Who Can You Sue When It's Your Own Copy Protection That Hurt Your Reputation?

from the sue-everyone! dept

Fri, Aug 8th 2008 4:25pm — Mike Masnick

Video game maker Ubisoft has a rather long history of employing crappy DRM (and then even using someone else's code to crack their DRM when it caused problems for legitimate customers). However, this latest story involving a Ubisoft copy protection scheme may be the most bizarre. Chris Gruel writes in to let us know that Ubisoft is suing the CD duplicator firm it used to produce the video game Assassin's Creed, claiming that employees from that firm were responsible for the game leaking to the internet. It appears they have pretty good evidence that this did, in fact, happen (the leak was traced to an IP address controlled by an employee of the firm, and a copy of the game was found at that employee's home). So you can understand why they'd be upset about that (though, they had to realize that it would be pirated eventually).

However, here's where the story gets bizarre. Because Ubisoft was afraid that this might happen, the pre-release copy it sent to the CD duplicator included (on purpose!) a bug that would crash the game partway through. That was the copy that the employee leaked, so Ubisoft is complaining that this leak harmed their reputation, because people claimed the game was really buggy and crashed. Try to keep this straight in your mind here. Ubisoft put their own (crude, yes) DRM on the game because they were afraid it would leak. The game was leaked, and the DRM acted exactly as intended, and thus Ubisoft's reputation was harmed.

It makes you shake your head in wonder.

If Ubisoft had not included this DRM, then it would apparently have less to complain about. Thus, I think the only logical conclusion is that Ubisoft should be suing itself for including such damaging DRM on its own pre-release copies of Assassin's Creed.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copy protection, drm, lawsuits, leaks, reputation, video games
Companies: ubisoft

37 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

eleete, 8 Aug 2008 @ 5:10pm

Willtons WebSite ?
http://www.whocanisue.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2008 @ 5:17pm

IIRC, that one ranting developer of Titan Quest made similarly funny claims.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2008 @ 5:18pm

Err, ranting CEO, apparently.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Paul, 8 Aug 2008 @ 5:38pm

I'm confused
I don't get it. They sent a bugged copy of the game to the CD duplicator... what were they supposed to do with it? It couldn't be duplicated cause it was purposely buggy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
eleete, 8 Aug 2008 @ 6:03pm

Re: I'm confused
You are free to replicate buggy code. Although that is interesting, why not copyright or patent buggy code, and sue those who use it ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 8 Aug 2008 @ 6:06pm

Re: I'm confused
Yeah, what if they pressed that copy to disc?

Lesson here is that if you're a disc presser, don't deal with Ubisoft. You're going to get screwed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
eleete, 8 Aug 2008 @ 6:10pm

Re: Re: I'm confused
you mean sued.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2008 @ 6:20pm

Re: I'm confused
Apparently, they released a patch on the day the game came out that fixed this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 8 Aug 2008 @ 6:37pm

Re: Re: I'm confused
They released a patch that fixed the leaked version?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous of Course, 8 Aug 2008 @ 6:58pm

Re: Re: Re: I'm confused
Get the patch to play the entire game.
It's like a key.

The idea is this, no one can play the entire
game until the patch is released. So in a
sense the CD is a demo version that can be
upgraded to the full version.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anon, 8 Aug 2008 @ 8:58pm

There must be a better method of DRM on games
I understand that DRM doesn't deter anyone intent on cracking it, but it does prevent casual sharing of games. For example, one of my friends bought Oblivion which has absolutely no DRM or copy protection, only a simple disc check. Now all my friends and I have made copies of the disc. Why did we do it? Because it was easy and didn't even risk us getting caught because there was no cracked anything to download.

If there was anything in place to try to stop me from copying the disc, I would have not even bothered and bought the game instead.

I think the biggest issue comes with single-player only games or games that most people won't play online anyway. With multiplayer games, it's easy to prevent sharing because the cd key is sent to the servers, and the game devs can simply deny anyone access if a key is already in use. They can even completely revoke a key if they see it coming from many different ip addresses.

I don't know what the perfect solution is, but there must be something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 8 Aug 2008 @ 10:23pm

Re: There must be a better method of DRM on games
CD Keys to prevent online playing isn't always effective either. There are tons of games that can still be hacked and played online. Games where you host on your computer are the easiest for hackers. A little bit of hacking and the game thinks it gets an ok from the master server that the key is ok. Most of the first person shooters have been hacked and are played online.

The toughest method for most games would be one where you have to log into a master server and start hosting a games from in there. That way the hacker can't get into a game lobby to host or play.

When ever they come up with a protection for locally played games they seemed to get hacked. It will always be this way.

The security on consoles may push a lot of game developers to abandon most computer based games. Consoles are by no means immune to hacking but it is definately a lot more complicated for the average game player.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2008 @ 11:50pm

Re: Re: There must be a better method of DRM on games
Modchip
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2008 @ 11:51pm

Re: Willtons WebSite ?
Ahh, a sign of all that is wrong with america. What is up with this "Who can I sue" attitude?

Screw that!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SRNissen, 9 Aug 2008 @ 1:07am

Usually, I don't care at all about copyright, but: This is not a copyright issue, this is a contract issue.

Ubisoft released buggy code to the OEM. The OEM promised to take security measures X, Y and Z so the buggy code wouldn't get released to the public. There will be an analogy at the bottom of this post. Anyway, the OEM failed to take measures Y and Z, which they were contracted to do. This resulted in the release of buggy code attributed to Ubisoft. As a consequence, Ubisoft is suing for damages caused by this breach of contract.

Analogy: You build a great mock-up of a car. The powered windows don't work and the transmission still hasn't been implemented, so it will only go in 3rd gear. Also: No brakes. Somebody steals (yes yes I know scarce goods contra etc.) this car from the person who promised to guard it for you, because the guard was sitting on his ass, reading Vanity Fair. The thief proceeds to lend this car to every car magazine in the world, then... returns it to you or something so you can fix it and release it "for real." The analogy falls apart because of the Scarce Goods theme, but really, that's an OK analogy. Whether I built a crappy car, or intentionally handicapped my car so a would-be thief couldn't use it, it's still the job of the guard to make sure it isn't stolen - that's what he's being paid for, and if he doesn't, I can sue for damages.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 9 Aug 2008 @ 5:08am

Re: Re: There must be a better method of DRM on games
Why should there be DRM in the first place? The thing that developers never seem to get into their thick skulls is that the *only* people that DRM ever affects is paying customers. I'm penalised if I want to play a game on my laptop while away from home, only to find out I need the CD sitting in a drawer 500 miles away. I'm not allowed to play some older games I can no loner find. Yet, if I'd have just downloaded the pirated version instead of paying good money, I'd not have these problems.

Developers can easily protect their content by other means. Whether it's subscriptions and/or membership for online play, extra downloadable content that depends on validating a purchase or simply making a great game, they can get lots of sales.

The trick is not to make the games more difficult to install and play than the pirated version. The only way to do this is to not include DRM.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 9 Aug 2008 @ 6:27am

Re: Re: Re: There must be a better method of DRM on games
Dunno what happened there, that should have read:

"I'm not allowed to play some older games I can no longer find the manuals for, as I need to enter codes before I can play."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2008 @ 6:45am

Re:
So Vanity Fair should sue the car magazines for copyright infringement?

I'm lost in that analogy, and I can't get out!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Todd Loren SInlair, 9 Aug 2008 @ 7:34am

The DRM model needs to change to -
Look... the fact is no matter what they do someone will crack it.

People that use pirated software weren't going to buy it in the first place.

So .... take out the expense of installing and managing DRM and you're still ahead of the game. (pun)

If you must have DRM ... the only thing that comes close to working is an activation type scheme like Microsoft uses ... its not a %100 but it makes it too difficult for most people to attempt.

You can't stop real pirates.

This whole lawsuit article just points out what a bad decision DRM is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2008 @ 10:41am

Re: The DRM model needs to change to -
"If you must have DRM ... the only thing that comes close to working is an activation type scheme like Microsoft uses ... its not a %100 but it makes it too difficult for most people to attempt."

LOL Microsoft Activation, really what more is there to say.

Microsoft products are arguably the most pirated software on Earth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dan, 9 Aug 2008 @ 2:39pm

The only effective way to prevent piracy is a system like Steam.

Even then, hackers will always be one step ahead. DRM is ultimately pointless and only harms legit customers and the devs themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2008 @ 2:47pm

I don't see what this has to do with DRM. Ubisoft paid the CD pressing company to safeguard its software and signed a contract on the matter. The CD pressing company violated the terms of the contract, and admitted to it. Thus the CD pressing company was at fault, and the lawsuit is valid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2008 @ 4:04pm

Re:
You're totally right. It's in the CD companies hands to make sure that they hire employees that aren't going to leak software for piracy. Their entire business is based off of that, so by having that leak occur in the first place, the CD company didn't do one of their main jobs. It's not Ubisoft's fault the game was linked it was the CD companies, and Ubisoft deserve some sort of compensation because of that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lex, 9 Aug 2008 @ 5:50pm

Actually, this makes sense to me. Their arguement is that the bugged copy that was leaked was misrepresented as the complete and finished product. Since it had the crash bug on it (which was never intended to be released to the public in the retail version of the game) it was falsley colouring the game as buggy and full of problems. This hurts Ubisoft's reputation. Either way the bug was not supposed to be part of the retail version. Imagine if they (those who leaked the game) took the finished product, and put bugs into it and passed it around as the finished game. Wouldn't that hurt Ubisoft's reputation? No matter why the bug was there, it wasn't there in the retail version. The CD company employees are at fault. I think the CD duplicating company needs to screen their employees better, or instil harsher punishments to those employees who would be so casual about ripping off one of the duplicating companies customers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
YosefMama, 10 Aug 2008 @ 3:40am

uh duh
The writer of this article is a bit excitable, to say the least. The suit makes total sense. Lex got most of the points, so I'll defer to his post.

I hope Ubisoft gets justice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Xanius, 10 Aug 2008 @ 7:14am

Re: Re: The DRM model needs to change to -
Most pirated because it's the most used. It's like when they say the honda civic is the most stolen car, of course it is damn near everybody has one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Co-mentor, 10 Aug 2008 @ 10:06pm

why bother
Why bother suing for their reputation being damaged when they should be suing for the leak in the first place? It seems to me that this was a case of entrapment and they are just being greedy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Spectere, 10 Aug 2008 @ 11:10pm

Re: uh duh
The leak isn't the issue here.

The problem is that Ubisoft intentionally added a bug to the code in the version that was eventually leaked. The bug that was intentionally added is the very one that they claim is ruining their reputation.

So basically, the duplication firm is most certainly responsible for the leak. Ubisoft, however, is responsible for intentionally introducing the bug that supposedly tarnished their reputation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anonymous, 10 Aug 2008 @ 11:27pm

WTF??
More game manufacturers should release demos that are easily accessable. Then people would have a chande to try the game first... with so many games coming out today it is hard to decide and a good demo makes us want to buy a game. No demo makes us want to just download the whole thing. Regardless of a game's reviews... when it comes to PC gaming, sometimes a game just does not run properly on your machine and a good demo gives the piece of mind that it will actually run right before dropping $50.00. As far as DRM... someone always cracks it... starting with a good business plan and being loyal to your customers is one way to build loyal fans who will want to pay money for a legit copy of the game.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 11 Aug 2008 @ 2:00am

Re:
Since it had the crash bug on it (which was never intended to be released to the public in the retail version of the game) it was falsley colouring the game as buggy and full of problems.

If Ubisoft never intended for this version to be leaked, why did it include the bug?

If it didn't intend for the copy to get leaked, then don't include the bug and there's no problem.

Imagine if they (those who leaked the game) took the finished product, and put bugs into it and passed it around as the finished game. Wouldn't that hurt Ubisoft's reputation?

Yes, but that would actually be the other company's fault. In this case Ubisoft put the bug in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2008 @ 4:31am

Obviously . . .
Ubisoft should be suing its own customers, after all they are the real criminals right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Bennett, 11 Aug 2008 @ 6:57am

The thing is, legally, Ubisoft might have a case. It's kinda like how when someone crashes their car into you, injures you, you can sue for damages. If you weren't wearing a seatbelt, you'll get more injured. That's your fault, but you still have a right to sue for the damages caused. Theoretically the defendant could point that out in court, but it never really works out that way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
r. decline, 11 Aug 2008 @ 8:20am

ubi could be right?
somebody at the cd pressing place acts illegally by sending out a copy of something they shouldn't. i'm no fan of DRM but really it seems Ubi could send them whatever they want to and if they are told to not release it, they shouldn't.
i mean lets say its a virus and you are a storage company. if i send it to you and say, don't let anyone take this but us and you relaase it into the population, its your fault...unless maybe i cheaped out and used bob's second hand storage place, then i hold some blame for picking such a crappy place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 11 Aug 2008 @ 8:25am

Random crashes?
Why random crashes? I would have it come up with a screen that says, "This version of the game is a stolen pre-release copy from "CD Manufacturer" that was not intended for distribution. You will not be able to complete your game without buying a legitimate copy. Press OK to Exit."

Isn't that better than getting a reputation for games that crash randomly?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2008 @ 8:32am

Re: There must be a better method of DRM on games
You and your friends could stop stealing whenever its "easy". That might help . . . {sigh}
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2008 @ 11:09am

Re: Random crashes?
Yeah I agree, personally this entire "inserting broken code" stuff smells like a load of crap to me. There are just too many more effective ways to accomplish the expressed goal here. The idea of compiling, mastering, manufacturing and distributing thousands of disks with knowingly broken code on them just seems way too rediculously stupid for me to believe anyone ever did it.

I think these "broken code" stories have way more to do with creating an impression in the marketplace that bootleg leg code is broken code, then anything else. As a way to track and protect code, it just doesnt make any sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Phil McCraken, 13 Aug 2008 @ 8:48am

Re: There must be a better method of DRM on games
I don't know what the perfect solution is, but there must be something.

Yeah, buy the game you fucking pirate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]