You are not logged in.

IC2 Experimental builds: v2.0/2.1/2.2 (For Minecraft 1.6.4/1.7.2/1.7.10 → jenkins)
IndustrialCraft² recent version: v1.117! (For Minecraft 1.5.2 → topic)

Dear visitor, welcome to IC² Forum. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

1

Friday, February 1st 2013, 10:34pm

Blocking code in IC2?

So I am playing a semi-private modpack that follows all of the requirements on the modpacks/redistribution and I am getting this http://i.imgur.com/tt7zJLS.png the code in IC2 seems to be pointing at this page URL removed I was wondering why IC2 has this code that does nothing but single us out? Here is our webpage that links back to the IC2 site and donation page. http://pluspluspack.com/mod-list/

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "RichardG" (Feb 3rd 2013, 12:50am)


Mensrea

Hater

  • "Mensrea" is male

Posts: 236

Location: Pittsburgh

  • Send private message

2

Friday, February 1st 2013, 11:06pm

"legalese idiots is what causes us to be grumpy"

Sounds like someone is angry that you justified assembling their mod into a mod pack on the basis of the legality of it? To be honest the sentence does not make a lot of sense out of context. I am assuming there is some ongoing dispute regarding your plus-plus packs inclusion of IC2?

Is the only result of this this popup banner or did you uncover some code that injects a keylogger onto your system? If just the former, I wouldn't go as far as to say its malicious, just vindictive.
Monsters a joke? Building monuments to boredom got you down? Come join the slaughter!!

DUBnet - Industrial War
http://forum.industrial-craft.net/index.…d&threadID=1458

War is hell.

narc

UUM Liquefier

  • "narc" is male

Posts: 539

Location: The Internet

  • Send private message

3

Friday, February 1st 2013, 11:08pm

Yeah, the term "malicious code" kind of implies that it's doing something to break your computer -- if it just breaks itself, it doesn't count.

4

Friday, February 1st 2013, 11:09pm

I think its just the box at the top but I am not sure also this is the first time we have had any dealings with any modder outside of our personal forum.

Mensrea

Hater

  • "Mensrea" is male

Posts: 236

Location: Pittsburgh

  • Send private message

5

Friday, February 1st 2013, 11:22pm

Considering how accessable the code is it would be very dangerous for them to insert anything truly malicious into it. Tracking them down and holding them accountable would be trivial and cybercrime is pretty serious business. I wouldn't worry about something like that happening. These folks are not criminals, they are just trying to protect something they made from being distributed outside of their channels.

If you truly want to hold the line on the plus-plus pack maybe you should open a dialogue with the developers personally. If they have not done anything like this regarding tekkit then I'm sure they would be willing to work something out with this seemingly obscure pack (not disparaging you, just noting the fact that I and many others have never even heard of it). Since they don't even pimp adfly I would say that this has nothing to do with money and more them feeling slighted by the pack disregarding their feelings on unauthorized distribution.

It would probabaly be for the best if you didnt conduct this debate in a thread. It will become a spectacle and you will just get flamed. I suggest contacting them personally. Some matters are best solved mano e mano; this is one.
Monsters a joke? Building monuments to boredom got you down? Come join the slaughter!!

DUBnet - Industrial War
http://forum.industrial-craft.net/index.…d&threadID=1458

War is hell.

6

Friday, February 1st 2013, 11:30pm

The reason why no one has really heard about us is because it wasn't really ment for any outside our little forums. Also do we know if RichardG put in the code he was talking about here? I honestly don't trust IC2 right now and what code it has in it.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "RichardG" (Jul 22nd 2014, 2:46pm)


Mensrea

Hater

  • "Mensrea" is male

Posts: 236

Location: Pittsburgh

  • Send private message

7

Friday, February 1st 2013, 11:46pm

Well, if you genuinely believe that your rights are being violated then I suggest you make a full report here:

http://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx

That is the cybercrime reporting page of http://www.fbi.gov/

Ironically, it is named ic3 (The Internet Crime Complaint Center).
Monsters a joke? Building monuments to boredom got you down? Come join the slaughter!!

DUBnet - Industrial War
http://forum.industrial-craft.net/index.…d&threadID=1458

War is hell.

aidancbrady

CEO of Kat Innovations Inc.

  • "aidancbrady" is male
  • Send private message

8

Saturday, February 2nd 2013, 12:06am

Seems RG put quite a bit of work into making that link hidden -- encoding the URL into a byte[] :P
from what I can see it's certainly not malicious, and no, it doesn't look like that code you mentioned is there. he apparently uses that document to manage capes and a few other things, but I'm too lazy to use my byte-to-char converter to decode anymore :)

EDIT:
yeah, definitely not malicious. just an achievement that, localized as "ic2info," that says the modpack isn't allowed. the code, though, has all this data encoded into byte[]s, to make it hard to decode. strange ;)
Sincerely,
0x00AB71E5

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "aidancbrady" (Feb 2nd 2013, 12:13am)


Thepowdertoy +Bleach

If you have fifty copper and use ten, how much is left? (number)

  • "Thepowdertoy +Bleach" is male

Posts: 113

Location: Skyrim

  • Send private message

9

Saturday, February 2nd 2013, 12:47am

Who is that SR at that IRC chat anyway?


Dota 2 player at SEA server.

For me nothing is OP. It just a mod for fun and I'm playing it for fun. Unless it created items from nothing. Automining not included, neither do in case of self replicating machine. However GregTech is still good, so:

GregTech Documentation Task Force Needed!

10

Saturday, February 2nd 2013, 3:03pm

Problem has been fixed, someone in our group has rewritten IC2 to not have this DRM code.

11

Saturday, February 2nd 2013, 4:04pm

Rewriting a closed source, copyrighted (and yes, the IC2 team DOES have a copyright on their creative works under US law) code to remove something you don't like really does not put you on the right side of the law.

Just sayin.

12

Saturday, February 2nd 2013, 5:18pm

Rewriting a closed source, copyrighted (and yes, the IC2 team DOES have a copyright on their creative works under US law) code to remove something you don't like really does not put you on the right side of the law.

Just sayin.
Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. 964 F.2d 965 (9th Cir. 1992).

When Nintendo pursued Game Genie for allowing players to customize
Nintendo games by editing code, the appellate court held that “a party
who distributes a copyrighted work cannot dictate how that work is to be
enjoyed. Consumers may use … a Game Genie to enhance a Nintendo Game
cartridge’s audiovisual display in such a way as to make the experience
more enjoyable.”


We are protected via fair use in American Law.

Also IC2 doesn't hold copyright according to Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp 630 F.2d 905 (2d Cir, 1980).

Mod authors potentially hold no copyright to begin with, because game
mods are "derivative works". To receive copyright protection, they
would need to show sufficient originality to warrant their own copyright
protection separate from Mojang's ownership of Minecraft. To do so,
mod developers would have to prove in a legal case that their mods
deserve copyright protection. Derivative works are not automatically
copyright protected. Texture assets and some code are potentially
covered; but as a mod is primarily a modification of a product they do
not wholly own, copyright does not automatically extend.


Just sayin

CrafterOfMines57

Miner Of Diamond

  • "CrafterOfMines57" is male

Posts: 1,482

Location: The Great Islands of Nigeria

  • Send private message

13

Saturday, February 2nd 2013, 5:38pm

Quoted

sufficient originality to warrant their own copyright protection separate from Mojang's ownership of Minecraft.

Right, because there is so much electricity in vanilla Minecraft? Why the hell would any mod developer waste their time going to court over a stupid thing like copyright protection, when it is generally assumed that nobody will steal/modify and make money off their work? Just because something is technically legal does not make it right.
Is the answer to this question no?

Quoted

Hey don't take it so hard. Ignorance is part of this generation it seems. -the wise words of XFmax-o-l

14

Saturday, February 2nd 2013, 5:50pm

Quoted

sufficient originality to warrant their own copyright protection separate from Mojang's ownership of Minecraft.

Right, because there is so much electricity in vanilla Minecraft? Why the hell would any mod developer waste their time going to court over a stupid thing like copyright protection, when it is generally assumed that nobody will steal/modify and make money off their work? Just because something is technically legal does not make it right.
So prove to me that we are making money off of this modification because according to our bank account we are losing 25 bucks a month in server costs and don't have adfly or anything, or prove that we have done anything wrong in getting rid of DRM in mod.

15

Sunday, February 3rd 2013, 12:54am

According to RichardG, he was noted by a few IC users that the modpack in question did NOT comply with IC's redistribution policy, namely it's mod list did not contain a note of or a link to IC².
As of now, the link has been added (or found?) and there's no further reason for Richard to continue toying with his DRM code on this specific modpack. It will be removed from the list (probably with next update).


@Malicious code:
Not malicious, just a (unfriendly, I know) note left to those who don't even want to comply with the simple policy we have set up.
Keep in mind, at first redistribution of IC wasn't permitted at all, then we granted permission to a few choosen modpacks and by now everyone can include it, if he simply follows a few guidelines.
Greetz,
Alblaka

16

Sunday, February 3rd 2013, 12:59am

It will be removed from the list (probably with next update).
So you are removing the DRM code from IC2 completly then, if so this is good news.

17

Sunday, February 3rd 2013, 1:03am

It will be removed from the list (probably with next update).
So you are removing the DRM code from IC2 completly then, if so this is good news.


No, we're merely removing this pack from the DRM's target list. If you were to call it a 'DRM' at all, it's just some playing-around of RichardG. Not really possible to build reliable DRMs in Java.
Greetz,
Alblaka

18

Sunday, February 3rd 2013, 1:07am

Sorry I am just worried about having a Sirsingir playing around.

19

Sunday, February 3rd 2013, 1:10am

Sorry I am just worried about having a Sirsingir playing around.

Sirsingir?
Are you referring to Sengir and Forestry's protection against technic?
Greetz,
Alblaka

20

Sunday, February 3rd 2013, 1:15am

Yes I am worried about modders putting in exploding bees or something similar.

Counter:

Hits today: 13,602 | Hits yesterday: 27,065 | Hits record: 111,506 | Hits total: 36,412,906