. It's not libel or defamation, it's a damn opinion protected by the right to freedom of speech. It's not a defence, it's an attack, on freedom.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

But I still don't see any factual, detailed, official rebuttals of why the software can't cause problems

If anything can cause problems then you're asking them to do something impossible. After all, it's far easier to prove the existence of a problem than its absence (the old disproving-the-negative trick). All kinds of software can cause problems. The question you have to ask is whether such problems are statistically likely, and if they are then whether or not such problems can be solved.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Aj_

The legal threats, and claims of harassment, are a form of coercion to try and silence someone's right to free speech and opinion through legal bullying. It's not libel or defamation, it's a damn opinion protected by the right to freedom of speech. It's not a defence, it's an attack, on freedom.

No, it's an attack - and an increasingly uncivil one - on the nature of the company. It is perpetuating a vicious rumour. And I think you'll find that people have the right to free speech; I happen not to like StarForce, happen to think it is flawed and have said so several times in this thread without being in any legal danger. The issue here is what is acceptable comment to make. Spreading misinformation as fact and using it to slander the name of a company is defamation, no matter how much you may personally think that a company deserves it.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by RLacey

No, it's an attack - and an increasingly uncivil one - on the nature of the company. It is perpetuating a vicious rumour. And I think you'll find that people have the right to free speech; I happen not to like StarForce, happen to think it is flawed and have said so several times in this thread without being in any legal danger. The issue here is what is acceptable comment to make. Spreading misinformation as fact and using it to slander the name of a company is defamation, no matter how much you may personally think that a company deserves it.

It might be adverse to the nature of the company. Very little has been commented on what is misinformation(because so far no one has said which parts on boing-boing.com were false) and some people have thrown the word slander(more accurately libel) around judging the article to be of malicious intent or reckless disregard for the truth.

p.s. I think you'll find my sentence to be grammatically correct, and I'm not the only one to use this phrase.

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by RLacey

The question you have to ask is whether such problems are statistically likely, and if they are then whether or not such problems can be solved.

Well, I'm essentially looking for a rebuttal of some of the tech explanations I've seen of why StarForce could cause problems.

For instance, someone says:

"It looks like StarForce works by doing Thing A, which could potentially cause Problem B because Reason C."

If the StarForce folks think that's untrue, it would be helpful if they said something like:

"No, StarForce works by doing Thing D."

or

"No, Thing A is unlikely to cause Problem B because Reason E."

And so on. Specific rebuttals people can look at.

Instead, all the statements from them I've personally seen seem to boil down to, "Well, it doesn't give *us* any problems, so you must be doing something devious because if you weren't it wouldn't cause you problems."

Essentially, it becomes nothing better than My Word vs. Your Word. And considering that I've worked in retail and some of the crap I've seen some companies pull, it's not the company I'm necessarily inclined to side with in such a situation.

All StarForce needs to do is give some facts and reasons for techies to evaluate as to why their technology is unlikely to cause the system performance and drive performance problems people have reported, and they score points in their favor. Instead they're issuing threats, accusing people who claim they're having problems of being criminals, and generally acting like people with something to hide.

And, cripes, AJ's right, I didn't read the contest rules properly. Gee, I dunno, any non-Russian residents here willing to take an ol' hop-skip-jump over to Moscow just to win a $10K contest?

Peace & Luv, Liz

[AFGNCAAP]

I'm sorry, Aj_ and Jeysie, but in every democratic legal system I know of, apart from the freedom of speech there also exists a rule of presumption of innocence. Starforce people could be self-admitted evil baby-eating invaders from Mars and they still would have no obligation to disprove the accusations throwed at them, however probable you or me may find them personally. It's the criticising party's concern to present evidence (other than hearsay and guesses) of company's guilt, not the other way round.

[saucyminx]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

And, cripes, AJ's right, I didn't read the contest rules properly. Gee, I dunno, any non-Russian residents here willing to take an ol' hop-skip-jump over to Moscow just to win a $10K contest?

Peace & Luv, Liz

*perks up* $10K??! I'm there!

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

And, cripes, AJ's right, I didn't read the contest rules properly. Gee, I dunno, any non-Russian residents here willing to take an ol' hop-skip-jump over to Moscow just to win a $10K contest?

I don't know about you, but I'd go for it. After all, if I'm so damn sure that I can prove StarForce is buggy I can go along safe in the knowledge that my $10K reward will more than cover any travel expenses...

[RLacey]

Regarding rebuttals - StarForce would probably say that, if they told you exactly how the software worked, then it wouldn't be a very good form of copy protection .

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

I'm sorry, Aj_ and Jeysie, but in every democratic legal system I know of, apart from the freedom of speech there also exists a rule of presumption of innocence. Starforce people could be self-admitted evil baby-eating invaders from Mars and they still would have no obligation to disprove the accusations throwed at them, however probable you or me may find them personally. It's the criticising party's concern to present evidence (other than hearsay and guesses) of company's guilt, not the other way round.

The criticising party is not charging them with anything, there is no civil or criminal action being brought towards them, thus the presumption of innocence falls to the criticising party that is being charged by the company. Presumption of innocence does not apply to an individual's opinionated blog, that should be protected by freedom of speech.

[Jeysie]

AFGNCAAP:

You're right, it is the accuser's job to prove guilt. However, in this particular instance, it's the StarForce folks who are accusing people of spreading slander. Therefore, I would think that if they bring anyone to court, they're gonna need to prove that the criticisms being made against their product are in fact untrue, and thus the charge of slander is correct.

Furthermore, the people who StarForce is accusing of lying and being criminals could file their own slander/libel suit, if they had enough money to afford legal and court fees. Most private individuals don't, and consider it easier to just cave into threats and not bother fighting even if they're right, so the fact that nobody's put up a fight as of yet doesn't mean anything. Slander accusations work both ways, you know.

Even if that's all not the case, StarForce could put this matter to rest by simply offering technical proof and information as to why their product is unlikely to cause the problems people say it does. That would make potential game customers feel more at ease, prove that the people passing information about problems are in fact lying sacks of crap, etc.

The fact that AFAIK they haven't done so, and instead are engaging in tactics that make them kinda look like jerks... well, I guess if you want to run your PR matters that way, sure. Have fun. Even if you're right in the end it'll be a Pyrrhic victory.

Originally Posted by RLacey

Regarding rebuttals - StarForce would probably say that, if they told you exactly how the software worked, then it wouldn't be a very good form of copy protection.

"Security through obscurity" is notoriously unreliable in the long run. The pirates will figure out how it works eventually, and if that renders it useless, well, so much for StarForce.

Peace & Luv, Liz