Thursday, May 2nd, 2019

Time	Event
10:14a	Controversial Wikipedia Edits Wipe Out Denuvo Crack History There can be little doubt that Wikipedia is one of the greatest resources of information available online today. The platform has plenty of critics but generally there’s a credible effort to ensure that the data presented to readers is properly researched and sourced. That’s also true for the Wikipedia page dedicated to the anti-piracy technology known as Denuvo. The anti-tamper system is the most well-known product of its type and is regularly deployed on various gaming titles, much to the disappointment of many legitimate purchasers and the vast majority of pirates. As a result, Denuvo has become a target for cracking groups, who aim to defeat the technology in the quickest possible time. Up until recently, people wanting to see a convenient list of Denuvo titles and their ‘cracked or not’ status had two obvious choices. They could visit Reddit’s appropriately-named /r/crackwatch subreddit or head over to Denuvo’s Wikipedia page, where an entire column was dedicated to the news. This week, however, a dispute broke out behind the scenes at Wikipedia, as first publicly highlighted by a poster on Reddit’s /r/pcgaming sub. This resulted in the removal of most of the link sources in the ‘cracked’ column, later followed by the deletion of the entire column, as shown in the image below. Without going into the minutiae (which is best handled by those more au fait with the rules, intricacies, and etiquette of Wikipedia editing), one of the key reasons the column was removed (the other is detailed here) was that the source of the material relied upon to prove that a crack actually exists isn’t acceptable. As clearly illustrated in this earlier version of the page, many of the links led to sites (such as Xrel.to) which are dedicated to archiving so-called NFO text files that cracking groups distribute with their releases. These files are usually very informative, providing key information about each release, who made it, and when it was distributed etc. However, according to the people who made the decisions behind the scenes on Denuvo’s page, sites like Xrel are not reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. They do not carry absolute proof that a game has been cracked, they only carry text files that claim that to be the case, they argue. “I do not see how this can be an accurate proof whether a game is cracked or not since this site does not offer any cracks, they just have (easy to fake) nfo files. Notice about not reliable source exist since August 2016 but has been ignored by authors,” one of the editors commented. Those who understand how sites like Xrel and many pre-databases work will probably be disappointed that they’re not considered legitimate sources. Fake NFO files are simply not tolerated and any sites publishing them would be quickly called out by their users and/or abandoned for a more accurate source. In this case the Wikipedia rules are being strictly enforced, which creates problems. Clearly, posting a link to a torrent of a cracked game wouldn’t be acceptable, so an NFO database is usually the next best thing. Sadly, however, we know from experience that NFO files don’t meet Wikipedia’s standards. It has been many years ago now and I no longer have the original emails to quote from. However, I can confirm having a short conversation with Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales who was very clear that sites like Xrel (I believe we were actually talking about the now-defunct Nforce NFO database at the time) are not acceptable sources for Wikipedia. This presents a challenge moving forward. Given that there are so many pirate releases every single day, there is no source for them that meets Wikipedia standards, unless a credible news source reports on each and every one. Clearly, reporting on everything isn’t necessary but it’s a shame that properly curated and maintained resources for release data can’t be used on the Denuvo page. The fact that games have been cracked can still be reported in the body of the page, but the easy reference column appears to have gone for good. Given Denuvo’s controversial nature, there’s some speculation that the edits were designed to protect the company’s position. However, as numerous people have pointed out, potential customers in the video game industry won’t be using Wikipedia as their primary research platform before deciding whether to spend money with Denuvo. Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons. (Comment on this)
9:06p	New “Small Claims” Bill Welcomed by Rightsholders, Feared by Copyright Troll Fighters This week, new legislation was tabled in the U.S. House and Senate that introduces the creation of a “small claims” process for copyright offenses. The CASE Act, short for “Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement,” proposes to establish a copyright claim board within the United States Copyright Office. If adopted, the new board will provide an option to resolve copyright disputes outside the federal courts, which significantly reduces the associated costs. The proposal follows years of discussions with various stakeholders and has bipartisan support. The House version of the bill (HR 2426) was introduced by Representatives Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Doug Collins (R-GA) and an identical Senate version of the CASE Act (S. 1273) was tabled by  Senators John Kennedy (R-LA), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI). The idea behind the legislation is to lower the barrier for smaller copyright holders with limited resources, who usually refrain from going to court. Filing a federal case with proper representation is quite costly, while the outcome is rather uncertain. The newly proposed copyright claims board is a cheaper option. It will have three judges who can hear cases from all over the country. They can award damages awards of up to $15,000 per infringement, or $30,000 per case. The introduction of the bill this week has received broad support from various copyright holder groups.  The Copyright Alliance, for example, says that it will empower creators with smaller budgets to protect their rights. “The CASE Act is a legislative priority for hundreds of thousands of photographers, illustrators, graphic artists, songwriters, and authors, as well as a new generation of creators including bloggers and YouTubers across the country,” Copyright Alliance CEO Keith Kupferschmid Copyright Alliance CEO Keith Kupferschmid said yesterday. “Today, they have rights but no remedies. The CASE Act will go a long way to restoring their faith in the copyright system.” The American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) is also pleased with the introduction of the CASE Act. Many photographers have to deal with people and companies who use their work without permission. However, filing a court case can be more expensive than the compensation demanded. Tom Kennedy, executive director of ASMP, stated that the new bill will correct this “historic inequity” in copyright law. “Under this legislation, these artists will have a viable alternative to the often prohibitively expensive federal court system, and their creative efforts will be appropriately protected so that they are incentivized to continue producing works that change how people see their world,” Kennedy said. At the same time, there are also concerns. Digital rights groups Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)  warn that the bill could do more harm than good. One of the main concerns is that it may make it easier for copyright trolls to go after alleged file-sharers. The EFF and various attorneys and other experts shared several of their concerns in a letter sent to lawmakers last week. One issue highlighted in the letter is that the CASE Act will allow the Copyright Office to issue subpoenas to obtain the identity of an account holder whose connection is believed to have been used to download copyright-infringing material. At the moment, such requests have to be signed off by a federal judge. The letter further points out that the CASE Act may in fact make it easier for copyright trolls to go after alleged pirates without solid evidence, just when federal courts are starting to limit these types of abuse. “The federal courts are reining in these abuses by demanding specific and reliable evidence of infringement—more than boilerplate allegations—before issuing subpoenas for the identity of an alleged infringer,” the letter reads. “Some federal courts have also undertaken reviews of copyright troll plaintiffs’ communications with their targets with an eye to preventing coercion and intimidation. These reforms have reduced the financial incentive for the abusive business model of copyright trolling. “The CASE Act threatens to derail this progress by creating an alternative forum where these carefully crafted protections will not apply,” the letter adds. It is worth noting that participation in the small claims board is voluntary and potential defendants can opt-out. However, if they fail to do so, any order against them can still be binding and enforceable through a federal court. While opting out is an option, less knowledgeable defendants may not be aware of the risks and safeguards of either choice. As such, potential copyright troll targets may see a small claims board as a safer option, while that’s not necessarily the case. Both the House and the Senate bill have yet to go through the legislative process where the text can still be refined or rejected. Opponents will likely request changes to protect the public from frivolous claims, while rightsholders want to ensure that their interests are protected. Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons. (Comment on this)

<< Previous Day

2019/05/02 [Calendar]

Next Day >>