Boulder Dash ROM will not be released

[slab0meat]

Is it supposed to?

 

It's all about DRM and what goes into copy protection. That could be its own informative thread. So I say "yes".

[Rev]

It's all about DRM and what goes into copy protection. That could be its own informative thread. So I say "yes".

May I suggest you make a new thread titled: The DRM Homebrew Discussion Thread

 

Or whatever you wish to call it. Take action! :-)

[slab0meat]

I know nothing about it nor have I added anything to that part of the discussion, so why would I? If people think it's informative then why keep it going in a thread that no one would suspect it's in by the title?

[Eric7100]

Nobody is talking about Boulder Dash anymore, so a new thread should be created.

[jaybird3rd]

May I suggest you make a new thread titled: The DRM Homebrew Discussion Thread

 

Or whatever you wish to call it. Take action! :-)

I already tried creating such a thread in the Homebrew Discussion forum some years ago (see here).

 

I wanted to start a discussion about the motivations of homebrew authors, and about ideas for digital distribution using some acceptable form of watermarking which would preserve the authors' interests while opening new outlets for their work. Everyone immediately thought that I was proposing some sort of onerous DRM (doing away with physical copies, locking games to consoles, "calling home", and all sorts of other heinous protection measures which wouldn't even be feasible on vintage platforms), and they all went freaky nuts over the idea. They also got the (incorrect) impression that, by looking for a way to prevent piracy, I was trying to transform homebrew game development into some sort of big-money commercial venture that was no longer about fun. Piracy was a "non-issue," some said, because homebrew authors "shouldn't be in it for the money anyway."

 

In the end, I don't think I accomplished very much. Given the strong emotions still evoked by this issue, I have doubts that a new thread would do much better, but anyone who wants to is welcome to try. I'd highly recommend reading over my old thread first, though, to get a sense of the arguments on all sides.

[Keatah]

To hear a sample of watermarked music.

http://www.mattmontag.com/music/universals-audible-watermark

Too bad they used an obvious part of the spectrum..

 

 

The overhead of reencoding the file everytime someone purchases is huge. Yes mp3 is lossy, but wav recordings are not easily manipulated in the ways you suggest. You cannot easily separate instruments, vocals, or other components in the time / frequency domain, and to suggest that they are easily separated or can be done on the fly without irreparable damage is ludicrus. Also mostly inaudible things like least significant bit flips will be erased by the compression algorithm.

 

Today's processors can encode nearly instantly.

 

All you need to do is pick a couple of arbitrary peaks or something in the track and shift them a few ms forward or backwards. No one would hear that. And the relationship of how far multiple shifts are from each other is your mark.

[108 Stars]

Nobody is talking about Boulder Dash anymore, so a new thread should be created.

Why?

This thread was not about Boulder Dash to begin with. The Boulder Dash thread is here: http://atariage.com/forums/topic/236383-boulder-dashr-for-intellivision-released-march-18-2015/

Everyone can discuss the game itself there.

 

The topic here was specifically the non-release of the game ROM. A ROM which is not released because of lack of support or interest, in part said to be based on the fact that it would have had DRM.

 

So the talking about DRM and copy protection in homebrews fits perfectly here.

[slab0meat]

And still, no one would have any clue about such information by the title. Clearly, anything CAN be discussed. Since the word homebrew was mentioned and debated, any homebrew can be talked about too. King of the Mountain is fun.

 

 

I'm assuming you agree there's plenty of good and valuable information in the DRM discussion. Do you think an obvious thread about it is better for potentially more readers, or keeping it here?

[108 Stars]

Fair point. It might be good if a moderator would split the latter part of the thread into a new one, at least that's what I would do.

The problem with just starting a new thread from scratch is that it is missing the points already made, and may well end being unpopulated because everyone has made their point elsewehere already. People looking into the thread with the fitting title would still not find much.

 

So I suggest some mod could move the stuff into a new thread.

[Keatah]

It started here, might as well stay here. Threads that temporarily go off topic and then get split or reassigned typically die off - mostly the 2nd half falls prey. So it is best to just continue the discussion.

 

Now. When you interview a pirate face to face, did you ever notice a certain part of their psychological makeup is low-class? Doesn't matter what they pirate; music, movies, games, WaReZ, printed material, whatever.. and that their thought is less in-depth than someone that doesn't ? They're more likely to inhabit the lower regions of the socioeconomic totem pole? And they have more addictive personalities too.

[+DZ-Jay]

I already tried creating such a thread in the Homebrew Discussion forum some years ago (see here).

 

I wanted to start a discussion about the motivations of homebrew authors, and about ideas for digital distribution using some acceptable form of watermarking which would preserve the authors' interests while opening new outlets for their work. Everyone immediately thought that I was proposing some sort of onerous DRM (doing away with physical copies, locking games to consoles, "calling home", and all sorts of other heinous protection measures which wouldn't even be feasible on vintage platforms) and went freaky nuts over the idea. They also got the (incorrect) impression that, by looking for a way to prevent piracy, I was trying to transform homebrew game development into some sort of big-money commercial venture that was no longer about fun. Piracy was a non-issue, some said, because homebrew authors "shouldn't be in it for the money anyway."

 

In the end, I don't think I accomplished very much. Given the strong emotions still evoked by this issue, I have doubts that a new thread would do much better, but anyone who wants to is welcome to try. I'd highly recommend reading over my old thread first, though, to get a sense of the arguments on all sides.

The problem is what it means in principle: when you are making homebrews and you start thinking of ways to watermark ROMs, whether you want to admit it or not, what you are saying is that you do not trust your audience to play by the unspoken rules you wish they did.

 

That's why passionate responses are always triggered, so it really shouldn't come as a surprise.

 

It's like saying "guys, I know a lot of you will steal my stuff if you could, so which sort of mechanism would you recommend I put in my ROMs to track the transgressors? Anybody?"

[jaybird3rd]

It's like saying "guys, I know a lot of you will steal my stuff if you could, so which sort of mechanism would you recommend I put in my ROMs to track the transgressors? Anybody?"

I wouldn't put it that way. Speaking only for myself, I was thinking of something more like this: "Look, all of us here are a tight-knit community, and I take it for granted that none of us would try to rip off a fellow homebrew author, but as we explore digital distribution of our games, we know that they will fall into the hands of certain other people who have no qualms about piracy. So, is there anything we can do to protect against that without spoiling the fun we've been having so far?"

 

I agree that it's a distasteful topic no matter how it's framed, so it's not surprising that it's remained a hot-button issue. As someone in the other thread said, there are no easy solutions.

[Keatah]

I wonder if the cancellation of the ROM is intended to nudge those on the fence (who are waiting for the ROM only option) to buy CIB. Also, I'm not sure how many copies sold, but 200+ copies isn't terrible considering the historical size of the homebrew market. I could see how sales could be somewhat disappointing considering the quality of the game and its reputation, though. Then again, it's not cheap.

 

In trying to bring the discussion back on track..

 

These types of tactics don't work with me. BD is available on 20 other platforms, and if I want to play it I will go elsewhere. Same thing with other releases. Limiting options on an already obscure/insignificant platform does nothing for your sales.

 

For the record - I have BD on the Apple II, original copies too, and I consider it one of the better ports despite all the idiosyncrasies and "lameness" of the graphics sub-system. The original game, written on the 400/800 (IIRC) is pretty lousy because of the drab color choices. The 400/800 is fully capable of doing more.

 

I have not seen or heard the Intellivision version of BD. And it's doubtful I will till it comes to emulation. And that's ok.

 

As for a solution. Today is different than 35 years ago. And business today requires a mindset to fit the times. The best compromise is to plan x amount of sales in cart form. When that is reached, open up the DLC/DRM'ed ROM sales.

[+DZ-Jay]

I wouldn't put it that way. Speaking only for myself, I was thinking of something more like this: "Look, all of us here are a tight-knit community, and I take it for granted that none of us would try to rip off a fellow homebrew author, but as we explore digital distribution of our games, we know that they will fall into the hands of certain other people who have no qualms about piracy. So, is there anything we can do to protect against that without spoiling the fun we've been having so far?"

 

I agree that it's a distasteful topic no matter how it's framed, so it's not surprising that it's remained a hot-button issue. As someone in the other thread said, there are no easy solutions.

I'm sure that's what you wish it meant. Unfortunately, in the real world, things don't actually work the way we wish.

 

There is no "correct" or "nice" way to ask the good guys to give up their rights or to limit their access or usability without making yourself sound like an entitled prat.

[jaybird3rd]

There is no "correct" or "nice" way to ask the good guys to give up their rights or to limit their access or usability without making yourself sound like an entitled prat.

Not to derail this thread any further, but the whole point was to find ways to minimize the piracy problem without "the good guys having to give up their rights or limit their access or usability." I still think it's possible to do that, but not until we can consider the problem in a cool-headed, rational way. Unfortunately, that wasn't possible when I started the other thread about five years ago, and it doesn't seem possible now. That's why I think a new thread on the subject will ultimately prove futile.

[Andromeda Stardust]

Also they claim that the watermarks cannot be removed by decoding and encoding again. Which would mean, the watermark cannot be 100% inaudible.

 

BTW: UMG seems to watermark their uncompressed files. These watermarks must be pretty strong, so that they cannot be removed by encoding. Therefore people using lossless compression can hear the watermarks with their good equipment and trained ears. And are pretty pissed.

 

 

I'm gonna do a test on some auto rip cds. Amazon mp3 typically ripped at specific bitrate, usually 192kbs. CD audio file. CD audio file encoded to LAME MP3. I know stores likely use official encoder, but LAME is based on that and should get similar results. I know from experience that sometimes the entire file can get time-shifted by a few samples. I do not know why this occurs but they can be lined up in audacity.

 

Step two: subtract the compressed file from the lossless file. At 192kbs, a significant decibel boost will need to be applied to make the distortion track audible. 20-24db should work.

 

Step three: listen to the mud pops of the control sample (LAME encoded CDA) and the mud pops of the commercial sample (Amazon autorip mp3 file). If any watermarks exist in the waveform itself, they will need to have a higher amplitude compared to the compression artifacts in order to be detectible.

 

If the mud pop tracks sound similar or the same quality, then no actual watermarking of the waveform itself has taken place, and reencoding will 100% strip any watermark present in the file. I'm not ruling out the possibility that byte order of the encoding algorithm itself could contain anything useful. Normal looking Jpeg images have been known to hold encrypted messages based solely on the formatting and ordering of the 8x8 compression blocks. Forensics have been able to detect Jpegs with manipulated blocks (the temporal quality of the image after compression remains unchanged) but unable to extrapolate the data contained within the message of hidden file if encrypted. Al Qaida was known to use file sharing networks to distribute terrorism related news videos, which were seeded to file sharing networks in the early days of Lime Wire / Gnutella networks during their heyday. The government knew messages were hidden within manipulated bits in the AVI codec, but were unable to reveal the secret messages the terrorists were trying to communicate. If the mp3 files have inaudible manipulated bit order withing the encoding as a watermark, then reencoding the file would effectively strip this mark, although it would also increase the compression artifacts. Only the hidden ID3 tag is blatantly obvious and easy to remove. There is no user identifiable data besides a hash key in hex format identifying the unique user and the content id. The identity of the user and the content would be stored in a database controlled by the store that sells the music.

 

It would make an interesting experiment to copy these hidden id3 tags into public domain or free content audio files and redistribute online. This would automatically raise a flag on any bot that intercepts the file, and severely waste the time of those IP police who will investigate the matter and issue take down notices. These take down notices can be fought back by the uploader arguing the files are public domain, wasting the resources of those content police who will listen to the offending file in question only to find that no infringement has taken place.

 

So if you want to upload some killer home recordings or chiptunes, go ahead and add in the hidden metadata from id3 tags with content keys for known madonna, eminem, beatles, etc recordings. If google blocks your search or you get a ceise and desist, protest it and you will win because the homemade content is non-infringing. If everyone added fake tags to their recordings, the vast majority of flags would be false positives and the content police would give up.

 

What you guys think about deliberately creating false positives?

Edited July 19, 2015 by stardust4ever

[Thomas Jentzsch]

What you guys think about deliberately creating false positives?

Interesting approach, but I doubt it will work well. Even if today hidden ID3 tags are considered sufficient (I doubt that), the IP police can simply adapt their checks. And with today's hardware, checking files for watermarks should be way faster than downloading them.

 

BTW: I think any kind of DRM (incl. watermarking) is not bad in general. But the way the content industry used and uses it has largely ruined its reputation. That's why people react to aggressively whenever this topic is brought up. So if a homebrew developer/publisher should decide to use DRM he will always alienate some people, even if his usage of DRM is 100% fair and with minimal negative impact on the customer.

 

So the first thing to discuss in that case would be, how a sufficient DRM could be implemented with absolutely minimal harm to the rights (private copies, privacy, trading etc.) of the paying customer. Also the motivation behind DRM should be explained very well.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Thomas Jentzsch

[Thomas Jentzsch]

I just read jaybird3rd's thread about DRM again.

 

In the discussion I missed an option, where a file would only be watermarked. There would be no code to check the watermark in the ROM, no copy protection etc. Instead the watermark would be just individual to the customer. This would allow to trace back the origin of a pirated ROM to the original customer buying it. True, one cannot assume that this very customer has pirated the ROM, he might have traded it, it could have been stolen etc. So the watermark is no proof, just another indication.

 

While each link alone may be weak, together they maybe form a pattern. For a pirate and his supporters this would mean, they risk to be not 100% anonymous anymore. Maybe that risk alone would stop some people. And maybe the pattern becomes strong enough to identify people.

 

Such kind of watermarks could be introduced at any time, maybe there are even used already (I am not talking about AA here!) inside our outside the homebrew scene.

 

 

[Mord]

As for a solution. Today is different than 35 years ago. And business today requires a mindset to fit the times. The best compromise is to plan x amount of sales in cart form. When that is reached, open up the DLC/DRM'ed ROM sales.

 

I brought up the idea of Kickstarter a few pages back that I think got completely ignored. Whether used to secure preorders on a rom release or a physical release, I think it has quite a bit of potential. Wait until it's done and ready for release before starting the kickstarter - to avoid any issues with the project ending up vaporware - then work out the details for setting the pledge levels to take into account all costs and the profit desired, including any fees that go to kickstarter itself. If the goal doesn't get reached in the 1-2 months given for the duration, no biggy since at this point you haven't even bothered to actually put the physical copies together beyond any working prototypes. You halt the release and try again a few months later, using that time to polish things a bit more and spread the word of the game, spreading gameplay videos, etc. Not sure why people don't consider this approach more often (Well, I guess this works mostly for original games and licensed/approved ports. Would cause potential issues going to kickstarter with a hacked rom or unlicensed port.)

 

Either way, with this approach you can set up the minimums needed in a concrete way. If you're worried about actually getting too many pledges for the physical product you can always set a maximum/limit the pledges per tier. so it stays within a realistic workload.

[Mord]

In the discussion I missed an option, where a file would only be watermarked. There would be no code to check the watermark in the ROM, no copy protection etc. Instead the watermark would be just individual to the customer. This would allow to trace back the origin of a pirated ROM to the original customer buying it.

 

That does cripple a person's right to resell their product by having fingers pointed at them (or lawsuits.) if who they sold it to does something they shouldn't. You'd also have to trust the developer to properly check for the watermark and blame the correct person to begin with. I remember at least one case where a rom popped up on a warez site within weeks of a homebrew's release and the dev ignored his own watermarking that was easily found inside the rom on the site, and accused other people instead. If anything in that case the watermarking helped prove the accused's innocence, which shouldn't have been necessary.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

That does cripple a person's right to resell their product by having fingers pointed at them (or lawsuits.) if who they sold it to does something they shouldn't.

That's why I said this is only an indication. No one would be pointing fingers in such a case. And I doubt there would be any lawsuits ever in our scene.

 

Instead, maybe nothing would be done at all or maybe the customer would be asked to whom he sold the cart/ROM. That's all.

 

IF (and only IF) multiple pirated ROMs show up, which can be traced back to the same customer AND that customer cannot or does not want to give an explanation, THEN one might consider him supporting pirating.

 

In our scene, this kind of watermark is not something meant to be used for legal actions, instead it puts some kind of social pressure on those who act against the community.

[jaybird3rd]

In our scene, this kind of watermark is not something meant to be used for legal actions, instead it puts some kind of social pressure on those who act against the community.

Exactly. It's about keeping people honest. In a way, it's like the locks on your car: they aren't meant to be an impervious layer of security, and by using the locks, you aren't implicitly accusing your neighbors of wanting to rob you blind at the first opportunity. I still don't understand how something as innocuous as a passive watermark would force anyone to "give up their rights" or "limit their access or usability."

[+DZ-Jay]

Not to derail this thread any further, but the whole point was to find ways to minimize the piracy problem without "the good guys having to give up their rights or limit their access or usability." I still think it's possible to do that, but not until we can consider the problem in a cool-headed, rational way. Unfortunately, that wasn't possible when I started the other thread about five years ago, and it doesn't seem possible now. That's why I think a new thread on the subject will ultimately prove futile.

 

But that's the problem. Consider the problem in a "cool-headed, ration way" presents a false dichotomy. It's like the "Intelligent Design vs. Evolution Theory" discussion -- there is no such thing. There is science, and then there the other stuff, and to put them in equal terms for a discussion is a disservice to science itself.

 

Likewise with DRM: the fact that you are restricting access and avoid piracy means that you do not trust your audience. We expect this from large, cold corporations but not from members of a small and tight community. At that point it cross some personal boundaries that most people are not open; so to ask for a "cool-headed, rational" discussion is like the hangman asking how tight you would like your noose, and what would be the most polite way to ask about it? It's senseless.

 

It is about trust. Like many other things in life, you have to take the good with the bad. In order to have a thriving and happy community that fosters creativity and excellence, you must also deal with the fact that there are idiots and assholes out there that do not want to play by the rules. That's just life. Attempting to limit one, just punishes the other.

 

-dZ.

[+DZ-Jay]

Exactly. It's about keeping people honest. In a way, it's like the locks on your car: they aren't meant to be an impervious layer of security, and by using the locks, you aren't implicitly accusing your neighbors of wanting to rob you blind at the first opportunity. I still don't understand how something as innocuous as a passive watermark would force anyone to "give up their rights" or "limit their access or usability."

 

It would absolutely implicitly "accuse your neighbors of wanting to rob you blind" if you lived in a small island with a couple of neighbors and decided to lock your doors. The same would be true in any small community.

 

Have you noticed that some communities don't have bars in the windows and that everybody's door is usually open during the day? It does happen. And in such communities the one guy who locks his doors and puts up bars on his windows sends a very strong message to the rest. His neighbors may or may not be too bothered about it, but he probably won't be invited to participate at the block party.

 

-dZ.

Edited July 19, 2015 by DZ-Jay

[jaybird3rd]

It would absolutely implicitly "accuse your neighbors of wanting to rob you blind" if you lived in a small island with a couple of neighbors and decided to lock your doors. The same would be true in any small community.

The problem is that, once you open up digital distribution to a worldwide audience, you aren't talking any longer about a small community where everyone knows each other, because you don't know in principle who's going to be downloading that ROM.

 

Let's assume that a hypothetical ROM distributor watermarks their ROMs, and that everyone who buys from them knows this. As Thomas says, if they are aware that a million copies of a ROM on the Web can potentially be traced back to them, they'll be less tempted to casually spread it around, but if they decide to resell their copy to another person or make multiple backups on their own media (both examples of fair use), nobody's going to come beating their door down about it, and nothing in the watermark would prevent them from doing it.

 

Again, how does this punish an honest person? Where's the loss of rights, or the limit on usability?