Protected/Unprotected RWP - What's The Difference?

[bigvern]

Simple enough question I guess, but I'm rather curious to know the answer having just had to deal with a situation over at Trainsim.com where someone has rebundled my Heartbeat Moor route and uploaded it as their own. (See here: http://www.trainsim.com/vbts/showthread ... tbeat-Moor ).

Up to now I have distributed my routes on an unprotected basis but it seems we are still up against the element who see freeware as meaning "free for all" or "free to do what I want with it", which is not the case. My interpretation of freeware is that the route author shares the work for no financial return on their part, but retains copyright and intellectual property over the content. So I want to know what difference flagging a route or asset as "Protected" will make in avoiding a similar unpleasant situation arising in future?

Unfortunately much as with MSTS, once files are installed there is very little to stop an unscrupulous individual from rebundling the content into a fresh rwp and passing it off as their own. This is something that RSC ought to be involved with as they have inherited and are now responsible for the Kuju designed architecture of the game. I believe recent measures were brought in to protect the intellectual property rights of payware authors, that needs extending across to the freeware sector. The KUID system used by N3V (Auran) is not perfect but it does afford some measure of protection to the content creator.

I have also taken TS.com to task for the rather sloppy vetting of uploaded files - I appreciate the library custodians can't know or check every file or site on the internet to see if someone is passing off other's work as their own, but in this case the lack of a proper readme plus the uploader doing so from a Hotmail address should have sounded alarm bells.

Thoughts and constructive discussion appreciated.

[jp4712]

Vern, the 'protected' option does exactly what you want - it prevents someone checking the assets/folders and including them in a .rwp package of their own made via the Package Creator. Of course, it won't stop them including it in a zip file made via Windows Explorer and I'm sure there are nefarious means of obviating the protection, but it should make 'casual rebundling' of the kind you describe much harder.

As an experiment, I suggest you open Package Creator and try to bundle some assets together from payware providers and see what happens.

Paul

[karma99]

The fact that it was an exe would suggest that it was repackaged with RW Tools bespoke packager.. which has the unfortunate side effect of bypassing the built in protected packaging option. Maybe something Mike should look at.
As Paul says it's still possible to package it as a file structure and a simple batch file will stick it in the right place for it to work so it's very light protection.

Due to the nature of how we like the sim to work, i.e. we can create, edit, cut and paste, hack and tinker to our hearts contents (with all but career scenarios) I can't see a good way to also offer bullet proof security which won't impeed that.
Helping the hosting sites that care about such things by nudging them when it occurs is probably the best option.

[jp4712]

I just did an experiment - the .rwp creates, but it only includes 'unprotected' files. But I think the two problems are a) people remembering to protect assets; and b) the ease with which it can be circumvented. For example, I don't have 7-zip but did I read somewhere that if you package files as a 7-zip and simply rename the file extension to .rwp it works? With respect to a), this morning I selected every single piece of payware I have (and it is a LOT) and put it all in one big .rwp bundle. The file is nearly 1GB so clearly a lot of stuff in there is not protected (I don't know what, and if I knew I think it would be unwise to say so in public!).

The other issue I suppose is that no protection will allow you to be selective about who can re-package and who can't. For example, many uploaders here are happy for other people to incorporate their work (in a route, for example) but only if that route is available solely via UKTS (usually to make it easier to support users in one place). But even my humble scenarios have turned up in some strange places and if someone has a problem with a scenario downloaded from there I simply can't help as I didn't even know it was hosted there.

Paul

[stephenholmes]

Good morning everyone
I'm sorry to read about your problem Vern
Unfortunately there will always be those who are dishonest and who are prepared to take anything and everything
One thing I don't agree with is DRM but that is only my opinion
I think DRM punishes everybody including those who are honest and law abiding
More and more companys are moving away from DRM as they realise it has a negative effect on customer relations
I don't think there is any system that is totally fool proof with regards to protection
Hackers will see any protection as a challenge and from what I have been told most of Railworks content has found it's way on torrent sites.
I hope you manage to reach a satisfactory outcome Vern....I have no time for dishonesty
Kind regards Stephen

[Darpor]

Hi Vern

A quick internet search reveals that your route is not only available there, it's linked at various locations. Obviously this poses a problem in itself in terms of support queries as Paul stated and for yourself in terms of downloads which I know is handy to keep track of. It's most likely there are several times more people have the route than you think which would certainly be pleasing to know if there was any way you could know!

It is becoming quite common practice now on "certain" forums which cannot obviously be named that they will have UKTS request sections simply because they either feel hard done by with regards to paying premium or are just too impatient to sit in the queue and await the download. It's very easy for them to put their request out for a UKTS file (with ID) and then someone will download it before uploading to a filehost for everyone to download with instant access. Unfortunately, even "protecting" your freeware route will have little benefit against those who know what they are doing as they have full access to the Railworks folder structure, they will just tinker and provide an alternative upload to an .rwp file.

Although I still upload everything to UKTS and will continue to do so, I have also provided alternative links at one other forum and on my own site simply to give the option to people. Of course, this hasn't made a blind bit of difference to whether the requesters ask for and have it uploaded elsewhere!

My guess is that the user who uploaded the route wasn't trying to pass of the work as their own but just trying to provide an alternative download to here. Of course, the way it has been done is completely wrong. Whether you would or not, I am sure the user could have sent you a PM merely to ask if you would consider putting the route up there (or elsewhere) as an alternative download source but top and bottom is, they didn't, with common decency flying out of the window as usual.

[alanch]

As far as I can see, the file has been removed from the Trainsim.com library. I suspect as Darren says that this was only the tip of the iceberg - we now have at least two generations who believe that anything found on the internet can be re-distributed freely without any acknowledgement of the original author.

[bigvern]

Thanks for the responses so far guys. Pretty much as I figured really, there's no real built in protocols in RW to prevent an unscrupulous individual from repackaging another's work and uploading it as their own. As suggested, policing other file sites is probably the only way of removing albeit not preventing the problem. If RW tools is - inadvertently I'm sure - making it easier for users to bypass what copyright protection there is in there, then that's something that Mike needs to urgently address on behalf of all creators - freeware and payware - maybe even to the extent of removing the features concerned.

I can of course see the attraction of having the file uploaded at TS.com as, with no criticism of UKTS, it is generally easier to get in over there as a free user than people can here. When I downloaded the file to check it I got straight in and while 30 kb/s isn't that fast, a 50Mb file is still downloaded in the time it takes to make a post on a forum. Rare if ever you get the "All Nodes Busy" message that used to be a frequent occurrence at TS/FS.com.

If the file popped up on other libraries in its original form and with readme/credits intact I would be more relaxed but in this case it does I'm afraid appear the individual had stripped out those references and at best passively trying to present it as their own work.

I'm trying not to let this discourage me from starting another RW project when/if the editor enhancements come along. However I am thinking about how future distribution is done. Problem being that anything that requires users to download an encrypted file say from say Fastspring or similar means money changing hands, as does putting the route on CD. When I did the latter for MSTS I eventually ran foul of Customs & Excise who regarded even "at cost" distribution as running a business which had to be VAT registered. In the end I got round it by the fact SW Reg were charging the VAT and that I'd paid VAT on the materials but it got tricky for a moment or two. Which is why I mentioned the KUID system. If I create a Trainz route, put it on the DLS then someone alters a section of track and re-uploads it at least the original author and contributor credits are still in there. Besides I have a feeling it is possible in CMP to protect your work against re-distribution, something I need to check.

[bigvern]

As far as I can see, the file has been removed from the Trainsim.com library. I suspect as Darren says that this was only the tip of the iceberg - we now have at least two generations who believe that anything found on the internet can be re-distributed freely without any acknowledgement of the original author.

Correct, I had an email from Nels this morning confirming the file is gone. However the individual concerned appears to have uploaded some other route files recently including one or two called "Test Route", hopefully not the RSC Test Route!

[msey0002]

Certain sites also distribute much more than just freeware unfortunately (and they have distributed the little freeware I have contributed also. My fault for not putting a disclaimer however), I am curious as to why action isn't taken against said sites?

I am not sure of whether we are able to talk about this openly or not, so mods feel free to alter/delete any part or all of my post as you see fit, just let me know why via PM

[Darpor]

As far as I can see, the file has been removed from the Trainsim.com library. I suspect as Darren says that this was only the tip of the iceberg - we now have at least two generations who believe that anything found on the internet can be re-distributed freely without any acknowledgement of the original author.

And that train of thought isn't restricted to freeware.

I did have a good laugh late last year when someone (albeit accidentally) included some payware files in a route package and subsequently removed them, they weren't needed anyway. However, I got a few PM's from his "friend" telling me all about how it isn't illegal to share anything for Railworks even if it is payware or not. His idea is for instance, if I created a station bench based on a real one somewhere, the creation of the asset doesn't give me any right to protection as that is attributed to the people who built the bench. The same applies for reskins whereby the author cannot complain if someone takes it and uploads it elsewhere because they will not own the locomotive design or reskin, therefore its fair game and you don't have any right to protection. I presume the same logic applies to routes and locomotive creation itself, after all, the authors didn't design or build the original locomotive or plant any trees or place any bricks on the actual route.

The best one was left until last though and when I was told not to reply as I wouldn't be listened to any more. Some are under the impression that anything created for Railworks as payware has a years grace after which everything can be distributed for free under some sort of creative licence? Needless to say that told me.

[transadelaide]

Correct, I had an email from Nels this morning confirming the file is gone. However the individual concerned appears to have uploaded some other route files recently including one or two called "Test Route", hopefully not the RSC Test Route!

I would guess it's not Test TraK - why redistribute core content?

I'm not sure whether the RWP protection would be of much use for preventing anything more than accidental inclusion of assets in a package. If it can prevent manual extraction with 7-zip and can withstand an attempt to edit the package info then that would make it pretty useful. If one or both of those bypasses work (which I use on occasion for checking content before installing it) then it's really only a defence against accidental inclusion.

One thing though, Darren referred to an incident involving JT payware assets being included in a package. It's probably happened a few times, but the incident I remember reporting to him was caused by accidental inclusion. If JT installed a package info file instead of installing their addons in the registry as programs it would not only make it much convenient for users who need to reinstall but also protect against these accidental asset inclusions.

[chrisreb]

Sorry to hear of this Vern.

If file is removed then that is something at least. I suppose it is a backhanded compliment that your route is sought after (and for good reason).

All you can do is jump on this sort of thing with the website owner in the hope they are honest enough to do something about it.

[karma99]

His idea is for instance, if I created a station bench based on a real one somewhere, the creation of the asset doesn't give me any right to protection as that is attributed to the people who built the bench. The same applies for reskins whereby the author cannot complain if someone takes it and uploads it elsewhere because they will not own the locomotive design or reskin, therefore its fair game and you don't have any right to protection. I presume the same logic applies to routes and locomotive creation itself, after all, the authors didn't design or build the original locomotive or plant any trees or place any bricks on the actual route.

That's hilarious. Under that arguement I can pirate Call of Duty because Activision didn't invent war!
Where do these kids get these rediculous ideas from?! Presumably I can steal their car because they didn't invent that either

I'd be very tempted to flood torrents with faulty downloads if I were a payware producer.. wheels that roll the wrong way, reverser controls that work backwards, reskinned with "Hello Kitty" images, then a few more mallicious ones with script that ran for a while and then the loco locked up (20 minutes or so into a scenario), some that overwrote parts of other items by the producer and broke those as well.
I reckon soon enough playing RW Russian Roulette would put most of them off of piracy.

Not sure you'd gain any sales, but you'd make their lives very miserable and you'd know who the pirates were when they came a'complaining

[Retro]

Sorry to hear about you problem Vern. It seems to be a fact nowadays that people will often pay scant regard for rules and regulations. The fact that you created something seems to give some people the right to ride roughshod over your rights in this matter. With regards to the Packager I have tried leaving it as protected but it will not let you make the Package so I am obviously missing something there.
I have stipulated that The Central Route when released can only be made available through uktrainsim.com. This is also a condition of some of my Asset Providers whose Assets will be packaged within the route package. It would seem I might have problems here.
I can understand that people might want a free unhindered download but the subscription to Atomic Systems is not a great deal of money and allows unhindered downloads plus use of Atomic Album etc. It is also a source of income to Matt to keep everything running for our benefit.
You can try and protect your work but someone will always be able to get round that protection and make things available elsewhere as Stephen pointed out.
It does seem to be a no win situation unfortunately.
Kind regards James.