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/

  • "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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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

    The post was edited 1 time, last by aidancbrady ().

  • 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!

  • 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.

  • 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

  • Quote

    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?


    Quote

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


  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.