Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ffur2007slx2_5

Do you think it's necessary for BIS providing lockable binPBO?

Recommended Posts

I don't think anyone here is saying there is a 100% proof way of securing the data. But as has been said many times before in this thread. Why make it easy for thieves.

and yes its been said like 100 times by you now. i think we all get that

but that argument is soo invalid.

since it can go both ways. sure it makes it harder for theifs. but it also makes it easyer for thiefs hinding ther stolen work.

what you should really focues on is some update on O2 where they remove the export function and. where models made in newest O2 version only works in ArmA2 version X+ "newest patch"

imo thats a better solution. this way we can peek and poke without you worring about someone exporting the model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't recall too many incidents in the community.

I monitored and dealt with issues involving IP rights on OFP.info and AA.info forums and site from 2004-2008 (so during the later stages of OFP and most of ArmA1's lifecycle) as a member of the moderator and site teams. The amount of issues increased dramatically over this period in time' date=' especially after the release of ArmA1 (several dozen cases of all sorts in 2007 on the forums, and those forums were never anywhere near as popular as the BIS forums). These ranged from accidental things like the language barrier creating confusion about permissions, forgetting to remove unauthorized content, to downright denials when presented with ample proof, or even the "What are you gonna about it f*gg*t XD"-type messages. This is all due to the increased commercial interest for textured models on sites like Turbosquid that has been mentioned a few times in this thread. Before such sites were mainstream, the intentional unauthorized use/theft was mainly aimed at quickly building a name for themselves as addonmakers by copying content and retagging it, or porting to another game. The commercial aspect is relatively new, and BIS had to reinvent/clarify it's policy because of that as well. It takes longer to develop content than it used to, and not everyone is prepared to put in more time, but instead seeks to "produce" content through other means.

I don't see a change in that trend with ArmA2.

where models made in newest O2 version only works in ArmA2 version X+ "newest patch"

That would be far easier to remove than any encryption, since all it takes is editing the file with a hex-editor (it's far more simple than most types of encryption). A solution like a simple line or two of code doesn't work, as any child would be able to get around it.

Edited by JdB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is different because currently we can (unlegitimately) access it, like it has happened all the time since OFP made it to demo state.

EDIT > But it is dependant on a 3rdparty tool to rip the addon. And If ACE etc won't do it becuase there is no legitimate way to do it. Why should you have the "right" to rip into anyone else's addons?

I realise this has been asked before but i never saw a reasonable answer. Why do you need to access the MLODs without asking the author? There are official samples out there and all you need do is ask the author if there is something you want to know.

If someone have already answered this can i please have a link?

With locked PBO, we can't. That looks good to you.

I promise you, you ask me how something I made works and ill tell you.

The ability to reduce the risk of theft of my content looks pretty good in light of recent events.

To me, that screams of "hey, let's take this feature from unprotected addon X, this texture / LOD model from unprotected addon Y, don't ask for it, incorporate into our own addon, lock it, call it our own, and nobody will complain"

Yes it could be misused, but as other have already pointed out this community is pretty good at spotting theft. (even though the ones that spot it often get attacked). And as others have also pointed out the Mods here often act as arbitrators. They are often the final judges. If people refused to show proof to the mods when challenged then the same result as you catching a thief happens. They get banned.

Your precious commercial creation will be available to A2, protected, and soon after will come a bunch of other protected addons with content from unverifiable source. And I'll begin to suspect your own protected content may not be so full of things owned by you. After all, why are you so eager to hide your content when even BI doesn't do much in the matter?

And my "precious commercial creation" will be available to A2 for free. As will others. And I promise you anything that gets released in a PBO by us either is 100% ours or fully credited with permissions. UNN and I won't do it any other way.

I'm not eager to hide anything. Just protect it from the unscrupulous scumbags that keep trying to sell it.

Please stop making accusations about my intent. You may not like me but you can at least try to remain civil.

and yes its been said like 100 times by you now. i think we all get that

Yeah but it seems i have ot keep saying it becasue you all keep ignoring it :)

but that argument is soo invalid.

since it can go both ways. sure it makes it harder for theifs. but it also makes it easyer for thiefs hinding ther stolen work.

Hey i admitted that 20 some pages ago. But leaving our work unprotected maybe great for you it hurts us. We are the ones getting screwed over.

what you should really focues on is some update on O2 where they remove the export function and. where models made in newest O2 version only works in ArmA2 version X+ "newest patch"

Unfortunately there is a serious flaw in that argument. There are legitimate reasons to keep that feature. I've used it a lot myself to move back and forth between O2 and max/modo to fix problems with my models and create animations.

I see what you mean though and in an ideal world it would be a good solution.

imo thats a better solution. this way we can peek and poke without you worring about someone exporting the model.

A better solution would be to change the P3D format to prevent decryption/decoding. But that leaves the scripts, sounds and textures unprotected again. Which we established is a bit unfair. Which brings us back to locking the PBO. :confused:

Edited by RKSL-Rock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't close the window (new generation of 3D rippers) w/o redesign the Direct3D and OpenGL APIs ...

and even then it will be just matter of time before cracked

then You would need to design own game OS from scratch and one day even that will be cracked ...

same goes with any local file local client file 'protection'

obviously this important part and points of my previous post were completely ignored ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but i'm just trying to hint on the 'common sense' line

And I will too.

Like Dwarden said, it will always be possible to break into these sort of things. The analogy of locking your doors and windows at night holds true, if you do elect to lock things down it will afford SOME protection from burglars and the sort, however it is not, and never will be, fool proof.

So far, the pro-choice people have made more and better points as to why it should be available for addon makers to choose whether or not to lock .pbos, the only valid rebuttal I've seen so far is the ability of thieves to hide behind the veil of a locked .pbo. But frankly, you should know your own work enough to be able to spot it in game from a mile away, so it shouldn't be too big of an issue.

Personally, I'm all for allowing an option for an addon maker to lock his work if he deems it necessary. This has nothing to do with anything ArmA community related, I'm pro choice when it comes to every conceivable topic. If a choice is being stripped from someone, that's a freedom they don't have, and I like freedoms. If ALL .pbos were to be locked I'd be against it (Even though it would probably be for the better, IMO), but this is not the case, it would be an option, nothing more. However, I believe that locking .pbos should be strongly recommended, much like locking car and house doors and windows. With the option, people who do not want their .pbos to be locked can leave them unlocked, so people can browse at their leisure, and people who want them locked, for what ever reason (Be it IP protection, forcing addon makers to contact them for questions, preventing people from modifying the work so bug fixes can be made easier, etc.) can lock them. It's a Win win.

Pros of a lockable .pbo option:

  • Some protection from thieves
  • Bonding of the community through cooperation
  • More and better quality addons because people are sharing knowledge
  • Less theft of peoples' work
  • You don't have to if you don't want to

Cons of a lockable .pbo option:

  • BIS has to spend time and money that isn't devoted strictly to developing ArmA. Personally I'd rather see a new feature in the engine, like Render to texture than lockable .pbo files. ;)
  • It CAN be abused (Much like anything else in life) think of it like a house people can hide stolen things in their houses, but that isn't a reason we shouldn't have them, now is it?
  • It can be a minor inconvenience to talk to people and ask how things work and get good feedback (Gasp)
  • Addon makers can go on holiday and/or be MIA for a while, so you'll just have to wait, or ask other people. (Oh noez)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pros of a lockable .pbo option:

  • Some protection from thieves
  • Bonding of the community through cooperation
  • More and better quality addons because people are sharing knowledge
  • Less theft of peoples' work
  • You don't have to if you don't want to

Cons of a lockable .pbo option:

  • BIS has to spend time and money that isn't devoted strictly to developing ArmA. Personally I'd rather see a new feature in the engine, like Render to texture than lockable .pbo files. ;)
  • It CAN be abused (Much like anything else in life) think of it like a house people can hide stolen things in their houses, but that isn't a reason we shouldn't have them, now is it?
  • It can be a minor inconvenience to talk to people and ask how things work and get good feedback (Gasp)
  • Addon makers can go on holiday and/or be MIA for a while, so you'll just have to wait, or ask other people. (Oh noez)

Amazing, somebody who finally gets it!

You, good sir, deserve a cookie.

If I hadn't used one of Vilas' posts in my sig, I would be using part of yours right now. The "win"-ness of it is beautiful. Nice use of "Oh noez" as well, that was the perfect touch. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't close the window (new generation of 3D rippers) w/o redesign the Direct3D and OpenGL APIs ...

and even then it will be just matter of time before cracked

then You would need to design own game OS from scratch and one day even that will be cracked ...

same goes with any local file local client file 'protection'

obviously this important part and points of my previous post were completely ignored ...

Then again, WHY MAKE IT EASIER FOR THIEVES? This is a simple question that no one bothered (or intentionally avoided) to answer.

Edited by 4 IN 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A better solution would be to change the P3D format to prevent decryption/decoding. But that leaves the scripts, sounds and textures unprotected again. Which we established is a bit unfair. Which brings us back to locking the PBO. :confused:

We who? That didn't gain a lot of support iirc. And as Dwarden says, it wouldn't work a damn for the models, and all we have is unpokable stuff. And the system we have for that already works. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

@Darkhorse 1-6 and b00ce:

Did you play Domination? Anything that CAN be abused WILL be abused. Just like anything in life.

And then there is the expected ridiculing of the Cons. I'm just amazed how that works out.

Also my attacks on theft spotters (and the way they operate is a violation of §17), in attempt on bringing down the rumor milling, is commented in a way I can only see as bad.

I for one is out the door if I see protection like that coming.

Frankly I'm half way out the door from what I read here alone.

Utterly disgusting and completely demoralizing - all the fun out the window :mad:

Edited by CarlGustaffa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, this topic went way beyond surreal... :shocked:

DM, RKSL, Soul_Assassin, others, etc.:

  1. I value my ability to open a .pbo when I want much more than having some hypothetical models that could be released. I don't care whether you agree with this or not. I don't care whether you call this "theft", "illegal" or even "breach of contract". Reusing someone's work without permission is theft. Peeking at it (with or without permission) is not.
  2. You knew perfectly well when you started modding how the game and the community works. Having the ability to open (and even steal from) .pbo-s should come no surprise to you. BIS may not have officially supported peeking but it's been how it is since OFP, which you also know.
  3. The community and moderators handle theft issues that pop up well.
  4. No amount of further encryption will provide any more security than what's already available. Casual users may get temporarily hampered but professional thieves will not.
  5. I see no reason why the rest of the community should lose a valuable tool for your commercial interests. If you're in the model making business it's your responsibility and your problem to protect your work. Releasing a high-value 3D model as a free game addon seems reckless to say the least.
  6. Locking will invariably introduce problems with addons where the author left for an extended time/permanently, thieves releasing stolen stuff, etc.

All this comes down to a single point: there's no need to have an option to lock. You already have the option to protect your valuable property:

Do. Not. Release. Your. Addons.

I don't mean to tell you off - I'd appreciate seeing new content from you - but if it comes with the price tag you wish to force on everyone then thanks, but no thanks.

Edited by xxbbcc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, this topic went way beyond surreal... :shocked:

DM, RKSL, Soul_Assassin, others, etc.:

  • I value my ability to open a .pbo when I want much more than having some hypothetical models that could be released. I don't care whether you agree with this or not. I don't care whether you call this "theft", "illegal" or even "breach of contract". Reusing someone's work without permission is theft. Peeking at it (with or without permission) is not.
  • You knew perfectly well when you started modding how the game and the community works. Having the ability to open (and even steal from) .pbo-s should come no surprise to you. BIS may not have officially supported peeking but it's been how it is since OFP, which you also know.
  • The community and moderators handle theft issues that pop up well.
  • No amount of further encryption will provide any more security than what's already available. Casual users may get temporarily hampered but professional thieves will not.
  • I see no reason why the rest of the community should lose a valuable tool for your commercial interests. If you're in the model making business it's your responsibility and your problem to protect your work. Releasing a high-value 3D model as a free game addon seems reckless to say the least.
  • Locking will invariably introduce problems with addons where the author left for an extended time/permanently, thieves releasing stolen stuff, etc.

All this comes down to a single point: there's no need to have an option to lock. You already have the option to protect your valuable property:

Do. Not. Release. Your. Addons.

I don't mean to tell you off - I'd appreciate seeing new content from you - but if it comes with the price tag you wish to force on everyone then thanks, but no thanks.

Well you are always welcome to stick with your "open source" tall hats while even that wouldn't change the fact that things have changed over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this comes down to a single point: there's no need to have an option to lock. You already have the option to protect your valuable property:

Do. Not. Release. Your. Addons.

I don't mean to tell you off - I'd appreciate seeing new content from you - but if it comes with the price tag you wish to force on everyone then thanks, but no thanks.

If you tell people to not release their addons, they WON'T. Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it, no more addons. :eek:

And as for the "Being forced on bit"; it wouldn't be. What part of optional do you not understand? It is a choice for the addon maker to decide whether or not to "protect" his .pbo. Like I said, if every single .pbo was locked I would be against the idea, but this isn't the case.

I'd rather have a whole bunch of addon makers who feel better about releasing really high quality addons because they "locked" their .pbo, then having next to no addons because people are too afraid of theft to release.

Like I said earlier, you get to still have your unlocked .pbo, and the paranoid people, some of them rightfully so (Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't anyone out to get you.), get to sleep at night even though they have models floating around.

Personally, I wouldn't lock my .pbos when I really get going on my USCM mod, if I had the option. That's just me, I don't give a fuck. But because I won't use an option, doesn't mean I want to keep everybody else from using it also.

This would have no impact on the end user, save for the one that likes to snoop around. Even then it'll be hit and miss. Some people will choose to not lock up. And I'm sure if you asked the addon maker for help he/ she/ it will be more than happy to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I for one is out the door if I see protection like that coming.

Frankly I'm half way out the door from what I read here alone.

Utterly disgusting and completely demoralizing - all the fun out the window :mad:

#1 - I have seen many people say this, and frankly, good riddance

#2 - For once I completely agree

#3 - Again I agree. Except its disgusting and demoralizing to addon makers that the players, people who have never made an addon in their life, are saying that they shouldn't have the CHOICE to protect their work. Like I said before, we need a new thread, with ONLY addonmakers allowed in the discussion.

@Everybody who says it will become mandatory, please pull your heads out of your asses for a moment, and look up the definition of "choice", or "option".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well you are always welcome to stick with your "open source" tall hats while even that wouldn't change the fact that things have changed over time.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

If you tell people to not release their addons, they WON'T. Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it, no more addons.

I do not wish for them not to release more addons - in fact, I said so at the end of my post. I'd like them to release more stuff - they're talented and skilled addon makers and their addons would surely add value to this game.

But I don't like to be called a thief by them (which they consistently and repeatedly did all over this thread) and I don't want the mentality that comes with locking the content. If they so closely want to guard something they'd release as free stuff for a game, they shouldn't do it in the first place. Less worry, less chance for theft. More peace of mind for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're only calling you a thief if you actually stole something. Did you steal anything? No? So you're not being called a thief. And there you go again, telling people to not release addons. The optional lock would give them peace of mind and allow them to feel somewhat secure from thieves.

Where you're getting confused and thinking people are calling you a thief is because people rant about how they "NEED" to browse .pbos to answer to some OCD tick, or whatever the reason is. What people are saying is that it's disrespectful to the addon maker for taking a peek. (Personally I don't care if you look into my .pbos, I come from the G-mod community, there is no .pbo to undo) What I do frown upon is the 1-2% of unscrupulous community members who think it's ok to steal other people's work. I know how it feels to have work stolen, back in my Gmod days some ass-hat stole a map of mine and uploaded it as his own, it's infuriating to say the least.

All locking .pbos will do is keep the small time people out and discourage people from stealing. If you want to mill about, or have any questions, ask the addon maker via PM. 10 times outa' 10 he will help you out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
#3 - Again I agree. Except its disgusting and demoralizing to addon makers that the players, people who have never made an addon in their life, are saying that they shouldn't have the CHOICE to protect their work. Like I said before, we need a new thread, with ONLY addonmakers allowed in the discussion.

Do they not already have a choice to protect their work by PBO-encrypting and/or binarizing their addons? Most people I talk to who play Arma 2 don't have the slightest idea of how to get around binarized addons, or even PBO-encryption.

I don't believe we'll support a thread posted in public that people want only a select few of the forum to participate in. If you want discussion for only addon makers, do it via PMs or use a different forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're only calling you a thief if you actually stole something.

They made blanket statements and they called people thieves for insisting on the ability to look at pbo content. I kinda take that personally.

Where you're getting confused and thinking people are calling you a thief is because people rant about how they "NEED" to browse .pbos to answer to some OCD tick, or whatever the reason is. What people are saying is that it's disrespectful to the addon maker for taking a peek.

I clearly stated that I don't care about that. I have no intention of stealing anyone's work but I do intend to use .pbo-s as a source of reference. BIS made it that way and their approach to the game is what keeps me here. (Plus the game itself, ofc.) If someone thinks that's a sign of disrespect, I can only recommend (not wish for!) withdrawal. They have a choice: accept how it is or not. I hope they'd accept it as is and make more content. If not, I guess I'd just have to live with that.

I'm not arguing for a personal ability to look at any particular model (I mostly don't even care about those - I'm into missions/campaigns), but against the general approach and mindset full-scale locking would bring.

Personally I don't care if you look into my .pbos

Much appreciated.

What I do frown upon is the 1-2% of unscrupulous community members who think it's ok to steal other people's work.

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this:

1) Remove the optionality of using signed addons on a server. Every server addon MUST have a signature file (.bikey <-> .bisign pair) for any addons they use.

2) Improve the functionality of the .bikey <-> .bisign pair so that it cannot be faked like now.

3) Remove the option to "re-sign" binarized addons just by unpboing and repboing them with your own .biprivatekey.

This way you can still poke around as much as you want and play as much as you want in SP but it removes the option to use those edited addons in multiplayer games. Hell I would remove the whole option of re-pboing a pbo if the files are already binarized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They made blanket statements and they called people thieves for insisting on the ability to look at pbo content. I kinda take that personally.

All I have seen is people insist they have a "right" to look at pbo content. Those people can shove that "right" up their ole wazoo. I don't know if your one of them, and I'm too tired to dig through the thread. All I know is I'm tired of users telling the addonmakers what they can and can't do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All I know is I'm tired of users telling the addonmakers what they can and can't do.

People can criticize your actions, your work, and your opinion just like anyone else, no matter if you made addons or not. If the criticism starts to be unconstructive, their criticism becomes personal, or anything that goes against the forum rules, it'll be dealt with accordingly.

No one can tell you that you can't do something if what you're "doing" doesn't even exist yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do they not already have a choice to protect their work by PBO-encrypting and/or binarizing their addons? Most people I talk to who play Arma 2 don't have the slightest idea of how to get around binarized addons, or even PBO-encryption.

No we don't. Since T_D released his tool to the public there is no security. No choice.

Before we had to deal with rippers, whose output required some serious work to get a saleable product. Now we have a 2 click solution that enables the easy theft of community and BIS made content with blistering ease. :eek:

Where's the protection now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what happens when someone else cracks the hypothetical new lock ability for PBOs? Will we just repeat this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They made blanket statements and they called people thieves for insisting on the ability to look at pbo content. I kinda take that personally.

Go read back 20+ pages. In the context of theft yes we were applying a blanket. In the context of peaking we just maintained it was disrespectful. Don't take it out of context. If you arent nicking stuff why are you bothered?

---------- Post added at 10:13 ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 ----------

And what happens when someone else cracks the hypothetical new lock ability for PBOs? Will we just repeat this?

Probably, but done properly we may get a few more years of "security". :rolleyes:

All the same i'd like the choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Probably, but done properly we may get a few more years of "security". :rolleyes:

Well that would get really old really fast.

If I'm not mistaken it didn't take T_D very long to come up with his tool, so who knows if when this new security is implemented, it won't be cracked within a week? Developers/publishers spend a good chunk of money on DRM and despite it always updating and changing to combat the pirates most video game DRM is cracked within a month, at most, after the game is released. Even sooner if the game is popular enough.

Therefore there really is no hope at all for it being any better with this, and all it will give you is a false sense of security. That's what I think, at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably, but done properly we may get a few more years of "security". :rolleyes:

Thats pretty naive thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well that would get really old really fast.

If I'm not mistaken it didn't take T_D very long to come up with his tool, so who knows if when this new security is implemented, it won't be cracked within a week? Developers/publishers spend a good chunk of money on DRM and despite it always updating and changing to combat the pirates most video game DRM is cracked within a month, at most, after the game is released. Even sooner if the game is popular enough.

Therefore there really is no hope at all for it being any better with this, and all it will give you is a false sense of security. That's what I think, at least.

However, binarization isn't any form of encryption, it's an optimization thing, that just happens to not be able to be read or edited by O2. That being said, I strongly doubt that anyone will be able to crack any dedicated encryption as fast as T_D did, especially considering the fact that there were similar tools out for ArmA1, it's a small step forward. Decrypting a lock would require not only a completely new program, but a new way of thinking, because, as stated before, binarization =/= encryption.

Tl:Dr

Encrypting a .pbo =/= binarization of a model

and cracking said encryption requires a completely new program that does a completely different thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×