[Rowne]

Quoth Insane Cobra: "except for the bolded part. You yourself have contradicted that statement in the second quoted paragraph."

That's a bold statement. I dare say that I have contradicted myself but subjectively, that's only true if you fail to see the distinction between distinction between rioting and civilized objection.

This is a distinction I make frequently and you'd not be the first to miss it. I find that a simple tapping of foot and an eloquent statement of opinion is far more worthy than taking up arms with passionate flair (pitchforks'n torches, pitchforks'n torches!).

Quoth Jeysie: "Er, I don't know about where you set up kip, but here in the US, ..."

Oh, quite right, quite right. I tend to forget that civil rights across the World can vary as much as cultures and it was indignant of me to speak from my own particular centricity.

In the UK, one can indeed return any product that does not stand up to personal standards for a replacement or a cash refund. In fact, there are even Government institutions to backup this factor. We have a service named Trading Standards which helps enforce this law. Over here, the customer truly is always right and the customer has the power over the trades-person, as opposed to the opposite.

Considering what you've just said Qeysie, you're completely right! In a country such as my own, my statement stands but in a country such as the US, they should be legally obligated to state the name of the protection included with the software on the packaging to help reinforce consumer rights.

I apologize for speaking from only my own perspective, it was a narrow thing to do.

To veer a moment, I'm really just playing the devil's advocate with my statements regarding Starforce. I'm well aware that a lot of people don't like it and I shan't reveal my personal stance regarding it. The issue as I see it is that many a producer is deigning to include it with their games and then one has to ask oneself whether they wish to support the developers by buying the game or boycott against the protection by not doing so. It's a difficult decision to make.

Quoth Aj on the sixth: "Distributes itself across paritions and networks"

I'd already mentioned that it can act like a worm, though I should've put this on my list.

Quoth Aj on the seventh: "Starforce employees accuse people of working for organised crime or of being a pirate if you raise any issues with them. They call you a lier, threaten contacting the FBI, and threaten you with lawsuits."

*Sigh.* I think you might dislike me for what I'm about to say ...

The public stance of the people developing Starforce should have no infliction on whether we use it or not, our opinion should stand regarding the protection alone. If one is to speak ill of Starforce then it would simply weaken any stance made against the software. To say that one doesn't like the protection for technical reasons and then to say that one has taken a personal distaste to the company's decisions regarding PR doesn't look too professional. In fact, it might make the person look like they're biased against the company.

However the company acts, we really should judge the software on its actions empirically, for only then can we truly offer any judgement to its nature. It would be like a reviewer stating that they didn't like games from a particular company and then giving that game a low score. One would wonder about their priorities and their motives and even doubt the veracity and objectivity of their review.

Quoth Aj on the eighth: "Starforce stops you from backing up the games you bought, requires you to insert a disc to play."

Many forms of protection require this, I think you're just splitting hairs here. In fact, I can't think of very many protection systems alone that don't at least try to achieve these ends. I also think that this is covered by the points that state that it could stop a CD/DVD drive from working and that it could inhibit certain software such as Daemon Tools. Again, if we're going to be objective about Starforce we can't judge it based on what it's trying to do, rather we must judge it on whether it's doing it badly.

Quoth Aj on the ninth: "It doesn't uninstall when you uninstall the game it came with."

Good point.

This is indeed an example of bad behaviour. After all games that use Starforce have been uninstalled, the driver should uninstall itself. By remaining on the system it's demonstrating malpractice by performing actions that the software was not intended to do. This is a good stance to make on why Starforce might be considered as malware.

From a technical standpoint one would consider this as "misbehaving" as Starforce would continue to monitor the system and watch for "suspicious activity" even with games that aren't under its wing, thusly becoming more of a Big Brother solution rather than simple copyright protection. In this way, it could be shown in a bad light.

Quoth Aj on the tenth: "It's always running, although Starforce says that their DRM only runs when the game is running."

Another good point!

This is exactly what we need. Their public documentation directly contradicts the execution of the software. What the user is told might be considered desirable behaviour and yet this isn't how the software is actually behaving. Due to the fact that it's a driver resident in memory, this could be seen as true. More technical details would be required to make a truly solid stance however. Do we have proof that Starforce performs actions when the protected game isn't running?

Well, in fact we do, of a sort. Simply because of the "anti-tampering" system they have in place, which, like a Virus Scanner would need to be constantly active to watch for tampering.

We might need a bit more than that to go on though but I'd say that if you wish to debunk Starforce, it's points like these latter two that you'll need to do it.

Quoth Aj on the eleventh: "It neglects to tell you when you're installing it."

Another example of malpractice. However, many forms of spyware install themselves without telling the user, this isn't exactly an unknown procedure. Further more, I'm sure that there's a clause in the EULA which states that the user is allowing this software to be installed. If you could find a EULA which doesn't have that commital in it then you'd have a very solid standpoint but I'm not so sure that you will. I think someone needs to research this to find out.

If you could find even one example of that then you'd have a very solid foot to stand on. Otherwise you'd simply be told that you agreed to it in the EULA and that the EULA is legally binding (which is why, as a Gnu-hippie, I don't much care for them). Furthermore they'll also point out (as I did) that there's Microsoft Defender which does act as a front-line defense against it and does indeed ask you whether you wish to install it or not.

They could easily shift the blame to the user for not having all the latest Microsoft software installed (as absurd as that is, though) and they could also point out, as I said, that they legally agreed to it. In this way, Starforce is in no way in the wrong nor is its software performing anything illicit.

Like I said though, check those EULAs, if you can find one without a mention of Starforce or hidden protection, then you'll have a solid legal standpoint from which to make a case against them.

Quoth Aj on the twelth: "Grants Ring 0 access, which is a security risk."

Damned good point.

This is definitely a great cause for concern because it's a security risk to all users. Under no circumstances should any software perform this in my opinion, at least without asking the user first. Even if this was in the EULA I'd still consider this grey-line because if they were to slip up and allow another into the system via a security hole or even if their software has a backdoor, then they'd at the very least get a lot of very bad (and deserved) publicity.

Again, this is attacking the technical side of the software in question and it gives you a solid stance from which to launch a negative campaign against the software, if that's what you wish to do.

--- Final Thoughts ---

I don't mean to play against anyone in this but I'm simply providing a lot of the answers that the industry might in any given situation.

Plus it lets people decide what they want to do. They can decide to support their favourite developers regardless of the software they use or they can choose to boycott a protection system that comes across as very malign. I just hope that some of the thoughts and ideas I've offered have been insightful.

I feel I should offer a punchline too: "Everyone should move to the UK or a country with better consumer rights. At the very least better rights should be lobbied for." - Oh boy, that one's going to come back to bite me.

-- Edited to add ... --

Heh, another thought occurs to me, Starforce are running their own competition to see whether people can prove the problems that have been written about. More power too them, it's hearsay either way.

I'd also like to see though a competition for whether anyone could crack Starforce and turn it into a trojan. If a person could indeed do anything negative to another person's system via Starforce then that would stand as a powerful reason against the software.

Speaking personally and from my own bias, the part I really don't like is the RING0, as has been mentioned. I think that if any part of Starforce is open to attack, both technically and politically, that would most likely be it.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by Rowne

That's a bold statement. I dare say that I have contradicted myself but subjectively, that's only true if you fail to see the distinction between distinction between rioting and civilized objection.

Oh, I didn't read "rioting" as "calling to arms", I read it as "objecting". So yeah, my mistake.

Still, I don't agree a simple tapping of foot and an eloquent statement of opinion is an appropriate solution to every situation. It depends on who you're dealing with. Mind you, I don't think StarForce needs to be, well, rioted against, a simple boycott should do. But people need to be warned and warnings should be loud and clear.

By the way, I suggest you edit your post by including the [quote][/quote] tags, it will make it more readable.

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by Rowne

Over here, the customer truly is always right and the customer has the power over the trades-person, as opposed to the opposite.

(sigh) Having spent a number of years in retail, I could give you a really good rant about that sort of sentiment.

As it is, I'll just simply state that the reason that stores here in the US have such restrictions about certain types of returns is to protect themselves from scams by customers. And that's not unfounded hyperbole either; I've manned my fair share of returns before.

Customers are always given an outlet to exchange any damaged versions of merchandise for working copies, which covers most problems. Every other kind of return is subject to scamming, and some types of merchandise are easier to scam with than others.

Not just software/DVDs/etc. For instance, I know some clothing stores that declare formal attire sales as final because people are prone to say, buying a dress to wear to a prom and returning it after the event. But anyhoo.

Having said all that, you may be able to find managers who are willing to take back software for full refunds if you give a good explanation of why it didn't work, but it's not "official" policy, and it's not something to count on.

(And yes, I know that my defending certain restrictions on returns could be construed as opposing my distaste for most DRM methods. I just feel that the harm/benefits ratio is far lousier for customers with most DRM methods than it is with most return restrictions.)

Originally Posted by Rowne

To say that one doesn't like the protection for technical reasons and then to say that one has taken a personal distaste to the company's decisions regarding PR doesn't look too professional. In fact, it might make the person look like they're biased against the company.

I find it kind of odd that you'd argue about customer rights in one paragraph, then say this in another paragraph.

I also find it kind of strange that you'd accuse a customer of being unprofessional, when it is the *company* that should behave professionally, and the StarForce folks certainly have *not* done so, regardless of any problems their software may or may not have.

Even if the software was 100% harmless as designed, no software is without bugs, and the fact that the company is setting up an atmosphere in which customers who complain of problems get branded as "pirates/hackers/etc." is certainly worth noting in an argument, IMHO.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[jjacob]

All debate aside, looks like the toughest and latest Starforce 3 software has been cracked by "RELOADED";
http://www.nforce.nl/index.php?switc...wnfo&id=103910
"Starforce 3 Reverse-engineering tools" (don't worry it's a legal-ish site ).
Wonder how they're going to respond to this (if at all), because they can't just keep using thesame software, so it looks like publishers are going to have to go with other copy-protection..

[portabello]

Originally Posted by Aj_

VI. Distributes itself across paritions and networks
VII. Starforce employees accuse people of working for organised crime or of being a pirate if you raise any issues with them. They call you a lier, threaten contacting the FBI, and threaten you with lawsuits.
VIII. Starforce stops you from backing up the games you bought, requires you to insert a disc to play.
IX. It doesn't uninstall when you uninstall the game it came with.
X. It's always running, although Starforce says that their DRM only runs when the game is running.
XI. It neglects to tell you when you're installing it.
XII. Grants Ring 0 access, which is a security risk.

Lucky XIII. Starforce employees post links to download pirated versions of games that don't use their software. http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=63231

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by portabello

Lucky XIII. Starforce employees post links to download pirated versions of games that don't use their software. http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=63231

LOL! Yes, I can't believe I forgot this, good job you're here to help.

[Rowne]

Qeysie: In regards to sales, I think that it's just a difference in how Governing bodies work. Opposedly I could give you examples of company scams that might've succeeded if not for institutions such as Trading Standards. I find that particular door can swing both ways.

In regards to Starforce, I think you've misunderstood my statement. The point I was trying to make was that if one is to present a true argument against Starforce then one shouldn't lower themselves to the standards of the company. It's simply a matter of moral echelons and to be honest, I think this also relates to the above.

As I said about the swinging door, a company can accuse a consumer of slandering it as equitively as a user can claim that they have been slighted by a company. I think that this kind of stance doesn't get anyone anywhere. This is a personal viewpoint from my time spent studying trade-law and PR responses.

If one is to simply speak in regards of the company's attitude versus the attitude of the user then it would merely turn into a bout of "shit-flinging". I've seen too much of that on other forums already and no, I wouldn't consider that to be professional.

I'm a firm believer in civil and trades rights but I think that there are ways to approach malpractice that won't leave the consumer looking immature.

Companies and consumers can end up tied in all sorts of tirades but that simply means that there's a divide between the userbase and the company in question. I can cite numerous companies (especially MMOs) that have had consumer complaints about the company's attitude and yet still do good business because the company actually hasn't done anything illicit. It's just something that the users have taken a dislike to. Star Wars: Galaxies comes to mind particularly.

My point was that if we are to truly make an eloquent point against Starforce and if we are to do it professionally, it is best to speak out against the software, else those who speak out against it might simply dig themselves into the kind of rut mentioned above. I personally don't think it's a practical way to confront these issues. That's just my opinion.

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

By the way, I suggest you edit your post by including the (quote) tags, it will make it more readable.

A good point made, there. I convey my ideas best when I'm actually speaking them. I'm still not wholly used to forums, even though I try my best. I'm still not certain which would result in the most readability and I know my meaning can sometimes become blurred between the lines. Strong journalistic or editorial writing was never one of my stronger suits.

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

Still, I don't agree a simple tapping of foot and an eloquent statement of opinion is an appropriate solution to every situation. It depends on who you're dealing with. Mind you, I don't think StarForce needs to be, well, rioted against, a simple boycott should do. But people need to be warned and warnings should be loud and clear.

I can't disagree with you at all, really but the point I'm trying to convey is that if we do take up arms, we might simply be considered as another childish union out to take on "The Man". It wouldn't be the first time I've seen both companies and the general media react this way to a consumerbase rioting loudly against perceived injustices.

Speaking from a personal standpoint (and again, bias comes into play), I do believe that there are distinct problems and issues with Starforce but my point is that if we lobby against them loudly and incivilly, we might be simply dusted off as an immature and vocal minority. The truth of the matter is, considering the things Starforce does, this wouldn't be fair at all but I could still see it happening. As I'd spoken about before, in the US it seems as though the company is always right, as opposed to the user.

So my standpoint is that we should try and handle things politically. Any good political push doesn't result in taking up arms as the first line of defense, that's usually the last resort. Things usually begin with a polite stance promoting one's beliefs publically and raising the awareness of Starforce's actions.

Now one might be dismissed as a pirate (thank you, Starforce), a commie or goodness knows what else for being part of a vocal minority. So in my opinion, taking that stance as the first line of defense doesn't help. However, offering polite opinions on why Starforce is wrong and giving people information from all angles in the most unbiased way possible is a good way to proceed.

One can actually create a community backlash simply by raising awareness because I believe the fact of the matter is: the last thing a company like Starforce would want us to do is actually raise awareness and thusly reasonable doubt. They'd prefer us to be loud, brash and something that they could box off and label as pirates, commies or whetever they choose at the time.

So whilst I agree that the warnings should be there, I think we should be careful about how we present them.

[ Edit: Oh the verbal ambiguity of typos! ]

-- Edited to add ... --

The point I'm trying to make, I think is that I wouldn't want to see the more liberal and correct side of the debate to fall to the same standards as the more corporate and decidedly incorrect one. That would result in the public view that this is basically a namecalling-fest. That Starforce might name us pirates but we in return might call them outrightly abusive and harmful, the proverbial poopy-head, if you will. Then it'd be a case of them calling back with "Where's the proof, pirates?!" as they have done.

I think that in order to break that kind of viewpoint, one side has to be more politically correct than the other. That breaks the image that it's simply two sides fighting each other and instead, it raises awareness that the one side is perfoming illicit actions and the other is standing against that in the most reasonable way possible.

[Legolas813]

Originally Posted by portabello

Lucky XIII. Starforce employees post links to download pirated versions of games that don't use their software. http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=63231

That was so shocking back when that news first came out.

I had already hated and would boycott StarForce, but now I loathe them even more.

And just read this: http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/31...hreatens_.html

[Rowne]

I'm more than a little surprised at this.

Cory Doctorow is one of my favourite authors, he was responsible for one of the most insightful and enjoyable post-now (future, Sci-fi) tales I'd ever read; Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom. Moreover, he even offers his books for free-view on his site (even in text and html formats) under a Creative Commons license. He's as good people as good people get, in my eyes.

I've added this because I think it helps to know who Cory Doctorow is and why this is indeed shocking news.

Aside from that, I'll keep any editorial comments to myself. Starforce has cemented their stance for good or ill. This isn't something that I as a consumer would use to argue against them with but it is something that I, if I were the CEO or a high-ranking director of a company, would take into consideration before allying my company with Starforce. Such a thing could be distinctly damaging to PR and alienating to consumers.

[ Edit: Just to note, Cory's books can be found on craphound.com. ]

-- Edit --

Though, mind you ... this is exactly what I was speaking of.

Cory: Well, to be honest, this is what Starforce is doing and I don't like it. I consider it to be malicious.

Starforce: Ha, that's because you're a pirate and we're going to sue you for your slander!

Cory is entitled to his views but I could just see that Starforce would react in this way.

That's why I still say we need a site that has a very technical (with parts in layman's terms) deconstruction of Starforce, handled in an unbiased way without labelling it as anything or including any personal views.

-- One last thing ... --

What I'm saying is that so far, pieces against Starforce have given them something to latch onto. If a piece was written about how Starforce could prove to be negative without actually being overtly negative and outwardly naming it as malware, then it'd be interesting to see how they'd respond to that. If they'd call a piece such as that something worthy of suing, then that would leave them in an even nastier position.

[portabello]

This may interest some:

http://www.glop.org/starforce/list.php <--Games that use starforce.

[insane_cobra]

But note that not all editions of those games use it.

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by jjacob

"Starforce 3 Reverse-engineering tools" (don't worry it's a legal-ish site ).

What exactly do those "tools" do?

Originally Posted by Jeysie

(And yes, I know that my defending certain restrictions on returns could be construed as opposing my distaste for most DRM methods. I just feel that the harm/benefits ratio is far lousier for customers with most DRM methods than it is with most return restrictions.)

You feel so? What are the benefits of such return policy again?

Also, I think you missed my question: aren't the US stores obligated to accept returned wares and pay you with cash even if the description turned out blatantly false (so, basically, it's the customer who's been scammed). I find it positively outrageous, if that's the case?

And what if the game isn't sold there anymore, making giving a replacement copy impossible?

[VoodooFX]

Not sure this topic belongs in Adventure section. Moving it to General.

[Legolas813]

Originally Posted by portabello

This may interest some:

http://www.glop.org/starforce/list.php <--Games that use starforce.

I wouldn't trust that list if you live in the U.S.

[Dale Baldwin]

I wouldn't trust it if you're in the UK either. There was another list on another site (although I forget where), and even that incorrectly listed TMOS in the US as having StarForce - requests from House of Tales to get that updated never had any effect. (If things have changed Martin, chime in )

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by Dale Baldwin

I wouldn't trust it if you're in the UK either. There was another list on another site (although I forget where), and even that incorrectly listed TMOS in the US as having StarForce - requests from House of Tales to get that updated never had any effect. (If things have changed Martin, chime in )

You mean this one? I think it hasn't been updated ever since they first published it.

[Martin Gantefoehr]

Originally Posted by Dale

If things have changed Martin, chime in

Um, can I chime in as well when absolutely nothing has changed?
(Which is the case, of course).

But after all, the whole boycott thing is about saving mankind from certain doom, so it's only understandable that they can't concern themselves with peripheral issues such as this.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by Martin Gantefoehr

But after all, the whole boycott thing is about saving mankind from certain doom, so it's only understandable that they can't concern themselves with peripheral issues such as this.

Martin, it's obvious nobody's keeping that page up to date, it's last been updated in November 2005.

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

You feel so? What are the benefits of such return policy again?

The same as the "benefits" of DRM... keeping the company from getting scammed by dishonest folks. The question is how many problems it causes for honest customers while doing so.

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Also, I think you missed my question: aren't the US stores obligated to accept returned wares and pay you with cash even if the description turned out blatantly false (so, basically, it's the customer who's been scammed). I find it positively outrageous, if that's the case?

That's because I have no idea. For stuff that isn't software, the return policy is pretty free of restrictions... bring it back within 30-90 days (depends on the store) with a receipt and get your money back. No receipt, you get store credit back. (Some places don't even have this restriction.) Therefore it's not an issue with those sorts of items.

For stuff that *is* DVDs, software, CDs, etc., I worked in retail before stuff like StarForce became common, and I honestly have never personally fielded someone returning such things because they weren't as advertised. Or rather, I have fielded complaints where the customer claimed it wasn't as advertised, but a bit of talking with them turns out the item actually was as advertised; they just didn't bother paying attention. I've heard my fair share of the "parents who thought Grand Theft Auto would be a great game for their 10-year-old" sort of problem, for instance.

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

And what if the game isn't sold there anymore, making giving a replacement copy impossible?

That I can answer; the two places I worked at would end up either trying to procure a copy from somewhere or would let the customer choose a similarly priced game.

As for the questions on the game list at glop.org: The site maintainer has said on his forums that he puts a game on the list if at least one version of the game has StarForce on it. Dunno if that helps any.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Martin Gantefoehr]

Originally Posted by insane cobra

Martin, it's obvious nobody's keeping that page up to date, it's last been updated in November 2005.

When I wrote to that guy, it wasn't quite so obvious, as that was in December 2005. Also, my email never bounced back. A lot of other Anti-Starforce sites still link the site in question, and obviously use it as a reference.

You know, that's what makes the internet so great. It's full of outdated, false, half-correct, and hearsay information. But nobody cares. Those sites still get cited, linked to, mirrored and redistributed by myriads of other concerned people, who then claim to use facts and cite those same sources as proof.