Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Copy protection
View on WikipediaThis article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
Copy protection, also known as content protection, copy prevention and copy restriction, is any measure to enforce copyright by preventing the reproduction of software, films, music, and other media.[1]
Copy protection is most commonly found on videotapes, DVDs, Blu-ray discs, HD-DVDs, computer software discs, video game discs and cartridges, audio CDs and some VCDs. It also may be incorporated into digitally distributed versions of media and software.
Some methods of copy protection have also led to criticism because it caused inconvenience for paying consumers or secretly installed additional or unwanted software to detect copying activities on the consumer's computer. Making copy protection effective while protecting consumer rights remains a problem with media publication.
Terminology
[edit]This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (November 2015) |
Media corporations have always used the term copy protection, but critics argue that the term tends to sway the public into identifying with the publishers, who favor restriction technologies, rather than with the users.[2] Copy prevention and copy control may be more neutral terms. "Copy protection" is a misnomer for some systems, because any number of copies can be made from an original and all of these copies will work, but only in one computer, or only with one dongle, or only with another device that cannot be easily copied.
The term is also often related to, and confused with, the concept of digital rights management (DRM). DRM is mostly a more general term because it includes more broad management of rights such as video rentals that can expire after a given amount of time. Unlike DRM, copy restriction may include measures that are not digital. A more appropriate term may be "technological protection measures" (TPMs),[3] which is often defined as the use of technological tools in order to restrict the use or access to a work.
Business rationale
[edit]This article needs additional citations for verification. (October 2024) |
Unauthorized copying and distribution accounted for $2.4 billion per year in lost revenue in the United States alone in 1990,[4] and is assumed to be causing impact on revenues in the music and the video game industry, leading to proposal of stricter copyright laws such as PIPA.
Copy protection is most commonly found on videotapes, DVDs, computer software discs, video game discs and cartridges, audio CDs and some VCDs.
Many media formats are easy to copy using a machine, allowing consumers to distribute copies to their friends, a practice known as "casual copying".
Companies publish works under copyright protection because they believe that the cost of implementing the copy protection will be less than the revenue produced by consumers who buy the product instead of acquiring it through casually copied media.
Opponents of copy protection argue that people who obtain free copies only use what they can get for free and would not purchase their own copy if they were unable to obtain a free copy. Some even argue that free copies increase profit; people who receive a free copy of a music CD may then go and buy more of that band's music, which they would not have done otherwise.
Some publishers have avoided copy-protecting their products on the theory that the resulting inconvenience to their users outweighs any benefit of frustrating "casual copying".
From the perspective of the end user, copy protection is always a cost. DRM and license managers sometimes fail, can be inconvenient to use, and may not afford the user all of the legal use of the product they have purchased.
The term copy protection refers to the technology used to attempt to frustrate copying, and not to the legal remedies available to publishers or authors whose copyrights are violated. Software usage models range from node locking to floating licenses (where a fixed number licenses can be concurrently used across an enterprise), grid computing (where multiple computers function as one unit and so use a common license) and electronic licensing (where features can be purchased and activated online). The term license management refers to broad platforms which enable the specification, enforcement and tracking of software licenses. To safeguard copy protection and license management technologies themselves against tampering and hacking, software anti‑tamper methods are used.
Floating licenses are also being referred to as Indirect Licenses, and are licenses that at the time they are issued, there is no actual user who will use them. That has some technical influence over some of their characteristics. Direct Licenses are issued after a certain user requires it. As an example, an activated Microsoft product, contains a Direct License which is locked to the PC where the product is installed.
From business standpoint, on the other hand, some services now try to monetize on additional services other than the media content so users can have better experience than simply obtaining the copied product.[5]
Technical challenges
[edit]I heard these stories that people would invest months on devising copy-protection schemes and then in three hours some kid in San Diego figuring it out.
— Andrew Fluegelman, on why he chose to distribute PC-Talk as shareware.[6]
From a technical standpoint, it seems impossible to completely prevent users from making copies of the media they purchase, as long as a "writer" is available that can write to blank media. All types of media require a "player"—a CD player, DVD player, videotape player, computer or video game console—which must be able to read the media in order to display it to a human. Logically, a player could be built that reads the media and then writes an exact copy of what was read to the same type of media.[citation needed]
At a minimum, digital copy protection of non-interactive works is subject to the analog hole: regardless of any digital restrictions, if music can be heard by the human ear, it can also be recorded (at the very least, with a microphone and tape recorder); if a film can be viewed by the human eye, it can also be recorded (at the very least, with a video camera and recorder). In practice, almost-perfect copies can typically be made by tapping into the analog output of a player (e.g. the speaker output or headphone jacks) and, once redigitized into an unprotected form, duplicated indefinitely. Copying text-based content in this way is more tedious, but the same principle applies: if it can be printed or displayed, it can also be scanned and OCRed. With basic software and some patience, these techniques can be applied by a typical computer-literate user.[citation needed]
Since these basic technical facts exist, it follows that a determined individual will definitely succeed in copying any media, given enough time and resources. Media publishers understand this; copy protection is not intended to stop professional operations involved in the unauthorized mass duplication of media, but rather to stop "casual copying".[citation needed]
Copying of information goods which are downloaded (rather than being mass-duplicated as with physical media) can be inexpensively customized for each download, and thus restricted more effectively, in a process known as "traitor tracing". They can be encrypted in a fashion which is unique for each user's computer, and the decryption system can be made tamper-resistant.[citation needed]
Copyright protection in content platforms also cause increased market concentration and a loss in aggregate welfare. According to research on the European Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market on platform competition, only users of large platforms will be allowed to upload content if the content is sufficiently valuable and network effects are strong.[7]
Methods
[edit]Computer software
[edit]Copy protection for computer software, especially for games, has been a long cat-and-mouse struggle between publishers and crackers. These were (and are) programmers who defeated copy protection on software as a hobby, add their alias to the title screen, and then distribute the "cracked" product to the network of warez BBSes or Internet sites that specialized in distributing unauthorized copies of software.
Early ages
[edit]When computer software was still distributed in audio cassettes, audio copying was unreliable, while digital copying was time-consuming. Software prices were comparable with audio cassette prices.[4][8] To make digital copying more difficult, many programs used non-standard loading methods (loaders incompatible with standard BASIC loaders, or loaders that used different transfer speed).
Unauthorized software copying began to be a problem when floppy disks became the common storage media.[8] Copy protection does not exist on CP/M.[9] For other operating systems, the ease of copying varies; Jerry Pournelle wrote in BYTE in 1983 that "Apple users ... have always had the problem. So have those who used TRS-DOS, and I understand that MS-DOS has copy protection features".[10]
1980s
[edit]Pournelle disliked copy protection[11] and, except for games, refused to review software that used it. He did not believe that it was useful, writing in 1983 that "For every copy protection scheme there's a hacker ready to defeat it. Most involve so-called nibble/nybble copiers, which try to analyze the original disk and then make a copy".[10] In 1985, he wrote that "dBASE III is copy-protected with one of those 'unbreakable' systems, meaning that it took the crackers almost three weeks to break it".[12] IBM's Don Estridge agreed: "I guarantee that whatever scheme you come up with will take less time to break than to think of it." While calling piracy "a threat to software development. It's going to dry up the software", he said "It's wrong to copy-protect programs ... There ought to be some way to stop [piracy] without creating products that are unusable".[13]
Software vendors disliked piracy, but did not attempt to sue the vendors of nibble copiers because copyright law allows users to produce backup copies of software. Unlike music piracy, no significant software piracy market existed. A more serious problem was a company or other large organization purchasing a single copy of an application and producing many copies for itself.[14] Philippe Kahn of Borland justified copy-protecting Sidekick because, unlike his company's unprotected Turbo Pascal, Sidekick can be used without accompanying documentation and is for a general audience. Kahn said, according to Pournelle, that "any good hacker can defeat the copy protection in about an hour"; its purpose was to prevent large companies from purchasing one copy and easily distributing it internally. While reiterating his dislike of copy protection, Pournelle wrote "I can see Kahn's point".[15]
A 1987 Computerworld survey found that Lotus 1-2-3's copy protection was the top complaint, with one customer stating that it "just makes life miserable for people". Lotus said that it would remove copy protection on future releases of the software.[16] In 1989, Gilman Louie, head of Spectrum HoloByte, stated that copy protection added about $0.50 per copy to the cost of production of a game.[17] Other software relied on complexity; Antic in 1988 observed that WordPerfect for the Atari ST "is almost unusable without its manual of over 600 pages!".[18] (The magazine was mistaken; the ST version was so widely pirated that the company threatened to discontinue it.[19][20])
Copy protection sometimes causes software not to run on clones, such as the Apple II‑compatible Laser 128,[21] or even the genuine Apple IIc,[22] or Commodore 64 with certain peripherals.[23]
To limit reusing activation keys to install the software on multiple machines, it has been attempted to tie the installed software to a specific machine by involving some unique feature of the machine. Serial number in ROM could not be used because some machines do not have them. Some popular surrogate for a machine serial number were date and time (to the second) of initialization of the hard disk drive or MAC address of Ethernet cards (although this is programmable on modern cards). With the rise of virtualization, however, the practice of locking has to add to these simple hardware parameters to still prevent copying.[24]
Early video games
[edit]During the 1980s and 1990s, video games sold on audio cassette and floppy disks were sometimes protected with an external user-interactive method that demanded the user to have the original package or a part of it, usually the manual. Copy protection was activated not only at installation, but every time the game was executed.[25][26]
Several imaginative and creative methods have been employed, in order to be both fun and hard to copy. These include:[27]
- The most common method was requiring the player to enter a specific word (often chosen at random) from the manual. A variant of this technique involved matching a picture provided by the game to one in the manual and providing an answer pertaining to the picture (Ski or Die, 4D Sports Boxing and James Bond 007: The Stealth Affair used this technique). Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space (in the floppy version, but not the CD version) required the user to input an astronaut's total duration in space (available in the manual) before the launch of certain missions. If the answer was incorrect, the mission would suffer a catastrophic failure.
- Manuals containing information and hints vital to the completion of the game, like answers to riddles (Conquests of Camelot, King's Quest VI), recipes of spells (King's Quest III), keys to deciphering non-Latin writing systems (Ultima series, see also Ultima writing systems), maze guides (Manhunter), dialogue spoken by other characters in the game (Wasteland, Dragon Wars), excerpts of the storyline (most Advanced Dungeons and Dragons games and Wing Commander), or a radio frequency to use to communicate with a character to further a game (Metal Gear Solid).
- Some sort of code with symbols, not existing on the keyboard or the ASCII code. This code was arranged in a grid, and had to be entered via a virtual keyboard at the request "What is the code at line 3 row 2?". These tables were printed on dark paper (Maniac Mansion, Uplink), or were visible only through a red transparent layer (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade), making the paper very difficult to photocopy. Another variant of this method — most famously used on the ZX Spectrum version of Jet Set Willy — was a card with color sequences at each grid reference that had to be entered before starting the game. This also prevented monochrome photocopying. It had been thought that the codes in the tables were based on a mathematical formula which could be calculated by using the row, line and page number if the formula was known, a function of the disk space requirement of the data. Later research proved that this was not the case.[28]
- The Secret of Monkey Island offered a rotating wheel with halves of pirate's faces. The game showed a face composed of two different parts and asked when this pirate was hanged on a certain island. The player then had to match the faces on the wheel, and enter the year that appeared on the island-respective hole. Its sequel had the same concept, but with magic potion ingredients. Other games that employed the code wheel system include Star Control.
- Zork games such as Beyond Zork and Zork Zero came with "feelies" which contained information vital to the completion of the game. For example, the parchment found from Zork Zero contained clues vital to solving the final puzzle. However, whenever the player attempts to read the parchment, they are referred to the game package.
- The Lenslok system used a plastic prismatic device, shipped with the game, which was used to descramble a code displayed on screen.[29][30]
- Early copies of The Playroom from Broderbund Software included a game called "What Is Missing?", in which every fifth time the program was booted up, the player would see a pattern and have to refer to the back of the manual to find which of 12 objects from the spinner counting game would match the pattern seen on the back of the manual in order to open the game.
All of these methods proved to be troublesome and tiring for the players, and as such greatly declined in usage by the mid-1990s, at which point the emergence of CDs as the primary video game medium made copy protection largely redundant, since CD copying technology was not widely available at the time.[25]
Some game developers, such as Markus Persson,[31] have encouraged consumers and other developers to embrace the reality of unlicensed copying and utilize it positively to generate increased sales and marketing interest.
Videotape
[edit]Starting in 1985 with the video release of The Cotton Club (Beta and VHS versions only), Macrovision licensed to publishers a technology that exploits the automatic gain control feature of VCRs by adding pulses to the vertical blanking sync signal.[32] These pulses may negatively affect picture quality, but succeed in confusing the recording-level circuitry of many consumer VCRs. This technology, which is aided by U.S. legislation mandating the presence of automatic gain-control circuitry in VCRs, is said to "plug the analog hole" and make VCR-to-VCR copies impossible, although an inexpensive circuit is widely available that will defeat the protection by removing the pulses. Macrovision had patented methods of defeating copy prevention,[33] giving it a more straightforward basis to shut down manufacture of any device that descrambles it than often exists in the DRM world. While used for pre‑recorded tapes, the system was not adopted for television broadcasts; Michael J. Fuchs of HBO said in 1985 that Macrovision was "not good technology" because it reduced picture quality and consumers could easily bypass it, while Peter Chernin of Showtime said "we want to accommodate our subscribers and we know they like to tape our movies".[34]
Notable payloads
[edit]This section may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a particular audience. (August 2020) |
This section possibly contains original research. (August 2020) |
Over time, software publishers (especially in the case of video games) became creative about crippling the software in case it was duplicated. These games would initially show that the copy was successful, but eventually render themselves unplayable via subtle methods. Many games use the "code checksumming" technique to prevent alteration of code to bypass other copy protection. Important constants for the game – such as the accuracy of the player's firing, the speed of their movement, etc. – are not included in the game but calculated from the numbers making up the machine code of other parts of the game. If the code is changed, the calculation yields a result which no longer matches the original design of the game and the game plays improperly.
- Superior Soccer had no outward signs of copy protection, but if it decided it was not a legitimate copy, it made the soccer ball in the game invisible, making it impossible to play the game.
- In Sid Meier's Pirates!, if the player entered in the wrong information, they could still play the game, but with substantially increased difficulty.
- As a more satirical nod to the issue, if the thriller-action game Alan Wake detects that the game is cracked or a pirated copy, it will replace tips in loading screens with messages telling the player to buy the game. If a new game is created on the copied game, an additional effect will take place. As a more humorous nod to "piracy", Alan Wake will gain a black eyepatch over his right eye, complete with a miniature Jolly Roger.
- While the copy protection in Zak McKracken and the Alien Mindbenders was not hidden as such, the repercussions of missing the codes was unusual: the player ended up in jail (permanently), and the police officer gave a lengthy and condescending speech about software copying.
- In case of copied versions of The Settlers III, the iron smelters only produced pigs (a play on pig iron); weaponsmiths require iron to produce weapons, so players could not amass arms.[35]
- Bohemia Interactive developed a unique and very subtle protection system for its game Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis. Dubbed FADE, if it detects an unauthorized copy, it does not inform the player immediately but instead progressively corrupts aspects of the game (such as reducing the weapon accuracy to zero) to the point that it eventually becomes unplayable. The message "Original discs don't FADE" will eventually appear if the game is detected as being an unauthorized copy.
- FADE is also used in ArmA II, and will similarly diminish the accuracy of the player's weapons, as well as induce a "drunken vision" effect, where the screen becomes wavy, should the player be playing on an unauthorized copy.[36]
- This system was also used in Take On Helicopters, where the screen blurred and distorted when playing a counterfeit copy, making it hard to safely pilot a helicopter.[37]
- The IndyCar Series also utilizes FADE technology to safeguard against piracy by making races very difficult to win on a pirated version. The penultimate section of the game's manual states:
Copying commercial games, such as this one, is a criminal offense and copyright infringement.
Copying and re-supplying games such as this one can lead to a term of imprisonment.
Think of a pirated game as stolen property.
This game is protected by the FADE system. You can play with a pirated game- but not for long. The quality of a pirated game will degrade over time.
Purchase only genuine software at legitimate stores.
- Batman: Arkham Asylum contained a code that disabled Batman's glider cape, making some areas of the game very difficult to complete and a certain achievement/trophy impossible to unlock (gliding continuously for over 100m).[38]
- The PC version of Grand Theft Auto IV has a copy protection that swings the camera as though the player was drunk. If the player enters a car and motorcycle or boat it will automatically throttle, making it difficult to steer. It also damages the vehicle, making it vulnerable to collisions and bullets. An update to the game prevented unauthorised copies from accessing the in-game web browser, making it impossible to finish the game as some missions involve browsing the web for objectives.
- EarthBound is well-documented for its extensive use of checksums to ensure that the game is being played on legitimate hardware. If the game detects that it is being played on a European SNES, it refuses to boot, as the first of several checksums has failed. A second checksum will weed out most unauthorized copies of the game, but hacking the data to get past this checksum will trigger a third checksum that makes enemy encounters appear much more often than in an authorized copy, and if the player progresses through the game without giving up (or cracks this protection), a final checksum code will activate before the final boss battle, freezing the game and deleting all the save files.[39] A similar copy protection system was used in Spyro: Year of the Dragon, although it only uses one copy protection check at the beginning of the game (see below).
- In an unauthorized version of the PC edition of Mass Effect, the game save mechanism did not work and the in-game galactic map caused the game to crash. As the galactic map is needed to travel to different sections of the game, the player became stuck in the first section of the game.
- If an unauthorized version of The Sims 2 was used, the Build Mode would not work properly. Walls could not be built on the player's property, which prevented the player from building any custom houses. Some furniture and clothing selections would not be available either.
- A March 2009 update to the BeeJive IM iPhone app included special functionality for users of the unauthorized version: the screen would read "PC LOAD LETTER" whenever the user tried to establish a connection to any IM service, then quickly switch to a YouTube clip from the movie Office Space.[40]
- Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 and The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth have a copy protection system that completely wipes out the player's forces briefly after a battle begins on an unlicensed copy. However, some who purchased the latter have encountered a bug that caused this copy protection scheme to trigger when it was not supposed to.
- If a player pirated the Nintendo DS version of Michael Jackson: The Experience, vuvuzela noises will play over the notes during a song, which then become invisible. The game will also freeze if the player tries to pause it.
- Older versions of Autodesk 3ds Max use a dongle for copy protection; if it is missing, the program will randomly corrupt the points of the user's model during usage, destroying their work.
- Older versions of CDRWIN used a serial number for initial copy protection. However, if this check was bypassed, a second hidden check would activate causing a random factor to be introduced into the CD burning process, producing corrupted "coaster" disks.
- Terminate, a BBS terminal package, would appear to operate normally if cracked but would insert a warning that a pirated copy was in use into the IEMSI login packet it transmitted, where the sysop of any BBS the user called could clearly read it.
- Ubik's Musik, a music creation tool for the Commodore 64, would transform into a Space Invaders game if it detected that a cartridge-based copying device had attempted to interrupt it. This copy protection system also doubles as an Easter egg, as the message that appears when it occurs is not hostile ("Plug joystick in port 1, press fire, and no more resetting/experting!").
- The Amiga version of Bomberman featured a multitap peripheral that also acted as a dongle. Data from the multitap was used to calculate the time limit of each level. If the multitap was missing, the time limit would be calculated as 0, causing the level to end immediately.
- Nevermind, a puzzle game for the Amiga, contained code that caused an unlicensed version of the game to behave as a demo. The game would play three levels sampled from throughout the game, and then give the message "You have completed three levels; however there are 100 levels to complete on the original disc."
- In Spyro: Year of the Dragon, the game performs regular checksums over its own code to detect tampering. If a modification is identified, the game will slowly employ a litany of measures intended to slow the player down, including randomly removing gems from the world and reversing the player’s egg collection progress. The final boss also becomes unbeatable, as the game returns the player to the beginning of the game (and wipes their save file at the same time) around half a minute into the battle.[41]
- The Atari Jaguar console would freeze at startup and play the sound of an enraged jaguar snarling if the inserted cartridge failed the initial security check.
- The Lenslok copy protection system gave an obvious message if the lens-coded letters were entered incorrectly, but if the user soft-reset the machine, the areas of memory occupied by the game would be flooded with the message "THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST IN OUR PRODUCT. NICE TRY. LOVE BJ/NJ" to prevent the user examining leftover code to crack the protection.
- An update to the sandbox game Garry's Mod enabled a copy protection mechanism that outputs the error "Unable to shade polygon normals" if the game detects that it has been copied. The error also includes the user's Steam ID as an error ID, meaning that users can be identified by their Steam account when asking for help about the error over the Internet.
- The Atari version of Alternate Reality: The Dungeon would have the player's character attacked by two unbeatable "FBI Agents" if it detected a cracked version. The FBI agents would also appear when restoring a save which was created by such a version, even if the version restoring the save was legal.
- VGA Planets, a play-by-BBS strategy game, contained code in its server which would check all clients' submitted turns for suspect registration codes. Any player deemed to be using a cracked copy, or cheating in the game, would have random forces destroyed throughout the game by an unbeatable enemy called "The Tim Continuum" (after the game's author, Tim Wissemann). A similar commercial game, Stars!, would issue empty turn updates for players with invalid registration codes, meaning that none of their orders would ever be carried out.
- On a copied version of the original PC version of Postal, as soon as the game was started, the player character would immediately shoot himself in the head.
- In Serious Sam 3: BFE, if the game code detects what it believes to be an unauthorized copy, an invincible scorpion-like monster is spawned in the beginning of the game with high speeds, melee attacks, and attacks from a range with twin chainguns making the game extremely difficult and preventing the player from progressing further. Also in the level "Under the Iron Cloud", the player's character will spin out-of-control looking up in the air.[42]
- An unauthorized copy of Pokémon Black and White and their sequels will run as if it were normal, but the Pokémon will not gain any experience points after a battle. This has since been solved by patching the game's files.[citation needed]
- If Ace Attorney Investigations 2: Prosecutor's Gambit detects an illegitimate or downloaded copy of the game, it will convert the entire game's text into the game's symbol based foreign language, Borginian, which cannot be translated in any way.
- The unlicensed version of indie game Game Dev Tycoon, in which the player runs a game development company, will dramatically increase the piracy rate of the games the player releases to the point where no money can be made at all, and disable the player's ability to take any action against it.[43][44]
- In the stand-alone expansion to Crytek's Crysis, Crysis Warhead, players who pirated the game will have their ammunition replaced with chickens that inflict no damage and have very little knockback, rendering ranged combat impossible.
- In Crytek's Crysis 3, if a player used an unlicensed copy of the game, he is not able to defeat the last boss (The Alpha Ceph), thus making it impossible to beat the game.
- In Mirror's Edge, copy protection will prevent its player character, Faith, from sprinting, making it impossible for players to jump over long gaps and progress further on a pirated copy.
- In The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks if the player is playing a pirated copy of the game it will remove the train control UI if it detects that it has been pirated, which effectively stonewalls the player at the train's tutorial section very early on and thus making the game unbeatable.[citation needed]
The usage of copy protection payloads which lower playability of a game without making it clear that this is a result of copy protection is now generally considered unwise, due to the potential for it to result in unaware players with unlicensed copies spreading word-of-mouth that a game is of low quality. The authors of FADE explicitly acknowledged this as a reason for including the explicit warning message.
Anti-piracy
[edit]This article needs additional citations for verification. (October 2009) |
Anti-piracy measures are efforts to fight against copyright infringement, counterfeiting, and other violations of intellectual property laws.
It includes, but is by no means limited to, the combined efforts of corporate associations (such as the RIAA and MPA), law enforcement agencies (such as the FBI and Interpol), and various international governments[clarification needed] to combat copyright infringement relating to various types of creative works, such as software, music and films. These measures often come in the form of copy protection measures such as DRM, or measures implemented through a content protection network, such as Distil Networks or Incapsula. Richard Stallman and the GNU Project have criticized the use of the word "piracy" in these situations, saying that publishers use the word to refer to "copying they don't approve of" and that "they [publishers] imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them".[45] Certain forms of anti-piracy (such as DRM) are considered by consumers to control the use of the products content after sale.
In the case MPAA v. Hotfile, Judge Kathleen M. Williams granted a motion to deny the prosecution the usage of words she views as "pejorative". This list included the word "piracy", the use of which, the motion by the defense stated, would serve no purpose but to misguide and inflame the jury. The plaintiff argued the common use of the terms when referring to copyright infringement should invalidate the motion, but the Judge did not concur.[46]
Anti-piracy in file sharing
[edit]Today, copyright infringement is often facilitated by the use of file sharing. In fact, infringement accounts for 23.8% of all internet traffic in 2013.[47] In an effort to cut down on this, both large and small films and music corporations have issued DMCA takedown notices, filed lawsuits, and pressed criminal prosecution of those who host these file sharing services.[48][49][50][51]
Anti-counterfeiting and gun control
[edit]The EURion constellation is used by many countries to prevent color photocopiers from producing counterfeit currency. The Counterfeit Deterrence System is used to prevent counterfeit bills from being produced by image editing software.[52] Similar technology has been proposed[53] to prevent 3D printing of firearms, for reasons of gun control rather than copyright.
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ Thomas Obnigene, DVD Glossary Archived 2020-08-15 at the Wayback Machine, filmfodder.com 2007. Retrieved 19 July 2007.
- ^ Confusing Words and Phrases that are Worth Avoiding Archived 2013-06-03 at the Wayback Machine, GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF).
- ^ How do technological protection measures work?Archived 14 June 2013 at the Wayback Machine, World Intellectual Property Organization
- ^ a b Greg Short, Comment, Combatting Software Piracy: Can Felony Penalties for Copyright Infringement Curtail the Copying of Computer Software?, 10 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 221 (1994). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj/vol10/iss1/7 Archived 2021-01-16 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Wallach, D.S. (Oct 2011). "Copy protection technology is doomed". Computer. 34 (10): 48–49. doi:10.1109/2.955098.
- ^ Erokan, Dennis (May 1985). "Andrew Fluegelman - PC-Talk and Beyond". MicroTimes. pp. 19–26. Retrieved 2025-03-12.
- ^ Staehler, Frank (2022). "Copyright Protection in the Digital Single Market: Potential Consequences for Content Platform Competition". Web of Science Primary. 61 (1): 73–94.
- ^ a b Copy Protection: A History and Outlook http://www.studio-nibble.com/countlegger/01/HistoryOfCopyProtection.html Archived 2009-12-13 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Arnow, Murray (1985). The Apple CP/M Book. Scott, Foresman and Company. p. 2. ISBN 0-673-18068-9. Retrieved 2025-06-25.
- ^ a b Pournelle, Jerry (June 1983). "Zenith Z-100, Epson QX-10, Software Licensing, and the Software Piracy Problem". BYTE. p. 411. Retrieved 20 October 2013.
- ^ Riley, John (1985-10-27). "LORD OF CHAOS MANOR : Hoping for a message from a long-lost friend". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-22. Retrieved 2021-05-22.
- ^ Pournelle, Jerry (January 1985). "The Fast Lane". BYTE. p. 363. Retrieved 2024-10-04.
- ^ Curran, Lawrence J.; Shuford, Richard S. (November 1983). "IBM's Estridge". BYTE. pp. 88–97. Retrieved 19 March 2016.
- ^ Libes, Sol (September 1982). "Bytelines". BYTE. pp. 490–493. Retrieved 2024-12-30.
- ^ Pournelle, Jerry (October 1984). "Minor Problems". Byte. p. 317. Retrieved October 23, 2013.
- ^ "Rating the Big Three". Computerworld. Vol. XXI, no. 44. 1987-11-02. p. SR4. Retrieved 2025-06-08.
- ^ Louie, Gilman (April 1989). "Low Shelf 'ST'eem". Computer Gaming World (letter). p. 4.
- ^ Pearlman, Gregg (May 1988). "WordPerfect ST / Proving why it's the IBM PC best seller". Antic. Vol. 7, no. 1. Archived from the original on 2016-12-22. Retrieved 2016-12-22.
- ^ "Word Perfect Furor". Archived from the original on 2016-12-22. Retrieved 2016-12-22.
- ^ "ST USER". Archived from the original on 2016-04-26. Retrieved 2016-12-22.
- ^ Mace, Scott (13 January 1986). "Two Firms Plan to Sell Apple Clone". InfoWorld. Archived from the original on 14 August 2021. Retrieved 16 October 2020.
- ^ Mace, Scott (1984-07-30). "Inside the Apple IIc". InfoWorld. Vol. 6, no. 31. pp. 39–41. Retrieved 2025-06-06.
- ^ Bobo, Ervin (February 1988). "Project: Stealth Fighter". Compute!. p. 51. Retrieved 10 November 2013.
- ^ Dominic Haigh (28 June 2010). "Copy protection on virtual systems". Archived from the original on 8 June 2010. Retrieved 6 December 2010.
- ^ a b "The Next Generation 1996 Lexicon A to Z: Copy Protection". Next Generation. No. 15. Imagine Media. March 1996. p. 32.
- ^ Retro Gamer issue 83, "Don't copy that floppy"
- ^ Kelly, Andy (4 August 2020). "Code wheels, poison, and star maps: the creative ways old games fought piracy". PC Gamer. Archived from the original on 19 September 2020. Retrieved 4 August 2020.
- ^ "Copy Protection in Jet Set Willy: developing methodology for retrogame archaeology". Archived from the original on 29 January 2019. Retrieved 30 January 2019.
- ^ Barter, Pavel (August 22, 2007). "Protect and Serve". GamesRadar. Future US. Archived from the original on January 7, 2021. Retrieved January 7, 2021.
- ^ Whitehead, Dan (April 15, 2010). "Banging the DRM • Page 2". Eurogamer. Gamer Network. Archived from the original on June 4, 2010.
- ^ Thier, Dave. "Minecraft Creator Notch Tells Players to Pirate His Game". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2020-11-06. Retrieved 2020-09-25.
- ^ Some relevant patents are U.S. patent 4,631,603; U.S. patent 4,577,216; U.S. patent 4,819,098; and U.S. patent 4,907,093.
- ^ One such patent is U.S. patent 5,625,691.
- ^ Holsopple, Barbara (5 June 1985). "Pay-TV looks elsewhere as theatrical movies lose their appeal". The Pittsburgh Press. pp. C12. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 25 January 2015.
- ^ Sven Liebich, Germany. "Settlers3.com". Settlers3.com. Archived from the original on 4 March 2001. Retrieved 6 December 2010.
- ^ "FADE Game Copy Protections". GameBurnWorld. Archived from the original on 19 February 2012. Retrieved 6 December 2010.
- ^ "Bohemia Interactive Details Unique Anti-Piracy Methods". GamePolitics. Archived from the original on 2012-03-15. Retrieved 2011-11-10.
- ^ "Afterdawn.com". Afterdawn.com. 9 September 2009. Archived from the original on 8 February 2010. Retrieved 6 December 2010.
- ^ "MOTHER 2 / EarthBound Anti-Piracy Measures". Starmen.Net. Archived from the original on 9 February 2011. Retrieved 6 December 2010.
- ^ "Beejive IM Moves To Block Out iPhone Pirates". washingtonpost.com. 19 March 2009. Archived from the original on 8 November 2012. Retrieved 6 December 2010.
- ^ Dodd, Gavin (17 October 2001). "Keeping the Pirates at Bay: Implementing Crack Protection for Spyro: Year of the Dragon". Gamasutra. Archived from the original on 26 March 2008. Retrieved 28 March 2008.
- ^ Walker, John (7 December 2011). "Serious Sam's DRM Is A Giant Pink Scorpion". Rock Paper Shotgun. Archived from the original on 8 December 2011. Retrieved 8 December 2011.
- ^ Patrick (29 April 2013). "What happens when pirates play a game development simulator and then go bankrupt because of piracy?". Archived from the original on 17 May 2021. Retrieved 30 April 2013.
- ^ Ernesto (29 April 2013). "Game Pirates Whine About Piracy in Game Dev Simulator". TorrentFreak. Archived from the original on 8 August 2014. Retrieved 27 July 2014.
- ^ Stallman, Richard. "Confusing Words and Phrases That Are Worth Avoiding". Free Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman. GNU Press. Archived from the original on 31 May 2010. Retrieved 1 June 2010.
- ^ "MPAA Banned From Using Piracy and Theft Terms in Hotfile Trial". Archived from the original on 30 November 2013. Retrieved 30 November 2013.
- ^ Boorstin, Julia (31 January 2011). "Piracy Rules the Web, Dominating 23.8% of Internet Traffic". CNBC Media Money. Archived from the original on 27 February 2021. Retrieved 28 May 2013.
- ^ Masnick, Mike (29 May 2012). "Fox Issues DMCA Takedown To Google Over SF Chronicle Article... Claiming It Was The Movie 'Chronicle'". Techdirt. Archived from the original on 12 November 2020. Retrieved 28 May 2013.
- ^ Menta, Rich. "RIAA Sues Music Startup Napster for $20 Billion". MP3Newswire. Archived from the original on 27 June 2017. Retrieved 28 May 2013.
- ^ enigmax (17 April 2009). "The Pirate Bay Trial: The Official Verdict – Guilty". TorrentFreak. Archived from the original on 3 February 2021. Retrieved 28 May 2013.
- ^ Boorstin, julia (6 February 2013). "The Weakest Link". The Hindu. Chennai, India. Archived from the original on 2 April 2016. Retrieved 26 July 2013.
- ^ Ulbrich, Chris (14 January 2004). "Currency Detector Easy to Defeat". WIRED.
- ^ German Lopez (August 29, 2018). "The battle to stop 3D-printed guns, explained".
External links
[edit]- V-Max Copy Protection on the C64
- Copy Protection in depth
- Evaluating New Copy-Prevention Techniques for Audio CDs
- Disk Preservation Project Discusses and analyzes protections used on old floppy-based systems.
- Comprehensive article on video game piracy and its prevention.
- Several algorithms used to generate serial keys
- Copy Protection Analysis on the C64
- Details on the RapidLok tracks copy protection system used on many releases
Copy protection
View on GrokipediaTerminology and Concepts
Core Definitions
Copy protection refers to technological and procedural measures designed to prevent or restrict the unauthorized duplication and distribution of copyrighted materials, such as software, digital media, and proprietary data. These methods enforce intellectual property rights by introducing barriers to reproduction, often through authentication mechanisms, encryption, or physical alterations that render exact copies infeasible or detectable.[11][12] In software contexts, copy protection typically involves techniques like serial number validation, hardware dongles requiring physical connection for execution, or code obfuscation to complicate reverse engineering and mass replication. For instance, early implementations mandated periodic disk checks against manipulated media to verify originality, thereby limiting functionality on duplicated versions.[13] Such approaches prioritize deterrence of casual piracy over absolute invulnerability, as determined attackers can often circumvent them via specialized tools.[14] Key related concepts include technological protection measures (TPMs), which encompass any technical process—digital or analog—that controls access to or replication of protected content, as recognized in legal frameworks like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998. TPMs may embed digital watermarks for tracing unauthorized copies or employ checksum algorithms to detect alterations during duplication attempts.[15] Piracy, in this domain, denotes the act of reproducing protected works without permission, often resulting in economic losses estimated at billions annually for industries like software, where global unlicensed usage rates exceeded 37% in 2022 according to industry reports.[16] Copy protection differs from digital rights management (DRM), which extends beyond mere duplication prevention to regulate post-acquisition usage, such as playback limits, geographic restrictions, or revocation of access on authorized instances. While DRM systems like those in streaming services integrate copy controls, they also manage licensing and sharing, potentially inconveniencing legitimate users without fully eliminating illicit distribution.[17][18] This distinction underscores copy protection's narrower focus on replication barriers, rooted in the causal reality that digital goods' infinite reproducibility undermines creators' incentives absent enforcement.[19]Distinctions from Related Terms
Copy protection specifically denotes technical mechanisms embedded within media or software to impede unauthorized duplication, such as checksum validations on floppy disks or deliberate errors in data tracks that frustrate exact replication.[13] This contrasts with copyright, the statutory grant of exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and derive works from an original creation, which operates through legal remedies like injunctions and damages rather than inherent product barriers. While copyright provides the foundational entitlement against infringement, copy protection serves as a proactive, self-enforcing supplement that does not depend on post-violation litigation or user compliance with law. In distinction from digital rights management (DRM), copy protection emphasizes prevention of initial copying acts over comprehensive lifecycle control of content usage; DRM systems typically integrate encryption, licensing servers, and playback restrictions to enforce terms like device limits or time-bound access, often persisting beyond purchase to regulate redistribution, modification, or even fair-use excerpts.[20] For instance, early copy protection in 1980s software like disk-based code wheels halted duplication at the source, whereas modern DRM in platforms such as Adobe Content Server manages streaming revocation and multi-platform synchronization, addressing not only replication but also unauthorized viewing or export.[21] Although overlap exists—many DRM implementations incorporate copy-restrictive elements—the former prioritizes standalone resilience against cloning tools, while the latter relies on ecosystem-wide authentication, rendering it vulnerable to offline circumvention differently.[22] Copy protection further diverges from anti-piracy measures, which encompass reactive strategies like infringement detection via web crawlers, cease-and-desist letters, or blockchain tracing of illicit distributions, rather than upfront technical denial of copies.[23] Anti-piracy efforts, as deployed by organizations monitoring torrent networks since the early 2000s, focus on disrupting established pirate economies through litigation—evidenced by over 5,000 lawsuits filed by the Recording Industry Association of America between 2003 and 2008—whereas copy protection operates preemptively within legitimate distributions to minimize the viable copies available for seeding.[24] This preventive orientation in copy protection can inadvertently hinder legitimate backups or archival, a trade-off less common in anti-piracy's enforcement-oriented toolkit.[13]Economic Rationale
Incentives for Intellectual Property Creation
Intellectual property rights address the economic challenge posed by ideas as public goods, which are non-rivalrous and non-excludable without legal enforcement, leading to underinvestment in creation due to free-riding on reproductions that cost near-zero to produce.[25] By granting temporary exclusive rights—such as copyrights for creative expressions and patents for inventions—creators can charge prices above marginal reproduction costs, enabling recovery of fixed upfront investments in research, development, and production.[26] This mechanism theoretically aligns private incentives with social benefits, as evidenced by constitutional framings in the U.S., where the patent and copyright clause explicitly aims to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" through limited-time monopolies.[27] In practice, copyright protections particularly incentivize content creation in media, software, and publishing by allowing authors and producers to monetize works through sales, licensing, and licensing fees, with durations typically extending 70 years post-author's death in many jurisdictions to balance incentives against eventual public domain access.[28] Patent systems similarly spur inventive activity by protecting novel processes and products for 20 years from filing, fostering R&D in high-cost fields like pharmaceuticals, where development expenses can exceed $2.6 billion per approved drug as reported in 2016 industry analyses.[29] These rights reduce uncertainty for investors, who view IP as signals of viable returns, thereby channeling capital toward innovation rather than imitation.[30] Empirical data underscores these incentives: IP-intensive industries contributed 41% to U.S. domestic output and supported 62.5 million jobs (44% of total employment) in 2019, with copyright-intensive sectors offering the highest worker wages, indicating robust returns from protected creative outputs.[31] Cross-national studies confirm a 0.74 correlation between IP protection strength and creative output across 119 countries, with top-performing nations averaging IP scores of 5.85 out of 7 compared to the global 4.37.[32] Firm-level evidence from 266 Vietnamese enterprises (2022-2023) shows IPR strength positively influences sustainable innovation via technology spillovers (β=0.26, p<0.01), amplified by firms' absorptive capacities.[33] Such patterns hold in health innovation contexts, where patent exclusivity has driven vaccine development, though debates persist on optimal duration to avoid deadweight losses.[29]Empirical Evidence of Piracy Costs and Protection Benefits
Studies on software piracy indicate substantial economic losses for the industry. The Business Software Alliance (BSA) estimated that unlicensed software usage resulted in approximately $46 billion in global revenue losses annually as of recent surveys, with 37% of installed software worldwide being unlicensed.[34] This figure accounts for foregone sales in commercial value, though critics note it assumes all unlicensed copies would otherwise be purchased at full price, potentially overstating direct impacts. Peer-reviewed analyses corroborate negative effects, showing that higher piracy rates correlate with reduced software innovation and economic growth, particularly in developing markets where enforcement is weaker.[35] In the music sector, empirical data from industry-commissioned research highlights piracy's toll on revenues and employment. A 2009 study by the Institute for Policy Innovation, drawing on RIAA data, calculated that sound recording piracy cost the U.S. economy $12.5 billion yearly, including $2.7 billion in lost earnings and 71,000 jobs.[36] Academic reviews confirm this, with meta-analyses of 29 studies across media types finding consistent evidence of revenue displacement from unauthorized copying, as pirates substitute free access for legitimate purchases rather than sampling for later buying.[37] Longitudinal data from 1999 to 2008 show U.S. recorded music revenues dropping from $12.8 billion to $5.5 billion amid rising digital file-sharing, aligning temporally with piracy surges.[38] Film and video piracy similarly imposes verifiable costs, with global estimates placing annual losses between $40 billion and $97 billion in foregone revenues.[39] A 2023 analysis by the Directors Guild of America pegged U.S.-specific impacts at $25 billion in economic output and 375,000 jobs lost due to online infringement.[40] Broader econometric models, including those examining box-office data from markets like China, demonstrate that piracy reduces theatrical earnings by displacing ticket sales, with displacement rates for major releases reaching 40% in high-infringement scenarios.[41][42] Copy protection measures, including digital rights management (DRM) and enforcement actions, provide evidence of mitigation benefits by curbing unauthorized access and preserving sales. Multi-site blocking initiatives have reduced piracy traffic by redirecting users to legal channels, with combined regulatory and industry efforts yielding measurable declines in infringement rates.[43] Legal enforcement, such as prosecuting distributors, lowers overall piracy prevalence by raising acquisition costs for infringers, enabling higher legitimate pricing and volumes as modeled in economic simulations.[44] The introduction of streaming services with built-in protections has decreased piracy by 15-20% in affected markets, correlating with revenue stabilization or growth in legitimate digital sales.[43] While some DRM implementations face circumvention, stronger copyright regimes demonstrably boost industry outputs, with reduced piracy linked to increased R&D investment in protected sectors.[45][46]Historical Development
Pre-Digital and Early Analog Methods
Prior to the widespread adoption of digital technologies, copy protection for intellectual works predominantly depended on the inherent difficulties of analog duplication, which often resulted in significant quality degradation, rather than sophisticated technical barriers. For printed books following the invention of the movable-type printing press around 1440 by Johannes Gutenberg, duplication required substantial labor and equipment, limiting piracy to determined counterfeiters; the first documented case occurred in 1491 with the unauthorized reprinting of Pietro Tomai's practical rules by a rival printer in Venice.[47] Printers mitigated risks through guild monopolies, such as England's Stationers' Company chartered in 1557 to regulate printing and enforce exclusive rights, supplemented by rudimentary identifiers like unique watermarks in paper or printer's marks (colophons) to authenticate originals.[48] These measures were more proprietary than preventive, as high-fidelity copying necessitated access to comparable presses, which guilds controlled.[49] In sound recordings, early phonograph cylinders and discs introduced in the late 19th century by Thomas Edison and Emile Berliner offered limited technical safeguards, as consumer-level dubbing introduced noise and wear, rendering copies inferior.[50] Professional mastering remained the domain of manufacturers, but by the 1970s, amid rising home taping from vinyl LPs via cassette recorders, experimental analog techniques emerged; some records embedded high-frequency tones inaudible to humans but designed to induce oscillation or bias issues in reel-to-reel or cassette machines, degrading dub quality.[51] These ultrasonic methods, however, saw limited implementation due to inconsistent effectiveness across playback equipment and potential audible artifacts on high-end systems, reflecting the era's reliance on quality loss as a natural deterrent rather than robust engineering.[52] Video media marked a shift toward deliberate analog interference with the development of the Analog Protection System (APS), commonly known as Macrovision, patented and commercialized in 1983 to combat VHS tape piracy.[53] Deployed first on the 1985 VHS release of The Cotton Club, APS embedded signal perturbations—such as automatic gain control (AGC) pulses mimicking vertical interval reference (VIR) signals and colorstripe pulses—into the luminance and chrominance components of prerecorded tapes.[54] These distortions exploited vulnerabilities in consumer VCR circuitry, causing unauthorized copies to exhibit rolling bars, streaking, or darkened images, while legitimate playback on televisions remained unaffected.[55] By the late 1980s, Macrovision was licensed to major studios, covering over 500 million VHS units annually, though it proved circumventable via professional time-base correctors or modified recorders disabling AGC.[56] This system exemplified early analog protection's causal focus on disrupting recording hardware without impacting end-user viewing, bridging pre-digital constraints with targeted signal manipulation.[57]Rise in Software and Gaming (1970s-1990s)
The emergence of personal computers in the late 1970s, including the Apple II (introduced in 1977), TRS-80, and Commodore PET, enabled software distribution via easily duplicable floppy disks and cassette tapes, sparking widespread piracy among hobbyists and user groups.[58] By 1980, Softalk magazine estimated monthly losses exceeding $1 million from illegitimate Apple II software copies, as casual duplication evolved into organized sharing through mail-order and early bulletin board systems (BBS).[59] This proliferation threatened the nascent commercial software industry, prompting developers to prioritize protection to sustain revenues amid negligible legal enforcement for intellectual property in the era.[58] Copy protection techniques proliferated in the early 1980s, focusing on physical media manipulation to exploit limitations in consumer hardware. Methods included non-standard floppy formatting, such as spiral data tracks in Spiradisc for Apple II systems or unformatted sectors with tampered CRC values that triggered read errors on unmodified drives.[55][60] Accessories like Lenslock, a plastic overlay for decoding on-screen gibberish, appeared in mid-1980s titles on platforms such as the ZX Spectrum.[55] These analog approaches deterred bit-for-bit copying but increased production costs and frustrated legitimate users, as evidenced by the popularity of cracking utilities like Locksmith (released 1981), which enabled backups and circumvention for $74.95.[59] In gaming, protections emphasized verification via included materials to balance accessibility with deterrence, particularly for titles on Atari, Commodore 64, and emerging IBM PC compatibles. Manual look-up systems required entering words or symbols from documentation, as in Crime Wave or later Sierra adventures like Leisure Suit Larry 5, often embedding queries in gameplay to verify authenticity.[13] Code wheels—rotatable cardboard devices for decoding queries—gained traction in late-1980s PC games, including Zany Golf (golf terms post-first hole) and Strategic Simulations Inc. (SSI) strategy titles with fantasy symbols. Hardware dongles, attaching to parallel ports for runtime checks, suited pricier professional software but saw limited gaming adoption due to portability issues.[13] By the 1990s, these methods persisted amid cracking communities but faced obsolescence as CD-ROMs reduced floppy reliance, though manual-based schemes like Ultima's rune coordinates on cloth maps endured in role-playing games. The Software Publishers Association, formed in 1984 with over 120 members by 1985, allocated funds for raids and advocacy, highlighting piracy's role in elevating software prices and stifling innovation.[59] Despite imperfections, such protections preserved incentives for game development during a period when 90% of circulated software was reportedly pirated in some ecosystems.[13]Digital Media Expansion (2000s)
The proliferation of peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing networks in the early 2000s, following the shutdown of Napster in 2000, accelerated unauthorized distribution of digital music and video files, prompting media industries to expand copy protection measures. Services like Kazaa and LimeWire enabled millions of users to share copyrighted content, with estimates indicating that by 2003, file sharing had reduced U.S. album sales by up to 13% according to empirical analysis of consumer expenditure data from 1999 to 2003.[61] In response, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) initiated mass litigation on September 8, 2003, filing suits against 261 individuals initially, escalating to over 35,000 lawsuits by 2008 targeting alleged uploaders on P2P networks.[62] These actions aimed to deter sharing by imposing settlements averaging $3,000–$11,000 per defendant, though critics argued they failed to stem piracy's growth, as network usage persisted despite legal pressures.[63] Music labels shifted toward authorized digital downloads with embedded digital rights management (DRM) to control usage. Apple's iTunes Store, launched on April 28, 2003, sold tracks encoded in AAC format protected by FairPlay DRM, which restricted playback to five authorized devices and limited burning to seven CDs per album, thereby curbing unauthorized copying while enabling legitimate access.[64] FairPlay's proprietary encryption tied content to iTunes software and Apple hardware, fostering ecosystem lock-in but drawing antitrust scrutiny for interoperability barriers; by 2009, Apple phased out DRM for music purchases amid declining efficacy against cracking tools.[65] Similar DRM systems appeared in services like Microsoft's Windows Media Player and RealNetworks' Helix, though fragmentation across platforms undermined uniform protection, as reverse-engineered keys circulated online. In video media, DVD copy protection via the Content Scramble System (CSS)—a 40-bit encryption standard introduced in 1996—faced widespread circumvention after the DeCSS tool's release in October 1999, with legal repercussions extending into the 2000s through lawsuits by the DVD Copy Control Association against distributors and websites hosting the code.[66] By mid-decade, high-definition formats Blu-ray and HD DVD adopted the Advanced Access Content System (AACS) in 2006, employing 128-bit AES encryption, device binding, and periodic key revocation to prevent bit-for-bit copying, addressing vulnerabilities exposed in CSS.[67] AACS required licensed hardware compliance, revoking non-compliant players via updated processing keys, though early cracks in 2007 demonstrated ongoing cat-and-mouse dynamics between protectors and circumventers. Aggressive anti-copying tactics sometimes backfired, as exemplified by the Sony BMG rootkit scandal in 2005. Sony BMG embedded Extended Copy Protection (XCP) and SunnComm MediaMax software on approximately 22 million CDs, which installed hidden rootkits on Windows PCs to block ripping beyond initial playback limits; these concealed processes created security vulnerabilities exploitable by malware and resisted standard antivirus detection.[68] Discovered in October 2005 by security researcher Mark Russinovich, the rootkits affected up to 10% of installed systems, prompting class-action lawsuits, a Texas Attorney General investigation, and Sony's recall of affected titles, highlighting how invasive protections could erode consumer trust and introduce unintended risks.[69] This incident underscored the trade-offs in 2000s copy protection: while DRM and litigation temporarily mitigated losses—RIAA-reported piracy costs exceeded $12.5 billion annually by 2005—persistent cracking and backlash accelerated the decade's pivot toward subscription streaming models with server-side controls.[70]Contemporary Advances (2010s-2025)
In the 2010s, digital rights management (DRM) systems evolved significantly for streaming media, with Google's Widevine DRM, acquired in 2010, becoming a standard for protecting video content across platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Disney+, and YouTube.[71] Widevine employs hardware-accelerated encryption and supports multiple security levels (L1 for high-definition playback on secure hardware, L2 and L3 for software-based protection), enabling secure distribution while adapting to diverse devices.[72] This adoption reduced unauthorized copying by integrating content decryption modules directly into browsers and operating systems, though vulnerabilities like replay attacks have been identified in lower security tiers.[73] For video games, Denuvo Anti-Tamper emerged in 2014 as a prominent software protection layer, obfuscating executable code to hinder reverse engineering and cracking.[74] Empirical analysis indicates Denuvo preserved an average of 15% of total revenue (median 20%) for protected titles by delaying piracy, with revenue losses averaging 20% post-crack compared to uncracked periods.[75] By 2020, extensions included mobile anti-tamper solutions with minimal performance overhead, alongside anti-cheat integrations for multiplayer environments, though debates persist over legitimate user impacts like increased load times.[76] Hardware advancements bolstered copy protection through the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) 2.0 specification, finalized in 2014, which provides tamper-resistant storage for cryptographic keys and attestation of software integrity.[77] TPM 2.0's integration into CPUs and motherboards, mandated for Windows 11 in 2021, enables secure boot processes and hardware-bound licensing, reducing reliance on vulnerable software-only methods by verifying firmware and executables against tampering.[78] This shift supported broader multi-DRM ecosystems, with market growth driven by demand for cross-platform content security through 2025.[79]Technical Methods
Software and Executable Protection
Software and executable protection refers to techniques applied to compiled binary files to prevent unauthorized duplication, reverse engineering, or tampering, thereby enforcing software licensing and intellectual property rights. These methods typically operate at runtime, verifying conditions before or during execution, and fall into categories such as obfuscation, encryption, hardware authentication, and integrity checks. Unlike media-based protections, they target the program's core logic to resist disassembly tools like IDA Pro or Ghidra, though no approach guarantees indefinite security against determined adversaries.[80][81] Code obfuscation modifies the executable's structure to complicate analysis, employing tactics like variable renaming, junk code insertion, string encryption, and control flow graph flattening. For instance, tools such as Obfuscator-LLVM apply these transformations post-compilation, increasing reverse engineering effort by obscuring logical relationships without altering program behavior. Obfuscation deters automated tools and casual crackers but yields to manual deobfuscation by experts, as evidenced by persistent cracks of obfuscated commercial software within months of release. When paired with virtualization—executing code in an emulated machine within the binary—it further elevates complexity, though this incurs performance overhead of 10-50% in benchmarks.[82][83] Encryption secures portions of the executable or sensitive data by rendering them unreadable until decrypted via runtime keys, often using algorithms like AES-256. White-box cryptography embeds decryption keys into the code itself, resisting extraction attempts, as implemented in protections for mobile apps since the early 2010s. However, memory dumping during execution exposes plaintext, and side-channel attacks can leak keys, limiting efficacy against advanced threats. Executable packers, such as UPX or custom variants, compress and encrypt the binary, unpacking only in memory, but unpacking stubs are frequent crack targets.[11][84] Hardware-based methods, including USB dongles, mandate a physical token plugged into the system for authentication via unique serial numbers or cryptographic challenges. Dongles like those from Thales Sentinel, deployed since 1980, bind execution to hardware presence, preventing copies from running on unlicensed machines. Emulation software circumvents them by spoofing responses, yet they persist in enterprise settings for their resistance to pure software attacks.[85] Serial key validation requires user-specific codes, often machine-bound via hardware fingerprints like CPU IDs or MAC addresses, checked locally or against remote servers. Systems using RSA or elliptic curve cryptography generate non-reproducible keys, as in models analyzed since 2013, but keygen tools exploit algorithmic weaknesses to forge valid sequences. Offline variants rely on embedded checks, vulnerable to patching via binary editors.[86][15] Anti-tampering and anti-debugging integrate runtime integrity verification, such as CRC checksums on code sections or timing anomalies to detect debuggers like OllyDbg. If alterations or hooks are found, the executable may halt, corrupt data, or trigger false outputs. Techniques like self-modifying code or environment checks (e.g., for virtual machines used in analysis) complicate breakpoints and stepping, as detailed in Windows-specific implementations from 2024. These raise cracking costs but are evaded by kernel-mode debuggers or custom loaders, with no method proven impervious in peer-reviewed analyses.[87][88]| Method | Primary Mechanism | Strengths | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Obfuscation | Structural alteration | Low overhead; hinders static analysis | Deobfuscatable manually; no encryption |
| Encryption/Packing | Runtime decryption | Protects static binaries | Vulnerable to dynamic dumps |
| Dongles | Hardware token | Resists software-only attacks | Physical loss; emulation possible |
| Serial Keys | Cryptographic validation | Scalable for distribution | Keygen exploits; server dependency |
| Anti-Tampering | Integrity/runtime checks | Detects modifications | Bypassed by advanced tools |

