Most people i see with jailbroken iphones have installous, they dont even download the free apps from the appstore 
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Piracy Cripples iOS Game in Less than a Week
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Free anti-piracy libraries are not going to provide any extra layer of protection over cracking, the fact that the whole code is published on the internet somewhere means that anyone could bypass it by just looking for the predefined function calls.
Most anti-piracy measures takes much longer to implement than it does for someone to crack it, either by running an automated script or by bypassing the code altogether. For many indie developers those precious hours are better spent making a half decent game rather than coming up with convoluted ways to stop someone cracking the .ipa.
Piracy is never going to be totally eradicated, the best you can hope is that you can hold the pirates off until you have turned a profit, but it only takes one person to feed it to the world.
I am sure those project managers, graphic arts, and developers worked for free...
It's funny seeing all these armchair lawyers.
If you think piracy is stealing/theft, call your lawyer and ask them what they think. It's *not* theft - it's copyright infringement which isn't even illegal in most countries, let alone being theft (in the UK for example it's a civil matter, not a criminal one).
If you think piracy is stealing/theft, call your lawyer and ask them what they think. It's *not* theft - it's copyright infringement which isn't even illegal in most countries, let alone being theft (in the UK for example it's a civil matter, not a criminal one).
This is what always mystifies me.
These devices they play/use their pirated games/apps on cost hundreds of £/$//¥/whatever, yet, they can't afford the pittance that most developers ask for the use of their hard work?
It doesn't make sense.
Look at this way, your car is back in the morning, but the gas tank is empty. The developer has a cost for every copy that isn't paid for...
US ISPs need to follow the law
ISPs asked congress for a shield from copyright liability and they got it in the DMCA in 1998. Now they abuse the law they asked for and have reneged on their agreement with congress and the American people. US law says that ISPs only have safe harbor from their subscribers illegally distributing content if they have a policy for terminating repeat infringers (17 USC 512 (i). If they were doing this, 42% of all US internet upstream traffic wouldn't be used to illegally distribute music, movies, games, software and ebooks. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics says that musicians wages are down 45% since p2p technology arrived. US Home video sales (DVD, BluRay, PayTV, VOD, Streaming) are down 25% to $18.5B in 2011 from $25B in 2006.
The first BitTorrent search engines debuted in 2004. Recorded music is down worldwide from $27B in 1999 (Napster) to $15B in 2011. Video Game revenue (consoles & PC) is down 13% from 2007. In the meantime US broadband revenues grew from zero to $50B a year in the US with p2p as the killer app that drove broadband adoption. Those are real jobs lost that are not coming back until the public realizes that these are your friends and neighbors whose careers are being destroyed by lack of copyright enforcement. Who is destroying these industries? ISPs who ignore the law 17 USC 512 (i) and do not terminate repeat infringers. US Telecom makes >$400B a year, US creative industries less than <$80B a year. Verizon $120B a year, Electronic Arts $4B, Viacom (CBS, MTV & Paramount Pictures) $14B a year, Warner Music Group $2.4B a year.
ISPs asked congress for a shield from copyright liability and they got it in the DMCA in 1998. Now they abuse the law they asked for and have reneged on their agreement with congress and the American people. US law says that ISPs only have safe harbor from their subscribers illegally distributing content if they have a policy for terminating repeat infringers (17 USC 512 (i). If they were doing this, 42% of all US internet upstream traffic wouldn't be used to illegally distribute music, movies, games, software and ebooks. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics says that musicians wages are down 45% since p2p technology arrived. US Home video sales (DVD, BluRay, PayTV, VOD, Streaming) are down 25% to $18.5B in 2011 from $25B in 2006.
The first BitTorrent search engines debuted in 2004. Recorded music is down worldwide from $27B in 1999 (Napster) to $15B in 2011. Video Game revenue (consoles & PC) is down 13% from 2007. In the meantime US broadband revenues grew from zero to $50B a year in the US with p2p as the killer app that drove broadband adoption. Those are real jobs lost that are not coming back until the public realizes that these are your friends and neighbors whose careers are being destroyed by lack of copyright enforcement. Who is destroying these industries? ISPs who ignore the law 17 USC 512 (i) and do not terminate repeat infringers. US Telecom makes >$400B a year, US creative industries less than <$80B a year. Verizon $120B a year, Electronic Arts $4B, Viacom (CBS, MTV & Paramount Pictures) $14B a year, Warner Music Group $2.4B a year.
So it's not wrong that he's taking the software, trying it, then making the purchase decision - it's wrong that he's doing this without the seller's consent. Okay.
Again, my post was referring to the guy who said he will pirate the game, try it out, and if he likes it then buy it. If he ends up liking it, the end result is no different than if he paid for it before using it. If he doesn't like it, then he got a small amount of time of use with the app for free. Okay.
You are correct. Again, I'm focusing on the ends justifying the means. The ends are still the company getting paid. So the only difference is whether the user paid upfront or not, and the issue of the company not wanting this to happen.
Developers don't control the terms of the App Store - Apple does. And in Taiwan, there is a 7-day return policy, put in place in the App Store by Apple.
In that sense, it's unfair to non-Taiwanese App Store purchasers that Apple doesn't provide this benefit. So would it be okay if a pirate said they were pirating because they want this 7-day return policy and until they get it from Apple, they will download an app for free and try it before buying it?
Alternative To Pirating Games
If you like to pirate gaames, download the app Appshopper. Go through the app store and put 300-400 apps that you want on your wishlist. Set up notification alerts on your device so that when an app in your wishlist drops in price or becomes free, you will be notified. You will find within no time that you are downloading more apps than you can possibly play for FREE LEGALLY. Devs are constantly dropping prices and making their apps free if you know when they drop in price. No need to do anything illegal.
If you like to pirate gaames, download the app Appshopper. Go through the app store and put 300-400 apps that you want on your wishlist. Set up notification alerts on your device so that when an app in your wishlist drops in price or becomes free, you will be notified. You will find within no time that you are downloading more apps than you can possibly play for FREE LEGALLY. Devs are constantly dropping prices and making their apps free if you know when they drop in price. No need to do anything illegal.
In that particular case, I would argue that an in-app purchase is a legally binding contract, even if you managed to convince the app to give you your in-app purchase without you handing over money. So anybody with $10,000 of "cheated" in-app purchases actually owes the developer that amount of money. Would be fun if the started finding out identities and suing.
Most people i see with jailbroken iphones have installous, they dont even download the free apps from the appstore
point being..?
It would still be better to have a trial period available on iOS, and it would fit better, too. Android makes it easy to pirate, iOS does not. That is why there is a greater amount of piracy.
If your software has a price, I can't walk into a retail store to try it, unless it just happens to be one of the few they have installed. That's pretty unreliable. We did just install a game my daughter tried at Apple while I was picking something up, so that does work if possible. But that was a free app, anyway.
"technical issues"?
Am I the only one mystified by that sentence?
Looks like the high number of pirates revealed a problem which can't be fixed. Was the problem unfixable anyway and this was going to happen as soon as enough players appeared? ...or what?
Am I the only one mystified by that sentence?
Looks like the high number of pirates revealed a problem which can't be fixed. Was the problem unfixable anyway and this was going to happen as soon as enough players appeared? ...or what?
Some things that developers can do to reduce piracy
1) reduce the price
2) if the consumer purchased the whole app, developer must drop the in-app
3) Make the game worthwhile (long game, gameplay, fix crashes/other issues)
4) more updates to expand the game without extra charge (e.g. infinity blade 2)
1) reduce the price
2) if the consumer purchased the whole app, developer must drop the in-app
3) Make the game worthwhile (long game, gameplay, fix crashes/other issues)
4) more updates to expand the game without extra charge (e.g. infinity blade 2)
piracy =! copyright infringment
@Truffy, I think what we really want to call this is copyright infringement
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/piracy
but copyright infringement (piracy) does always equate to a loss of funds as ruled in http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/473/207.html
in this case there happens to be a financial burden on the game authors because of the obvious burden on their servers and cost in bandwidth. The problem with trying to define piracy and attempting to calculate loss is that none of these users would have paid for such games, it's a plain and simple fact, and those users that state they try and then buy, that's also non-sense. it's possible they buy 1 out of many games they play, but I doubt that the games they keep are all 100% non-copyright infringed.
plain and simple it's difficult to prevent copyright infringement, because as you add more draconian methods, you also impede your paying customers. case in point, buying a CD instead of online music makes it so that i'm not supposed to be ripping my CD, remember how there used to be damaged data on audio CD's in a vain attempt to thwart would be pirates? Same goes for DVD movies.
I'm more curious for users out there, if they would stop playing my addictive game to stay jail-broken, or if they would prefer to keep my game? I know that many video streaming services dont work if they detect the device to be jail-broken. What would happen if apps suddenly stopped functioning because they detected the cydia store? That's what I want to know...
@Truffy, I think what we really want to call this is copyright infringement
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/piracy
but copyright infringement (piracy) does always equate to a loss of funds as ruled in http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/473/207.html
in this case there happens to be a financial burden on the game authors because of the obvious burden on their servers and cost in bandwidth. The problem with trying to define piracy and attempting to calculate loss is that none of these users would have paid for such games, it's a plain and simple fact, and those users that state they try and then buy, that's also non-sense. it's possible they buy 1 out of many games they play, but I doubt that the games they keep are all 100% non-copyright infringed.
plain and simple it's difficult to prevent copyright infringement, because as you add more draconian methods, you also impede your paying customers. case in point, buying a CD instead of online music makes it so that i'm not supposed to be ripping my CD, remember how there used to be damaged data on audio CD's in a vain attempt to thwart would be pirates? Same goes for DVD movies.
I'm more curious for users out there, if they would stop playing my addictive game to stay jail-broken, or if they would prefer to keep my game? I know that many video streaming services dont work if they detect the device to be jail-broken. What would happen if apps suddenly stopped functioning because they detected the cydia store? That's what I want to know...
No, I think the problem could be fixed if they had the funds. The funds are not available because people playing did not purchase the game.
The point is, it is not theft it is copyright violation. People can keep saying otherwise as many times as they want, but that won't change the fact that, if you get prosecuted for "piracy" you will be charged with some variation on copyright violation not theft.
That doesn't mean that piracy is good clean wholesome fun for the family or that pirates should be let off with a pat on the head and a lollypop - but nor does it excuse FUD that inflates its seriousness by confusing an age-old sin (theft) with the relatively modern concept of copyright protection. It doesn't help that certain groups have brought the whole issue into disrepute by making grossly inflated claims of "losses" based on multiplying the (guesstimated) number of pirate copies by the purchase price of the product. The important thing is how many products have been sold, not some wishful-thinking fortune that might have been made if only people were more honest.
Now, this particular case is a bit different in that the problem is not pirating the App, as such, but people subsequently obtaining services under false pretences by using those apps to connect to the publisher's server. There's a somewhat stronger justification for calling that theft (although I'm sure its still legally distinct) since there is a real (if pretty small per-user) cost associated with providing that service.
In this case it seems a deficiency in the App Store if sellers can't identify legitimately-purchased items (they don't even need UDIDs, just some encrypted hash of the UDID that can be sent to Apple for verification). The alternative which has been suggested by several here and which seems eminently sensible, is to give the app away and charge via in-app purchase for access to the servers. There's a reason why successful software houses like Rovio have gone with the "freemium" model... Or, you could try writing the 11th commandment (as if nobody ever broke the first 10) and embark on some Quixotic plan to change human nature. Good luck with that, but that way lies draconian DRM that inconveniences honest users (while the pirates just crack it) and police raiding the homes of 9 year-old kids.
There's not enough info to say whether it applies to this case, but I do, however, get the impression that some smaller iOS developers have unrealistic expectations of how much of their income they can expect to count as cashy money. 30%-of-purchase-price, with only $100/year developer subscription up-front, in return for Apple handling all the expensive payment processing and inclusion in a top-name store is a really sweet deal compared with the old days of copying, packing and shipping media (which, in turn, was obscenely profitable c.f. making and selling any sort of physical goods). I wonder how much they were planning on ploughing back into running their server and how long they were going to keep them running, maintained, patched, backed up after the inevitable initial surge of sales had dried up?
Meanwhile, I see a lot of first stones being cast here...
I assume the people who take such a black-and-white moral stance on this issue have never given a "mix tape" to their friends, or received one, made more than the allotted number of backup copies of a piece of software, bought a bit of software and installed it on more than one computer (without checking the EULA allows this) or attached a scene from Futurama with a humorous caption to a blog post. YMMV depending on the "fair use" laws wherever you live, but here in the UK anybody who has purchased a CD and ripped it to iTunes*, or taped something off the telly and kept the recording is a copyright violator (and hence, by the reasoning displayed by some people here, a thief).
NB: Personally, I pay for the software I use, or use free stuff, but I wouldn't like to bet that I haven't stepped on some crack in some EULA... some years ago I bought a C compiler (non-cheap) with a EULA cut & pasted by some lawyer who didn't know what a compiler was, that was violated as soon as you ran a "Hello World" program.
(* even the recording industries in the UK aren't stupid enough to try and enforce this against ordinary customers, but the law is the law and makers of CD rippers have to be careful how they word their adverts)
I don't know that game, but usually you can earn the in-game money by playing. Purchasing it with real money is just a shortcut. That one does get a little fuzzier. Are you cheating the company? Or just your "score"? Compare to Angry Birds scores, where all the top players have cheated to get the highest number the software can display, 9 quintillion...
I think a lot of people are glossing over what's likely the real problem in this case:
I think piracy is stealing, plain and simple - but the real issue here is some technical problem the publisher can't figure out. Their model won't scale, and they don't know how to fix it. This was going to happen whether or not the game was being stolen by children.
I think piracy is stealing, plain and simple - but the real issue here is some technical problem the publisher can't figure out. Their model won't scale, and they don't know how to fix it. This was going to happen whether or not the game was being stolen by children.