Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ffur2007slx2_5

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

Recommended Posts

Well thats a very mature response for this "mature community"...

"We're too selfish to give up our ability to steal other peoples work, anyone who doesnt like that can piss off and play somewhere else"

Nice...

Steal? When i have opened up an pbo to try find a solution to a problem i'm having i don't feel like a thief!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not at liberty to talk about my content, but I will refer you to RKSL's thread. Where he explains that because the models can no longer be considred as "reasonably secure" people who have used models commercially can now no longer use them for freebies in ArmA.

A problem that would not exisit if we had the option to encrypt our pbos.

Edit to add:

Maturity is often in the eye of the beholder. ;)

"I'm too selfish to share my bright and shiny 100k poly ammo crate because I'm afraid someone will steal it....."

Uh, no, I'm restricted by contract, not by selfishness.

Edited by DM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"We're too selfish to give up our ability to steal other peoples work, anyone who doesnt like that can piss off and play somewhere else"

And thats a mature way to twist my words, again.

You keep escalating this to be about "stealing".

Its seems the best way for you to maintain the moral high ground if you can summarise it all in that 1 basket.

Please dont' bother with the "but it is stealing" response. Thats been done to death in these pages by everyone.

BIS's view I like, and take it somewhat for my own; If it doesn't create us harm, you wont be hearing from us.

I understand "harm", I've already stated in that thread, you have to think about it from all points of view and in detail. "Harm" is not a simple 2 second check, it has to be thought through.

If a author specifically stated in their readme, "fuck off, don't open my work" I would respect that. Sure, others might not, but NOTHING in this world is guaranteed, nothing.

Edited by [APS]Gnat
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well thats a very mature response for this "mature community"...

"We're too selfish to give up our ability to steal other peoples work, anyone who doesnt like that can piss off and play somewhere else"

Nice...

I like on how Gnat burnt you really bad and you just reply with the only argument you have.

Seriously if you think your work is too FUCKING awesome to be released here, then leave the community because from what I see in your posts, you think you are above the rest of us and you are way too fucking awesome for us to handle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DM-

hehe

Ok. Your choice.

So, BI is supposed to consider the cost v. benefits of undertaking a substantial code revision to appease a small (I daresay tiny) fraction of community modders who want the option of encrypting a model, when one of the leading proponents of the change is 'not at liberty to talk about' his potential content. So, they (and the rest of us) do not even know what we are missing.

I do think there is a valid argument about allowing choice. But, you guys are making it more difficult for yourselves to be persuasive without providing more details....

Just sayin'....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"We're too selfish to give up our ability to steal other peoples work, anyone who doesnt like that can piss off and play somewhere else"

If you must go with "selfish", that should read "We're too selfish to give up our ability to learn from other peoples' work". Very few members of this community steal other peoples' work, and the community doesn't support it at all when they do.

I get the feeling that some of you have possibly been burned already by theft. I know Rock has, which is quite obviously influencing his opinion. Not everyone is out to steal your work and make a buck off of it. Blanket "punishments" never solve anything, I'm learning that quite well at school. Most of the time they actually provoke people to continue doing it, or for those who are innocent to start doing it to spite you. In fact, that's exactly like school...

I wouldn't say that it's a bad thing that we don't want to lose that privilege, as we've had it since the beginning, and I would say the modding community has essentially developed around that principle.

Edited by Zipper5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like on how Gnat burnt you really bad and you just reply with the only argument you have.

I fail to see the burn, since he's just repeating the same argument the nay-sayers have too...

Just because its allways been that way, does it make it right?

For example:

In Chester, it is legal to shoot a Welshman with a bow and arrow inside the city walls, after midnight.

Is it a retarded law? Yes. Do people still follow it? No. Just because its been that way for 100's of years doenst make it right.

Just because we've always opened pbos, doesnt make it right.

Again, BI does not provide a de-pbo tool, nor do they support de-pbo'ing.

BI is supposed to consider the cost v. benefits of undertaking a substantial code revision to appease a small (I daresay tiny) fraction of community modders who want the option of encrypting a model

Considering the code is already in place, then I would imagine the cost and effort to be incredibly small. Almost non-existant infact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the code is already in place, then I would imagine the cost and effort to be incredibly small. Almost non-existant infact.

The code is in place in the ArmA franchise?

How do you know that?

It is in the VBS platform, but that doesn't mean it is in ArmA.

And, if you are equating killing a Welshman in Chester with allowing encryption of pbo's, I think you may have deeper issues. ;)

At the time the law was passed, it probable made sense, and was not 'retarded.' (Which, BTW, using that adjective is offensive to the MANY people who have disabled relatives, but we'll set that aside for now.) But only after the passage of a couple hundred years and a change in values does it not make sense.

Here, the BI 'rule' does make sense, and more importantly, is the kind of rule BI is allowed to have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DM, I don't get how models you're not even at liberty to DISCUSS here can possibly have their status changed by the encryption feature, or indeed how they become somehow releasable.

This is of course aside from the acknowledged fact that your models wouldn't be secure even after encryption. It seems the only people you wish to prevent from seeing your models is in fact the ArmA2 community. However, you have after all shown a disdain for the community.

---------- Post added at 04:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:00 PM ----------

In Chester, it is legal to shoot a Welshman with a bow and arrow inside the city walls, after midnight.

Is it a retarded law? Yes. Do people still follow it? No. Just because its been that way for 100's of years doenst make it right.

Of course it's not legal. That's a stupid argument to put before a lawyer :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

* Removed because some saw it as a pissing competition. I saw it as "community contributors" *

Edited by [APS]Gnat
Again, differing views

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OFPEC will never be replaced by the BI forums' editing section for me, Gnat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Gnat - that is interesting. But, in my defense, at least half of mine were probably questions or problems. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

guys i don't want to shatter Your dreams or wishes

but i wonder if some of You aware that new wave of so called <censored>

is capable to snap off D3D layer anything (nearly)

be it all lods, textures, mips, shaders, joint points w/e ...

also please realize that any archive no matter how protected if it's clientside unpacked will be easily broken

(just matter of time and will)

i'm not saying there will be never or no protection from us e.g. for trustable community developers

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

Edited by W0lle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Bis give the option to 'lock' PBOs - short of actually running a server that requires all players to have constant internet access just in order to use a model of a particular aircraft - someone will release a PBO unlocker a few months later.

Whoever writes the PBO unlocker will firmly believe that his hours of hard work spent writing it were in the interests of the 'community.'

- Would it really give modellers an increased sense of security to give them the option to lock their PBOs?

- Would it be worth Bis' time, effort and money to implement this (posted before read Dwarden's post)?

- Would it, in the long run, be likely to reduce the level of security for VBS/DLC modules released by Bis - since more effort would likely be put into breaking the implemented security by certain parties?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
guys i don't want to shatter Your dreams or wishes

but i wonder if some of You aware that new wave of so called 3D rippers

is capable to snap off D3D layer anything (nearly)

be it all lods, textures, mips, shaders, joint points w/e ...

also please realize that any archive no matter how protected if it's clientside unpacked will be easily broken

(just matter of time and will)

i'm not saying there will be never or no protection from us e.g. for trustable community developers

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

Great post, Dwarden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still consider this thread and the points raised important and would like to see the discussion continue, albeit with a bit more respect for each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still consider this thread and the points raised important and would like to see the discussion continue, albeit with a bit more respect for each other.

There are certainly valid points on both sides of the topic, but I think the discussion itself is a dead end (I refer you to DWarden's subtle hint post.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like the thread is going to wrap up soon. I truly still believe that open source is the way to go. Like scientists, if you don't openly publish your work, you're just hurting the progress of other scientists out there. When somebody opens a PBO, they're more like scientists, observing how somebody made the carpet bombing script or teleport script, then out there to go leech of your hard work and reupload it with another name. And most of them will always give credit to what they've used, and code stealing gets noticed pretty quickly by the community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Try to extract BAF PBOs ;)

hehe

Ok, but are they 'encrypted' or just 'more optimized'.... ;) :D

(Besides, I've already got all the cool Brit kit I could ever want....) :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say im disgusted with the attitude displayed here from people on all sides. But the rumour mongering and utter bullshit posted by some just makes me angry.

So here we go in the interest of balance: People are questioning the motivations of members advocating the "Lock" option. The "modellers".

If you want to start in on the modeller's motivations lets take a look at some of the other people here posting against encryption:

I know of at least 3 people in here that are applying or have applied for scripting/designer jobs with BISim (aka BIA), Qinetiq and other agencies. Some are openly bragging about doing it on skype and IRC so its not what you'd call privileged info. But I wont be a twat and name names.

You see ‘open format’ community made scripts can be exploited by people seeking jobs to pad out their portfolio. I've come across a few people from this community in my professional life over the years. I've seen a few less than original presentations as samples from people seeking work.

So let’s ask them about their motivation behind their posts against encryption?

(see implying malicious intent works both ways)

It may not be the same as selling someone’s else‘s mesh, but its just as dishonest. It’s called plagiarism and believe it or not it is actually a criminally punishable offence if the material is used to gain a monetary advantage. That’s called deception with intent to defraud.

Ok, so lets stop implying modellers here have illicit motivations and return to provable, sustainable fact.

And lets not forget the Commercial aspect of scripting.

There is a very healthy "trade" in data mining community made freeware scripts and addons for commercially viable VBS2 knowledge. Pretty much any and all VBS2 customers do it. I’ll even go so far as to say I know community made scripts have made it into addons being used by several nation’s militaries. Not to mention the community made addons that have been converted to VBS2.

(not by BIA but their customers - all BIA reps ive come across have been good at saying its a no-no).

At the very best, most could be said they are ‘inspired’ by freeware (not to be confused with open source). But at worst there is a hell of a lot of copy and pasting in the Mil Sim world.

And just so there is no confusion here’s the easy to follow guide to my own opinions (most i know others here share):

• I support the
option
to Lock/secure the PBO format

• I am against community made payware – It destroyed the FS Freeware community and increased theft by 1000%

• I do support BIS made DLC – it allows BIS to fund continued development of the ArmA2/OA engine so I’m happy to support it.

• I think anyone that makes original content should have the right to protect it if they so choose.

• I don’t think that anyone should be able to vote to stop them.

• I also think that anyone creating tools to decode/decrypt/reverse engineer models is either hopelessly naïve or is living in cloud cuckoo land. If they think they are helping the larger community they should also realise they are also enabling theft. They need to grow up and act more responsibly.

• I think anyone in this community that learns from the work or help of others has the moral obligation to share that knowledge and if possible document it. - THis does not in anyway contradict the right of anyone to protect their work if they choose.

And now my own agenda. I want:

• A community that respects the work and efforts of others (yes im dreaming but hey there is always hope)

• An environment that I can release "commercial grade" addons for
free
without fear of theft and exploitation for my friends to enjoy.

• The ability to protect my work from theft (or at least make it substantially harder to steal)

• A pony

• Decent documentation for each new engine feature introduced inthe DLC preferably with practical "real world" examples/samples.

• More visible community modding rules and customs for new modders so they head down the "right" path from the start!

Now returning to something close to the actual issue: We have 5 camps all with their own position.

  1. Original content makers – everything is 100% their own work so they have the full rights
  2. Partial content makers – (not the best description) – Where the releasing team/person has made some of the content but the rest is “donatedâ€. Or they have permission to modify it. But still wants to control or has a moral obligation (the terms of the donation) to restrict/protect access to the source.
  3. Personal/Clan modifiers – they have no rights over the content but don’t like the sound or config setup.
  4. Idealists/Agitators – As we all know there are more than a few of these in this community. They don’t actually produce anything but forum posts and have an opinion about absolutely everything.
  5. Naysayers - The ones that say we're all wasting our time because theft is inevitable and besides the world is going to end.

As I’ve said repeatedly in this thread, I think anyone that actually makes public content should have the right to choose to lock their PBOs. Please note the PBO, not just models but every item that goes into an addon should be protected. I really don't think anyone but the addonmakers should have the right to tell them what to do. Its their IP. People need to learn to respect it.

Finally, to those that repeat over and over again "Theft is inevitable/all encryption will be cracked". Let me ask you this?

Do you lock your front door in the morning when you leave? Do you lock your car when you leave it?

Of course you do. But it doesn't stop thieves, but it makes it a hell of a lot harder for them

And for those that advocate an open source approach... the Idealists...

How would you feel if you left your car open for anyone to use. Then discovered that while you were away someone was "borrowing" it and running a "payware" taxi service with it?

If you say "i dont care", we all know you are lying.

Its human nature to be pissed when we get screwed over. We all have simple choices in these situations:

  1. Sit back and accept it calmly (idealistic pacifist - often found stabbed to death after a mugging)
  2. Sit back and cry about it and let it happen again and a again (Victim)
  3. Put your faith in the law and stand up for your self and sue the twats (costs a lot I can tell you, but most of the time you win. Some times you lose due to a BS technicallity)
  4. Try to stop it happening again so easily. (add locks to your doors and windows)
  5. Hunt the b'stards down and lynch them.

Now personally I'm a strong advocate of options 4 and 5. Currently this community is very much characterised by option 2. The wailing victim, who is repeatedly ripped off again and again. It happens so often that the victim eventually has nothing left and dies.

Unless someone makes a stand and does something about theft, all that is going to be left is a group of would be muggers staring into a hole in the ground wondering if they can rip off the mugger next to him (and all he's got is a poxy pocket knife).

Call me an "Idealistic Realist". Yes there will always be thieves hiding in the shadows but lets make them work for it.

Give us the option to lock PBOs.

Edited by RKSL-Rock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, to those that repeat over and over again "Theft is inevitable/all encryption will be cracked". Let me ask you this?

Do you lock your front door in the morning when you leave? Do you lock your car when you leave it?

Of course you do. But it doesn't stop thieves, but it makes it a hell of a lot harder for them

There is a very big difference between theft and copyright infringement that you do not understand.

If someone breaks into my house and steals my TV then I no longer have a TV. If someone still breaks into your PBO and takes your model, you still have your model and your PBO, just now someone else has a copy of it that you do not want them to have.

Totally different.

There is also the fact that when someone breaks into a house its an overt commission of a crime, one that needs to be taken quickly as possible. There is the threat of being caught in the act.

When someone is cracking encryption there is no threat to them till after they have cracked it, at which point, given most cracks, its already too late and the technology spreads like wildfire.

Its simply not economically viable to invest in most DRM solutions, and its certainly not viable to invest in them if you are going to give them away for free (thats a bit of irony in itself, maybe model makers should pay BIS for a lockable PBO?).

Also you seem to make assumptions again... I am a 100% original content maker (ACRE), I also work on projects that have lots of donations (ACE and CBA), and I work on VBS2 content. I also fully 100% do not support locking down PBO files because its just a waste of time for BIS, it could deny a lot of new programmers the ability to learn from others in the community (like I did, and pretty much everyone else I know did), and it won't stop theft at all by the people looking to sell your models and violate your copyright.

The reason it works in VBS2 is because the client base is so much smaller, the developer community a lot smaller, and the licensing so much more strict, that it makes sense to deploy much more stringent means to lock down content and also provide the catalyst for things like legal suits and other such actions if there is violation of copyright.

Share this post


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

×