Boulder Dash ROM will not be released

[Thomas Jentzsch]

 

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.

I would agree with you, if we would be such a community, where all we know each other. But even though our community is pretty small, we are not living on the same island. Many if not most of us, know each other only virtually. We have never met in real life.

 

Also, while I am an in the scene for 15 years now, I have build up full trust in maybe 30 people or so. Then there are maybe 50 people which I know by their (nick)name, but without knowing them much better. And maybe 10 people, where I know that I cannot trust them. Plus a few 100 people which I don't know at all.

 

So your analogy doesn't quite fit. And the difference is the reason why we are talking here.

[+DZ-Jay]

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?

 

 

I think we're just talking past each other. My point on that post is that you can't have it both ways: you can't go for global distribution of a mass market and have a small and supportive community. Well you can, but you will have to compromise between the two. At that point, you are neither fish nor fowl, you are between both worlds, and naturally will lose some of the benefits that come from that small and supportive community for the gains of the other. This comes at its own price, since it may be seen as opportunistic or exploitative. It just happens, and you can't be surprise when efforts to combat bad behaviour in one results in ruffled feathers on the other. Perception is reality.

 

 

 

I would agree with you, if we would be such a community, where all we know each other. But even though our community is pretty small, we are not living on the same island. Many if not most of us, know each other only virtually. We have never met in real life.

 

Also, while I am an in the scene for 15 years now, I have build up full trust in maybe 30 people or so. Then there are maybe 50 people which I know by their (nick)name, but without knowing them much better. And maybe 10 people, where I know that I cannot trust them. Plus a few 100 people which I don't know at all.

 

So your analogy doesn't quite fit. And the difference is the reason why we are talking here.

 

Not to be taken literally, of course.

 

The analogy fits because our respective communities are a niche of passionate individuals, notwithstanding your aim at grander audiences. Go ask the mass market audience which is the best way to conduct your business -- see if they care enough to respond. Now, ask your close nit community of followers that trust you, how to best stop those pesky thieves that keep stealing your ROMs ("I don't mean you, really; it's the bad people, I swear!") -- oh, they will care.

 

And here we are.

[+DZ-Jay]

Let me just say that I am not accusing any of you of doing anything bad or wrong. I am just trying to elucidate why any effort at engaging the community in DRM discussions are doomed to fail, and why it should absolutely not be surprising to anyone that this happens.

 

"Every time I try to talk about it, it turns into a nasty discussion... I don't know why " If you honestly do not know then, well, that's part of the problem and you can't blame the community by imagining them a bunch of inconsiderate, entitled, ignorant, stubborn, reactive or whatever you think they are for not accepting the challenge on your terms.

 

I hope this has been productive.

 

-dZ.

Edited July 19, 2015 by DZ-Jay

[jaybird3rd]

Well, perhaps now everyone can see why I say that this is an issue that people aren't prepared to think clearly about. Even raising the possibility of something as innocuous as a watermark, something which inhibits nobody's fair use and would be completely invisible to honest users, gets you compared to a paranoid crackpot, a cold corporation, and a hangman with a noose. As long as that irrational attitude is in place, the idea of digital distribution, along with the added convenience it could bring to users with multicarts and the potentially larger audiences it could reach, is best forgotten about.

[+DZ-Jay]

Well, perhaps now everyone can see why I say that this is an issue that people aren't prepared to think clearly about. Even raising the possibility of something as innocuous as a watermark, something which inhibits nobody's fair use and would be completely invisible to honest users, gets you compared to a paranoid crackpot, a cold corporation, and a hangman with a noose. As long as that irrational attitude is in place, the whole idea of digital distribution (and the potentially larger audiences it could reach) is best forgotten about.

 

False dichotomy, dude. Read above. Also, it's a poor warrior that blames his weapons for missing his target.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Let's not generalize here. There will always people on both sides of an argument, which behave partially or completely irrational. We must allow those few to make a rational discussion impossible.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Thomas Jentzsch

[jaybird3rd]

False dichotomy, dude. Read above. Also, it's a poor warrior that blames his weapons for missing his target.

I don't think I "missed the target" at all. You say that the mere act of putting watermarks in ROMs would introduce such a toxic undercurrent of distrust and paranoia that it would undermine the homebrew community spirit. I say that there's no rational basis for believing this, and you haven't provided any evidence to the contrary, beyond repeatedly asserting that "that's what will happen whether you like to admit it or not, dude." I don't think that's a sufficient reason for abandoning the whole idea of digital distribution.

[+DZ-Jay]

I don't think I "missed the target" at all. You say that the mere act of putting watermarks in ROMs would introduce such a toxic undercurrent of distrust and paranoia that it would undermine the homebrew community spirit. I say that there's no rational basis for believing this, and you haven't provided any evidence to the contrary, beyond repeatedly asserting that "that's what will happen whether you like to admit it or not, dude." I don't think that's a sufficient reason for abandoning the whole idea of digital distribution.

 

@jaybird3rd, I was generalizing and responding to the "I don't understand why this is?" comments, not specifically addressing watermarking. However, if its purpose is to track distribution and usage, I can see how it may be perceived negatively. To me it is perplexing why some can't see that it would be perceived as such.

 

And again I reiterate that perception shapes reality in human interactions, rational or not. Considering human behaviour at its base will help guide the discussion. Ignoring it as a mere artefact or technicality is why nobody wants to discuss the topic.

[Andromeda Stardust]

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.

 

 

This is extremely common with limited edition (LE) homebrew, especially in the NES scene. There is a reserve thread where people can reserve copies of the game, and often get to pick their own number by first come, first serve. This number is printed into the label, box, and also oftentimes embedded into the title screen. A potential dumper would also need the skills to hack the ROM to remove the watermark from the title screen, for instance altering the ROM to display an invalid number like #00, or worse place the blame on someone else. It is typically public info who got which number, and often sales are conducted in puclic threads too, leaving a paper trail.

 

 

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.

Sad. See above where sales or change in ownership is often publicly accessible on a forum.

 

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.

Agreed.

 

Ideally, the ROM may contain the watermark in multiple locations or contain a checksum to thwart tampering. The title screen may display the edition number in decimal format (ie #17 may be 01 07 in the ROM and displayed onscreen as characters, but the homebrew author may have the edition number encoded in hex 11h at an undisclosed ROM location. The dumper hacks the title screen to display say 23, another forum member's number (possibly someone he hates or wants to frame). The ROM gets leaked to Warez site and immediately forum members point fingers at the owner of LE #23, who is still in posession of the game and has not resold it. Then the homebrew author or those involved in production download the ROM and check the undisclosed address for the hex watermark, to reveal the real culprit. The owner of LE #17 is identified as the true culprit and banned from pruchasing future homebrew.

 

Also RetroUSB's UNROM 512 homebrew mapper is used for most new homebrew games, which uses flash ROM to store game data and high scores. Most emulators besides an experimental build of FCEU do not support this mapper (assigned iNES mapper 30) and currently available flash carts (Powerpak or Everdrive N8) do not support it, making piracy difficult.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

However, if its purpose is to track distribution and usage, I can see how it may be perceived negatively.

I can see that it could be perceived negatively. But doesn't the seller belong to the same community as the customer? If one side requests trust from the other side, can the other side not request the same?

 

Which is, that watermarks in no way are meant and used for anything else but tracking down pirates?

 

Of course, not all people act rational at all times.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Thomas Jentzsch

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Ideally, the ROM may contain the watermark in multiple locations or contain a checksum to thwart tampering. The title screen may display the edition number in decimal format (ie #17 may be 01 07 in the ROM and displayed onscreen as characters, but the homebrew author may have the edition number encoded in hex 11h at an undisclosed ROM location. The dumper hacks the title screen to display say 23, another forum member's number (possibly someone he hates or wants to frame). The ROM gets leaked to Warez site and immediately forum members point fingers at the owner of LE #23, who is still in posession of the game and has not resold it. Then the homebrew author or those involved in production download the ROM and check the undisclosed address for the hex watermark, to reveal the real culprit. The owner of LE #17 is identified as the true culprit and banned from pruchasing future homebrew.

To avoid any wrong finger pointing I would even include any information into the ROM which can be decoded by anyone else. Neither on the screen or inside the ROM.

 

So watermarking would lead to even less wrong finger pointing than numbered releases.

[Andromeda Stardust]

Detecting watermarked ROMs would require purchasing two copies, then dumping both and comparing them in a hex editor. If the ROMs are identical, then no watermarking took place. If the ROMs are different, then a watermark exists and it's location is revealed. Assuming the ROM does not also run a checksum on itself to prevent tampering, or otherwise self verify the integrity of said watermake, then the watermarked bits could be filled with 00 or FF, effectively stripping it.

 

That said, I have no issues with watermarked ROMs, physical or digital, or using odd mappers as a means to copy-protect carts. It's of no concern unless the recipient plans on sharing or distributing it. I just have issue with DRM with real encryption, or attempts at preventing the user from making personal backups or enjoying his/her game on any hardware/software device or player. By their very nature, flash cart devices especially should not come with DRM support as this goes against the purpose of the device.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Detecting watermarked ROMs would require purchasing two copies, then dumping both and comparing them in a hex editor. If the ROMs are identical, then no watermarking took place. If the ROMs are different, then a watermark exists and it's location is revealed. Assuming the ROM does not also run a checksum on itself to prevent tampering, or otherwise self verify the integrity of said watermake, then the watermarked bits could be filled with 00 or FF, effectively stripping it.

It's not that easy by far. Read my post above.

[Keatah]

If you sell/trade a rom you inform the publisher to update their watermark database. Or perhaps the publisher can give roms to trusted folks only?

 

I still like the idea of the rom becoming available after x amount of cart sales is completed. This gives another round sales, albeit at a smaller profit. And at a certain point, later still again, the effort needed to make even one sale exceeds the profit. You then make the rom available for free. That's when you become a "nice" publisher and everyone begins to like you. This token of goodwill makes your future products more attractive.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Keatah

[108 Stars]

I don't want a game to be watermarked either. The point is I pay for it, and I am free to do as I please with it, except distribute it. I don't want to be asked questions if I decide to sell; I don't want to inform the publisher so he can keep track of where his ROM went. I don't want to leave a trace with what I do. Same as I don't want to be watched by cameras, even if I don't intend to commit a crime.

 

This talk is okay imo when it comes to commercially viable releases for modern systems; I get that there is serious money at stake.

 

But right now we are talking a tiny, tiny community of enthusiasts. I believe there is no neccessity for this at all. Even if a ROM is illegally hosted somewhere... what do you think how many people will care? When you are into Intellivision, you are a very specialized player or collector. One of very few. It takes love for the system that few people have to want to play a game, especially one that is available on other systems in superior and easier to play forms. People in such a small community will buy it, and the people who really do download it illegally... most likely are people who would never seriously pay for an Intellivision game to begin with. It's talk about pretty extravagant measures to keep a hand ful of people from stealing, while risking to alienate a larger number of fans.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

I don't want a game to be watermarked either. The point is I pay for it, and I am free to do as I please with it, except distribute it. I don't want to be asked questions if I decide to sell; I don't want to inform the publisher so he can keep track of where his ROM went. I don't want to leave a trace with what I do. Same as I don't want to be watched by cameras, even if I don't intend to commit a crime.

I my world, you won't. Also I wouldn't be interested into ROM downloads. I just would care if other people make money with pirating my work.

 

Only if your ROM is getting pirated that way I would ask you.

[freewheel]

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

 

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

 

But Boulder Dash isn't a Homebrew.

 

[GroovyBee]

I my world, you won't. Also I wouldn't be interested into ROM downloads. I just would care if other people make money with pirating my work.

 

Only if your ROM is getting pirated that way I would ask you.

Its more difficult to pirate Inty games than many systems of its time because of the following:

• BITD game PCBs cannot be reused with modern components.
• It has a multiplexed address and data bus with several h/w addressing modes.
• 16 bit data requires two flash chips (unless you do something neat).

To overcome those obstacles it takes extra logic that is best handled by a PLD/FPGA or a microcontroller based design like my Bee3s. Which ultimately means that you need PCBs specifically created for homebrew use.

[freewheel]

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.

 

I think you're so stuck on framing the argument to have the outcome you desire that you're incapable of seeing the bigger picture.

 

DRM has been discussed to death when it comes to digital media. In a cool-headed, rational way. It's futile to discuss further because there's literally no form of DRM that a) is uncrackable, and b) does not infringe on consumer's rights in some fashion. If you're convinced that there is, no wonder you dislike the discussion.

 

Now, you personally may not see b) as a problem, because the infringement is either incredibly minor or something that you personally will never experience, but it still exists. It has to exist. There is simply no way for a computer to distinguish between "fair use" and "piracy". It's the same copying operation. Anything you do to restrict it, track it, or otherwise control it can and will eventually bite one of your customers in the ass.

 

This has been proven time and time and time again in every form of media that DRM has been applied to.

[GroovyBee]

If you sell/trade a rom you inform the publisher to update their watermark database.

I agree with 108 Stars. Once I purchase something, it should be mine to do with as I wish. I do not want to report its "last known position" if I sell it on, trade it, lose it or otherwise.

[freewheel]

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."

 

Actually, it's the exact opposite of your analogy. The locks on my car are to keep random people out. DRM is designed to keep the customer out, subject to certain conditions.

 

It's more like if Ford installed locks on your car, locks that you did not have full control over, that didn't operate if you didn't use Ford branded gas. Or pay Ford an ongoing license fee for access to the car that you bought. Or you couldn't sell the car without Ford's permission (new owner couldn't open the locks).

 

For the record, I *am* implicitly accusing my neighbours of wanting to steal my car (and by that, I mean anyone who can come within touching distance of my car, so pretty much the entire continent). Because it's MY car. I bought it. It's not Ford's car. They don't control who gets to drive it. I do.

 

(Not that I'd drive a Ford, but it's an easy example )

[freewheel]

 

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?

 

I sell my watermarked ROM and the person who buys it off me shares it with the world. Or I get hacked and my files are stolen. Or I lose my laptop. Or any of 100x ways my files can get spread around without my explicit intent of "piracy". Who gets blamed?

 

This honestly has never occurred to you?

 

[freewheel]

Well, perhaps now everyone can see why I say that this is an issue that people aren't prepared to think clearly about. Even raising the possibility of something as innocuous as a watermark, something which inhibits nobody's fair use and would be completely invisible to honest users, gets you compared to a paranoid crackpot, a cold corporation, and a hangman with a noose. As long as that irrational attitude is in place, the idea of digital distribution, along with the added convenience it could bring to users with multicarts and the potentially larger audiences it could reach, is best forgotten about.

 

You're completely wrong. We can have all sorts of discussion about digital distribution, multicarts, the larger audience, etc. We do it all the time here. Many developers have released their ROMs for free for use on multicarts. Many sell them. All DRM-free.

 

We just have to accept that people will be able to copy our product. Exactly as happens with every other form of digital media out there, much of which rakes in billions of dollars a year.

 

People have been dumping carts for decades. The people who know how to do this are some of the very same people purchasing homebrew carts from existing publishers. Yet homebrew piracy isn't destroying that market.

 

Most businesses have long accepted that a small amount of piracy is going to happen no matter what they do, because at its core DRM can never be perfect. The secret is to provide value, convenience, and treat your customers with respect.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

I sell my watermarked ROM and the person who buys it off me shares it with the world. Or I get hacked and my files are stolen. Or I lose my laptop. Or any of 100x ways my files can get spread around without my explicit intent of "piracy". Who gets blamed?

You would get "asked" not "blamed". You tell what happened and that's it. Only when your laptops are "hacked"/"stolen" regularly you should start worrying.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

It's more like if Ford installed locks on your car...

You cannot copy a Ford for free.

 

Software is completely different to hardware here. That's why copy protection, DRMs, serial numbers etc. exist.