Talk:StarForce/Archive 3

TRUTH
I've invested a lot of time in reading about StarForce and I see no reason for avoiding the truth. All SF protected titles are available as functional clones immediately after or on the day of release and that fact is easy to verify. I understand that this is a rather touchy subject, but the tone of the article tends to favor SF. Please let me know the reasons why actuality cannot be presented within the main article. Correct me if I'm wrong or inform me if this collides with editing policy? The person who wrote the original article should visit forums of video game publishers that implement SF, along with those of Alcohol, CDFreaks and Daemon Tools. There are numerous tutorials that explain how to make a perfect SF clone and I wont to know why is this neglected? The swindle goes both ways, and the article should be closer to the center. In many ways SF is far from a bulletproof copy protection system, so please give me a good reason why that cannot be clearly stated? Please visit NFOrce and similar locations and check the .nfos. If you are willing to open your eyes then you're bound to see a number of actual SF cracks (not clones). I don’t care about copy protection, I don’t care about piracy, but I do care about the TRUTH! --Lovelight
 * The most important factor that determines what kind of information can be included in an article is verifiability from reliable sources. If you can provide such sources, there is no problem including the information in an article. We do not do original research, so even though something may be true we do not include it if we cannot verify it. Hopefully you can find a good source and this can be settled. Cheers,  jaco plane  18:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * First, there is no "perfect clone" of SF, all starforce clones need additional tools or manipulate hardware to make them work.
 * Second, I have already given a list of games protected by Starforce that have never been truely cracked.
 * Robust Physique 19:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * StarForce protection is considered extremly difficult to reverse engineer. Games protected by it are usually only cloned after several days, and rarely or never cracked. I think that this sentence is inherently POV. Considered extremely difficult? By whom?. This is using weasel words to make an argument. IF the article were simply to state "There are a number of cases in which StarForce protection has not been broken" or something similar, that would be fine. However, at the moment the article remains biased and POV.  jaco plane  01:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * but, your claim "There are a number of cases in which StarForce protection has not been broken" is also biased by ommitting important information. Since a significant portion of SF protected games have not been broken and those that were broken usully take months. Robust Physique 02:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok fine, what wording would you suggest then. You are clearly more knowlegible on this subject than I am, so if you can formulate a good NPOV sentence, that would be fine by me.  jaco plane  02:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess that this particular sentence should be either removed, or explained. I've already provided you with the link which shows the reason for lack of SF cracks, and if you care to look you'll see that making of a crack is not so difficult, as it's time consuming and utterly boring. In any case, if you are unsure how things work, you shouldn’t write about it in the place that supposes to give facts… and if you think about it, it's quite natural that crackers decided to use emulators and images to defeat StarForce. It's like Sun Tzu; I mean it's really natural that you strike the enemy at his weakest point;)… BTW, those fellows at Daemon announced the version of their tool which will supports IDE interface. Don’t know about you, but I think that this fight is actually fun to watch, and rather amusing… --Lovelight

Sorry for a bit harsh reaction yesterday… Currently I have some work to do which is related to this subject and that is main reason for my involvement in this discussion. Anyway at the moment I cannot be as comprehensive as I would like. However I'll post a few links so that you can start with verification process and as soon as I find time I'll be more detailed. To begin, anyone concerned about this dispute should visit torrent sites and search for StarForce titles, including those mentioned by Robust Physique. There are literally hundreds of places where you can do this, and http://www.torrentspy.com/default.asp is good as any. However, I suggested this link because it provides means for further reading, so that you can see actual results for particular SF title. For example if you look for POP Two Thrones or Toca 3 you'll see hundreds of posts about numerous tools, different approaches and so on, but you'll also see that all games are playable in one way or another. As it has been stated already all SF titles are playable, but sometimes the means to do it are rather extreme (unplugging of IDE ROM drives). After a little swim through torrentz you can go to Netherland and visit http://www.nforce.nl/, here you'll find all current (cracked and hacked) releases, and if you browse through PC game ISOs section you'll have further insights that prove my point. You'll even find out that working SF cracks are not as rare as one would think. I guess that information about this can also be found on ISOnews, and Uncle_Mart gave us a very clear statement on that. Also, there is a lot of reading about it on CDFreaks forums (you can read 4 weeks) and this http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=132980 thread is just an example of the discussion that folks are having there. Actually, after you go through this you'll probably have enough information to see my point, but there are numerous other location, some of them are "hidden" on Russian servers that are quite direct on how to get around SF protection (SFCopy tool and a like). After all this being said, let me just add that dispute started when: " StarForce protection is considered extremely difficult to reverse engineer. Games protected by it are usually only cloned after several days, and rarely or never cracked." sentence was removed. As I've seen when I woke up, this is now included in main article and it's enough to satisfy my love for truth, except the fact that game clones are available immediately and not "only!? after several days" (I really do expect this to be changed, I'm new in here, I do respect others people work and have no intention of doing it myself…). I guess that now you can verify this easily; just ask torrents for any current SF protected title. Finally, this was not about perfect clones, it's about working clones (I was a bit tired when I wrote that post above, last thing to do before bedtime, indeed there is no perfect clones, sorry bout that), and also about the truthful (sorry, verifiable;) information that there are ways to get around the protection, which is only indicated within main article. Hope this clears things a bit, if you need further information, let me know, I'll keep my eye on developments. One more link for you, just to let you know where exactly true force of StarForce lay http://www.reteam.org/papers/e53.pdf. That's it 4 now, peace and love to all! PS, Please understand that I'm in no way related to any pirate activities. I've just been asked to write an article about it for gaming magazine and I tend to take my job seriously. During research I've found way too many conflicting information and because of that I was forced to look into all this far more closely then I ever intended. There is a lot of smoke surrounding SF, it's hard to see clearly, but if only one percent of reports about compatibility/stability/security issues are true, then there's a real fire beneath it all…

--Lovelight


 * I know you can get SF game images easily, most are clones and are unreliable. I know there are cracked SF games, they were usully cracked because crackers found small holes that could be exploited.  I know there are forums where they talk about different approches to bypass SF, but most of those approches are quiet complicated, and most people would not bother testing out all the different methods to see if they work or not.
 * A real SF crack, where SF has been completely removed, say the crack for Worms 4, is about 1.2 GB, yes, the crack itself is 1.2 GB, almost as big as the game itself. Robust Physique 02:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, judging by what you wrote our opinions are not so different, and we don’t need to continue this discussion since we are talking about the same thing. My only concern was that these facts that you just mentioned yourself should be reflected in article. Those posts up there, which started with perspectives, perspectives were written by me, before I decided to become a full member of this fine community and I already said there, that most people won't know how to use methods which swirl around the Web, but it doesn’t mean that we should all pretend they don’t exist. Anyway that little issue that bothered me the most seems to be resolved, I would probably be much clearer on all this, but as I said, I do respect other peoples work and that's all about that. As far as this Worms you mentioned, sorry but I really don’t know what are you talking about, the crack is available at GameCopyWorld and it has no more then 2.5 MB. Take care… --Lovelight


 * oops, I meant Bet On Soldier, not worms 4. Robust Physique 16:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, now you are starting to make me uncomfortable, especially if you are in any way connected to the main article. Cracked version of the game you mentioned works perfectly; this crack is actually very interesting as it will replace/remove SF files (to do this you need some kind of advanced heuristics or a lot of free time). This might be first of a kind, and could prove quite successful, but hear-say on that. And that aside, when you state something you should be clear about it. For example in this case you should say that crack is a whole directory which overwrites SF files and once that is done; obsolete files are removed with appropriate batch (clean.bat). If you only state that it's huge, and nothing else, and you do it in manner that suppose to make us hold our breath and say – shite, then you are like SF PR staff (you didn’t see anything, it doesn’t exist, move along…), you're twisting the truth and lead people to wrong conclusion (for example, based on information you provided so innocently and without any explanation one could even think that we're talking about executable which has 1.2 GB, or worse). There is a reason why I started this section as a call for truth. I'm here only few days but I already checked given editing policy, and based on that I presented enough of easily verifiable informations (at the moment I'm still waiting for serious changes in the tone and the size of discussed article). I would appreciate if you would be more careful while presenting your point of view. I've just took a closer look at everything you wrote, I don’t know if this is your intention, and I'm sorry to say, but you're acting like a smoke bomb (no hard feelings I hope!;). In any case I' am tired of repeating obvious facts. As you said, this is true SF crack, which only proves what's been said over, and over again. SF is NOT a bulletproof protection system (and that should be stated, not ignored, it's like ignoring the reasons for war on terrorism, we all know why it happened but fail to admit it…) if SF is anything, then it's just wicked, crackers don’t feel this, people who play games illegally don’t feel it, but legitimate user do. You must admit that SF proved quite disappointing to that fellow who bought games, but cannot play them because his dependency on Promise Ultra66 card (see above or look around for similar "extremely rare" cases). Once again, there is a reason for the size of this crack, it patches (replaces) SF protected files, when this is done, useless (SF) files are removed. Moderators please take some time, go through everything written so far, do check provided links (torrents and http://www.nforce.nl/ should prove more than enough) and act upon it. In any case my opinion on this matter has just shifted; SF deserves to be treated in the same way that it treats consumers. Downsides of this protection are underestimated and should be clearly presented, currently there is too many ways to get around it and it really doesn’t matter if this is done with cracks (of any size), clones or unplugging of drives. All and I mean ALL, each and everyone, the whole bunch, entire collections;)… of SF protected games are playable in illegal manner, and these are the facts, and facts belong to encyclopedia. We don’t have to write tutorials on how it's done, but this myth about unbreakable protection is a lie that belongs to the past. If you think about it it's even funny, you can take SF game, copy it any manner that you wish, unplug IDE drives and play without any interference at all. I can't say what will happen tomorrow, but main article should be locked, people should be pointed to this discussion and share their opinions. Love truth… --Lovelight


 * Mabey you should do more research. Nobody said SF is bullet proof, it's simply considered extremly difficult to crack amongst crackers.  The Bet On Soldier crack is 1.2 GB because it replaces every file that has been wraped with SF by a decrypted one.  Each file had to be manually decrypted.  Mabey you think this sounds easy, but it's not.  And it took about 4 months to crack this game.  Every cracker knows how difficult starforce is to crack, there is no real cracker who would tell you otherwise.
 * You can provide all the p2p and nforce links you want, but guess what, real crackers don't hang around in nforce.nl. Hate to break it to you but you're no where near the real cracking scene.  Mabey you should investigate more from a cracker's perspective rather than a gamer's perspective before mouthing off.
 * btw, you know this article http://www.reteam.org/papers/e53.pdf shows some of the reasons why SF is difficult to crack right?
 * Robust Physique 22:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I said that I'm in no way related to "the scene"! I really don’t know what gave you that idea? Are you aware that you just repeated everything I said above? Are you aware that I provided that link that you are showing now, have you seen what I wrote about it? Are you reading this at all or are you just buzzin'? While you talk the talk, I walked the walk, and provide editors with means to verify my claims. Torrents are simply easiest and best place to do it… this has nothing to do with crackers, it's about StarForce and the fact that it's currently useless! Just read what has been written… Main article should say that SF is easily avoided, nothing more, nothing less. I have no intention to continue this discussion with you… --Lovelight


 * Are you dense? I was trying to tell you that the link you have provided only demonstrates the strength of SF.
 * Are you too dense to realize every link you have provided doesn't really justify any of your claims?
 * Your own bias aginst SF is very apprent, talking about how starforce is useless. Face it, you simply do not know what you are talking about.  You are not a cracker, you have never sat down and analyze starforce's pcodes, nor have you talked to any crackers who reverse engineer starforce.  Starforce has been broken before, but one of the reasons that crackers fear starforce is because starforce constantly updates their protection and fix any loop holes that are discovered.  Many starforce developers are highly experienced crackers from Unpacking Gods.  Just because one can download a clone does not mean shit, because clone is not guaranteed to work.  The fact that one has to manipulate hardware to get a clone work can discourage many causual pirates.  Robust Physique 00:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You know... poor grammar, ad hominem attacks, and bragging about your connections to the "scene" really don't help your case at all.


 * All StarForce protected games are playable. Period. That is my point, prove me wrong and I give you a lollypop and perhaps a nice flower;). You know that, and I know that and anyone who unplugged a cord knows that. The real questions is, are you a cracker? What's exactly is your interest in all this? Why do you care for this protection so vigorously, is it because you are Robust? Take care man, I have nothing against you or your opinion, just give me the proof that I'm wrong and I'll apologies to everybody and back down immediately… --Lovelight


 * PS
 * And most important of it all, if everybody here knows about, and if most people agree on it, then why is this fact only indicated, and not explained in main article? Most readers won't see what the sentence: "If no IDE drives are present, however, SCSI drives will function normally without interference from StarForce." - implies. Anyway I wish to thank you all for sparking this passion in me!;), it has been a while since I felt this way about something that didn’t bother me yesterday:). Of course, these last few post are subjective as they can be, and I would like to apologize if I unintentionally hurt somebody (especially you my robust friend;)… This StaForce thingy should already been far behind me, and I have indeed approached to it from a gamer's perspective… and from gamers perspective things look simple and kind as they always been. You folks are here far longer than I've been no need for me to impose more opinions, anyway I feel that I said, all I have to say (I even said things I shouldn’t have say;), see you around. Peace & Love to all, --Lovelight

"Can usually"
Edited "can usully" be cloned to "can be cloned" as there is a 100% working clone of every starforce game available which all work without problems by using virtual drive pro (no unplugging, just mount and play). "Just because one can download a clone does not mean shit, because clone is not guaranteed to work. The fact that one has to manipulate hardware to get a clone work can discourage many causual pirates." This isnt true and heres a program that can allow you to mount and play on ANY hardware without having to manipulate hardware, currently EVERY SF game will work with this flawlessly and has done for about 6 months. This may be blacklisted in some way in the future but as it stands right now, cloneCD back ups are 100% working on this program. http://www.farstone.com/home/ensite/products/virtualdrive.shtml Uncle_Mart


 * That program does *not* work 100% with all Starforce titles. If you were to do some checking you'd note that all it does is attempt to disable IDE drives, which doesn't work on most motherboards as Starforce attempts to reenable any drives it finds disabled. From the Starforce point of view this program is nothing more than a basic SCSI virtual drive with IDE Node disabling features. There are programs which do all of this already. I have my suspicions that you are trying to sell this program as you insist on mentioning it on every available and unavailable opportunity.
 * Secondly the clones of Starforce are not 100% perfect copies of the CD/DVD they are infact edited in an attempt to make them more compatible. At very least some burners and CD writers cannot play the Starforce clones. It takes specific tools to make the Starforce clones usable.
 * I'd point you to http://www.nforce.nl/index.php?switchto=nfos&menu=quicknav&item=viewnfo&id=100136 note the instructions required for use there.. hardly indicative of a 'perfect clone' but a patched one, a perfect clone requires nothing more than burning to work. That same group's most recent release is not able to be burned at all. http://www.nforce.nl/index.php?switchto=nfos&menu=quicknav&item=viewnfo&id=102784

StarForce Apology
Wonder if the StarForce "apology" added tonight is right. This refers to the post added by one of the administrators on the incriminated thread, while closing the thread. I'm not sure if we can consider this as an apology, as for things like that, a real apology should prolly come as a news on their website, not discretely in that thread (even if it it the very same thread that started the issue). I don't edit anything, but I think it should be formulated differently to show that it's not really what would be considered by most as an apology on the matter. Gorkk 21:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why should they apologize for revealing the truth? Robust Physique 03:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't. Not by any means. What they should apologize for is publically providing a link to an illegal download source for a product using a competing business model, to make a point that was already obvious (that a game without copy protection is being pirated) and in any case could've been made without using such means, and furthermore because this incident has received a large amount of publicity. --Kizor 03:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * ya, we should also add a section to microsoft article on how a puppy was killed on its compound. Robust Physique 03:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This just actually happened and was reported. --Kizor 09:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I must admit, it doesn't really seem important enough to go in the article. It wasn't really a link to an 'illegal download source', it was just a link to some kind of torrent search engine, as far as I know. And it wasn't any kind of official company action, and they've apologised, so.. --Fuzzie (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually it was a link to the page of the torrent on the torrent index site, not only a link to the torrent index site, which would not have been illegal (the site itself is totaly legal). But linking to the page of the torrent on the site is exactly the same as linking to the torrent itself. Furthermore, in a way it was an official comany action: it has been done by an employee of the company, on the company website, and lasted more than a week, which means it has been tolerated by the company, until StarDock found out (and even then the link lasted longer on the thread than on the torrent index site - still, that torrent index site is prosecuted). I don't consider a sneeky post while closing the thread enough of apologies considering the press coverage on this. That's why I was questioning the way the apology was mentionned. Gorkk 11:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Added the apology by mail StarForce sent to StarDock (see ) instead of the simple mention of the apology. The "apology" on their forums is discutable: basicaly, they don't accept liability for it, and nearly say that that "mistake" had been caused by all the people who hate StarForce, as well as it was part of their "planned PR action"(??): just a mistake of our employee that was boosted into “our planned PR action” by the people, who hate StarForce. Gorkk 21:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

In any case, thanks for the paragraph's present condition. The accusations made against the company for the act, on reflection, needed no explicit pointing out. --Kizor 00:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

StarForce Contest?
I have a quick question here. Should this article include the "contest" that StarForce held, in which they were requesting people to prove that StarForce is malware by forcing them to fly out to Russia and display it on a corporate machine? It seems like an important thing to note. Source is here: http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/starforce/starforce-naysayers-invited-to-moscow-meeting-151890.php

Sorry if I did something wrong here, I'm new! I thought this was something that ought to be in the article or at the very least linked in the news bits. There's no way I'd actually edit the front page without running this through discussion first though. Let me know! :) -DaveKap [[User:66.66.4.

Remo208|66.66.4.208]] 10:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally neutral on that addition. This is probably a better place to link, since it's on their site. Based on the contents of that link, 'corporate machine' doesn't necessarily seem to be the case. Certainly more notable than the GalCiv2 thing, though. --Fuzzie (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, concerning that contest, at first it was $1000, then $5000, and became $10000 only few days before the end. Furthermore, it's been reported on several forums that at least a few people tried to enter the contest, and couldn't. One got an automatic answer with a number, saying they will contact him => nothing. Another got a message telling him to contact support, which in turn told him to applicate to the contest, back and forth, until the date was over. If that contest shall be mentionned, the interpretation of the "results" by StarForce (saying it proves they were right, and StarForce does no harm) shan't: they said afterwards it was a proof StarForce was no malware, while the contest only concerned physical failure on drives (not all the other issues), claimed that noone entered, while several people claimed to have tried, and 'till a few days before the end of the contest, the prize was not $10000, so very few incentive to go there and risk losing money in the end. Gorkk 12:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is relevant, and should be added. It was big enough news online in for instance the gaming community. The limited timeframe, the small "prize" (considering all the conditions), and eventually the logical fallacy where the company claims it has been proven their software does not cause the problems some claim it does (I'm not saying it does, haven't experienced any problems myself) are controversial. This makes it a difficult matter for Wikipedia, but the very fact that it's a controversial matter warrants inclusion in the article. Right? Retodon8 01:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

--

Removed that part where it said "pirated versions are often available shortly after release in form of cloned images" to "pirated versions are available shortly after release in form of cloned images" as often isnt accurate at all, as every SF game has a clone image released. If someone would like to provide some proof that at least 10% of games released havent been cloned then I think the "often" might be worth bringing back but im aware of no games that have never been cloned as its stupidly easy to clone a starforce game.

Removal of Image:Starforce vs stardock.jpg
I have uploaded the image to assist in the citation of the article, but it was removed by another wikipedia because they believed it was against fair use. Here are my points in favour for it. I will be re-adding the image unless a clear violation of copyright is argued for.


 * the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;


 * It is a valid point to display an image to cite a criticism.


 * the nature of the copyrighted work;


 * The only copyright on [the original] page is for the forum sofware at the bottom, so the posts themselves may not even be copyrighted.


 * the amount and substantially of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and


 * refer to previous, and the screenshot is 2 posts out of 76.


 * the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.


 * in any case, the forum contents cannot be sold/marketed so there is none.

Please discuss Fosnez 18:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course the posts are copyrighted, the presence of a copyright notice is irrelevant. Your copyright tag of the image is the 'screenshot of software' one, which isn't what the copyright issues are about in this case - the comments are the problem. We're not criticizing the software. Presumably this is fair use, but you need an appropriate tag/justification. --Fuzzie (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is what I posted to Fosnez's talkpage earlier..... Thinking it over again, perhaps this could qualify as fair use. Template:Web-software-screenshot should be used, and you need to add the fair use rationale like you added on my talk page to the image description page. That should cover it. Do you think this image is noteworthy enough? I mean, it's just a message on some random forum, the description in the text makes it pretty clear what happened. Cheers,  jaco plane  00:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it'd be better to link to one of the news stories on the subject, or perhaps the post on the StarDock site, rather than linking to or displaying the image at all. But then, I don't think the incident is notable in the first place, so my opinion is likely biased. --Fuzzie (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I did change the tag on the image and put a fair use on it, but it was still removed... I did also originally add "(Story Pic of Original Edited Version)" to the page but this has also dissapeared. If anyone wants to add these back in they are welcome to... Fosnez 16:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again removed the "usually" cloned as this is unacurate (see my previous post), but it looks like someone copied and pasted an older version with this still in Uncle Mart 21:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)  p.s thanks for the sig tip Fuzzie :) much appreciated sir.

And in relation to the copyright from forum thing, normally the copyright on forums is held by the forums itself, that is to say (for example) if someone were to post on isonews, isonews owns the copyright to that post and is liable for all content within it, this is normally stated in the terms and conditions upon joining that you agree to give the site you are posting on full permission to hold the copyright for anything you write. This of course can vary between forums but is generally this way for most places. Uncle Mart 21:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You're confusing permissions and copyright transfer, I suspect. --Fuzzie (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Not at isonews im not :) we've had this discussion with our sites attorney before and I can say with 100% certainty that it works that way on our forum, others may differ of course reading the label before usage is always recomended, as for the material in question I wont get involved with that, im just citing info from my experiance to try and help out. I also once again removed the "usually cloned", I wont repeat my reasons again but I would like to call for robust physique to be removed as an editor of this thread if this happens again as he is obviously biased as I have provided countless sourcess of information to prove this and he repeatedly edits things back to how they were without any reason for doing so other than supporting SF. Uncle Mart 21:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've beefed the content up a little with some more scene information. I see a lot of the debate is about what counts as cracked, all pretty pointless IMO. Inside the scene you either have a crack or a tool supported image and both are just as easy, it's about half/half between cracked releases and a Clone or BWClone where you use a tool like sd4hide to fool the protection, very easy to use.


 * obviously you know nothing about the scene. The massive number of cloned images simply mean they are easy to make, not because sceners like clone or clones are easy to use.


 * Somewhat but still usually effective. The obssession with releasing cracked versions is just macho posing between groups now that Securom and Safedisk are so easily bypassed with a tool.

Drivers widely used
Almost very copy protection system including SecuRom and SafeDisc use their own drivers, I don't see why this fact is remarkable. Given that Windows 64 cannot load 32 bit drivers, and most copy protected games require drivers, that makes Windows 64 incompatible with many games not just StarForce protected games. I feel in the interests of NPOV that fact should be noted.

However SF is the only copyprotection that installs RING0 drivers, reboots your computer when it thinks an act of piracy is being commited, damages hardware and more. I think the drivers are one of the main factors about the failing of Starforce. 130.133.8.114 11:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * every driver is ring0. Einsensteiner 17:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's claimed that the SF driver runs application code in ring0, which is obviously quite different from the driver itself running in ring0. On the subject of drivers, I think the issues involved definitely deserve a mention, but if there are 64-bit issues with other copy protection drivers, and you can source that, then that should definitely be noted. --Fuzzie (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This is true Fuzzie, the SF drivers run all their code and apps at ring0, and this is THE only protection that does this, hence it causing such massive problems with so many people. Also I re-added the boycott thing as its in the news as often as starforce is, theres no reading about SF without their mention and SF have publicly stated that there is a conspiricy behind it and that the boycott is run by the mafia and other protection companies (yes I know its hilarious ;) ) Leaving out the boycott of this article is pure idiocy as its obviously having a HUGE impact on SF and should be documented. Also I changed the "sometimes" works as ANYONE with a mild knowledge of computers can bypass SF without any problems, re-read my posts in the discussion for proof and links. Im afraid with the dissapearance of Robust physique from this article (and I might add almost the same time) we have a new person who seems hellbent on removing some important points (that are also true) that dont look too good on starforce, im now 100% sure SF employees are vandalizing this article. Uncle Mart 09:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Your attempt to push anti-SF POV is so blatantly obvious that even a blind person can see it. Einsensteiner 21:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * .. says the obvious sockpuppet who's even more clearly pushing pro-SF POV. Can't you at least try and avoid not using identical edit summaries and making identical spelling mistakes to your other socks? --Fuzzie (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice that you mention im anti SF, well I am but im trying my very best to keep that out of this article, something you seem to be failing miserably at. I've explained all the reasons of my edits and you've never come up with even a half decent argument against them yet continously edited out important factors about the history and state of SF. You are trying your very best to make SF out to be something its clearly not. I notice you didnt deny any of my points, nor find any good arguments against them but rather decided to just cal lme anti SF. well as I said, I am anti SF due to its HUGE amount of bugs and security problems that have caused not only me but MANY other people hardware failure or data loss. Im happy to keep my opinion off the article but this is the discussion page, and while im going to state what I think here im not going to publish false information about SF nor will I sit back while you do. p.s my aologies Fuzzie but I think I screwed up your edit a little, I offline edited the article and the site was reacting like it was dead. Uncle Mart 21:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)