Talk:StarForce/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vandalism Attempts[edit]

    • Somebody from the usa's ip adress trying to change the article which is the most objective and reflect today StarForce situation. They simply revert to a previous article condition with out any persuasive comment. I'm insist that my version is much more describes up to date StarForce situation, because all my changes goes together with citation and information sources. I have to ask admins to suppress vandalism attempts. Sopinsci 12:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that. I've been off Wikipedia for a while studying for my AP tests. Check the IP's talk page--if he has a history of vandalism, go ahead and report him to the admins. crazyviolinist 00:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Damn, but User from 217.154.84.2 vindalized tha article once more. I'v read the help, but didnt understand how to report this fact to admins. On the user's talk page, i'v left the warning, and my warning is not the first! Could somebody help me to report this user as a vandal to admins. Thank you!

Article reverted to previous state. Sopinsci 10:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft tests + certification programm[edit]

1. Once company get such status it must be mentioned in the article. If you asl me for proof i'll answer - no one may display programm logo on it site be concern of MS permisson. Same thing with passed Vista compatibility tests. I do not think that SF is too stupid to show this logos without real business.

2. SCSI optical drive issue. So personally o know at least 6 games protected by 4.0-4.7 version. In Russia all games past half a year protected by 4.5/4.7. You could simply make a google serch for this new version. Never met any mention on described SCSI problem.

Too many editions are due to my curved hands. Exuse me. Sopinsci 11:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar edition / explanation: SplinterCell[edit]

In the section on v.3, this: Splinter Cell:Chaos Theory held - 400+ days. is in the initial paragraph: I'm editing the copy of the article & not quite sure what it means... that SC:CT held on for 400+ days [i.e. without being cracked]? Will happily edit language then place back into article _> MonstaPro:Talk:Contrib. 22:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you MonstaPro for correction. Sure it held without being cracked. Placed it back in article properly. Sopinsci 05:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What needs adding[edit]

I've just been through the article making it more readable, but without making too many changes to its meaning. Having pored through the whole thing, here's a couple of additions I'd like to suggest: --Tom Edwards 19:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StarForce 4.0 reputation[edit]

Someone has obviously added "3.0" to the whole reputation section, raising the very large question of what later versions are like. Even Boycott StarForce don't seem to know if 4.0 has any negative effects! This article desperately needs something on this. --Tom Edwards 19:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The StarForce rebellion[edit]

Not a NPOV title, but that doesn't really matter on a talk page. :-p Anyone who's been on the gaming web for more than a couple of years will remember that criticism of StarForce peaked around 2006 and has leaked away since then - but the article doesn't recognise this. It cites a load of sources from '06, but doesn't make the connection that this was when SF was under the spotlight. We should re-structure it into something roughly chronological: e.g. "the 2006 blitz" and "everything since then". --Tom Edwards 19:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was me who added 3.0 into the article, because me as you and as others haven't heard anything bad about 4.0/5.0 versions. They protected a lot of games by 4.0 and there is nothing bad over the internet. So belive that we have to seperate 3.x and 4.x versions in that case. I'v heard a lot about new structure in 4.x and i guess that MS sertification means that this new version is much stable and quality.

BTW Great work Tom on changing the article, now its reading much easier and newcomer will understand the issue clearly. Concerning rebellion - it wasn't rebellion, it was dirty but clever PR campaign, which caused tonns of user complaints. Sure SF made certain resume and has been improved. Sopinsci 09:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV/weasel[edit]

I think this is the most non-weasel weaseled article I've seen. I changed a few minor things around. Can someone point out specific weasel issues that I'm not seeing? Lostinlodos 04:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You know this article has been started by StarForce haters. Now when firm made a good job improving its product (i mean SF 4.0/4.7) there is a kined of medley here. Between SF 3.0 problems/rumores/4.0 advantages. Did you notice that all bad words are one year old and beyond? It is because StarForce now is the most compatible and along with this most reliable copy protection on the world.Sopinsci 10:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And how would you know that? Nikos 17:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article[edit]

This article is full of lies. Many of the citations do not support the statement they are being used to support. For instance the suggestion that a game was not cracked links to an NFO file for a crack for that game. This article is unobjective and not critical enough of StarForce; it reads like an advertisement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.77.137.255 (talk • contribs).

(moved from top of page) --h2g2bob (talk) 02:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only link to an NFO file accompanies Splinter Cell, which was cracked and is described as such. Do you have any other examples? --Tom Edwards 22:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user is talking about this page, which is used as citation here. --Dreaded Walrus t c 22:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Missed that. Looks like it needs to be removed: SF wasn't broken, but then it didn't need to be... --Tom Edwards 13:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ubisoft[edit]

Does anyone else find it strange that the article fails to mention that it no longer uses starforce. Ubisoft was one of their largest customers. 67.173.249.150 23:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned. See StarForce##Clients. --Dreaded Walrus t c 23:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Mention of Emulators[edit]

Certain programs can spoof this angle by intercepting communications between the CD drive and the protected application, effectively disabling the protection.

Dear Tom Edwards! What for do we need to mention on emulator programs here? We telling ppl on certain protection and not the way to bypass it. If they want to they'll fined how to do it. Please advise. Sopinsci 06:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to make any comment on StarForce's effectiveness at all, we must cover both sides of the coin. So long as these types of things aren't named I see no harm in acknowledging their existence. --Tom Edwards 07:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By not mentioning that it is possible to bypass and/or remove the protection (crack), the reader will assume that this might be a 100% safe protection, which is not true. Also, information about "Splinter Cell Chaos Theory" should stay in the article since it is enlightening as to how hard it actually was and how long it took to remove the protection. Nikos 17:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sopinsci[edit]

The user Sopinsci seems to be posting on a lot of various forums concerning copy protected games, where he/she actively defends StarForce against accusation and points other users to StarForce customer support, and also advocates StarForce's superiority over other copy prevention software. On some forums, this user only has a single post where he bumps in to defend or advocate StarForce. Some examples:

If this user is working for StarForce Technologies, he/she should not be allowed to edit this Wikipedia article, where the only changes he/she made are lessening the critique on StarForce (like removing a part that states that StarForce can be circumvented and other changes; see history). Nikos 18:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here if any.Sopinsci 07:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly seems strange that someone who claims to have become interested in copy protection in 2003 would spend the last year editing only this article, showing no interest in other copy protection schemes since the day he registered. Is there enough evidence to request an IP check, to see if he edits from StarForce headquarters? 65.241.160.10 21:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. I first found Sopinsci back in December making the edits. I accused him of such (see the earlier topic) and eventually I dropped my accusations. I haven't edited the article for a very long time, but I just returned because it came up on my watchlist that people were editing the article once again on a regular basis and on a heated level. While I assumed good faith in Sopinsci for quite a while, realize that overall the article has changed from a encyclopedic viewpoint to one biased towards StarForce after I stopped editing in April (something like that). Calm down people, we don't want an edit war over this. However, now that it has come up that some of Sopinsci's behavior starts to look suspicious, then I suggest that we do a IP check. If he is indeed working for Protection Technologies/StarForce Technologies, then I take the blame for not realizing this earlier. If he isn't, then we need to calm down and work together on this. crazyviolinist 02:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I compared the recent edit to my last edit I made back in March. Given how the article has differed quite a lot (the article has shifted towards pro-Starforce), I believe we should do an IP check. crazyviolinist 02:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ad cruft[edit]

This article is rapidly becoming an advertisement for StarForce. The vast majority of the references on the page are primary sources, i.e., links to the software developer's website. Such references should be avoided in favor of reputable, verifiable secondary sources, such as mainstream media websites, etc. I'll be coming back here soon to start culling the parts of the article that read more like an advertisement than anything else. --DachannienTalkContrib 11:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick scan of the ref subheading shows that the only section to reference the SF homepage is the one that describes the different versions. Every other reference is from a third-party, and predominantly hostile ones at that.
What I would like to know is why there's been a resurgence of interest in this article lately? At least three people including Dachannien have started editing it in just the last few days! --Tom Edwards (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My interest was pretty much randomly determined, as I visited the article as a reader rather than an editor. I reviewed some of the recent edits and came to the conclusion that there have been a lot of POV-motivated edits in recent weeks/months that may have WP:COI connotations to them. --DachannienTalkContrib 22:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crediting piracy groups with releases[edit]

I'm trying to find a precedent on Wikipedia for this, since it doesn't seem justifiable to me. See this help request. --Tom Edwards (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Damage to hardware" claim in lead[edit]

Since the claim made by Cory Doctorow that StarForce caused hardware damage in one version is apparently contentious, I wanted to have a discussion of that statement here before restoring it. User:Xihr stated in the edit comments that it is a POV claim when included in the summary. My response is that the most notable thing about StarForce is the controversy that grew around it when the hardware problems (whether permanent or temporary) were being reported, and thus a brief mention of those problems in the summary is merited. The controversy did in fact exist, and it's not POV merely to mention it.

I'd say it's far more notable than the self-aggrandizing claim of Microsoft or Intel certifications, which carry questionable importance in the first place and may have been included to establish a claim of endorsement where none was intended by either Microsoft or Intel. I'll submit this for a third opinion if necessary. --DachannienTalkContrib 02:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that the controversy exists or that the claim was made. It's not POV to mention that claim in the article -- and, indeed, it already is, in the Controversy section -- but it seems to me quite problematic to mention specific (uncorroborated) claim in the lede of the article, and indeed in the first sentence of saying what StarForce is. Xihr (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we agree, then, that the certifications should be pushed down into the body of the article based on the same principle? --DachannienTalkContrib 03:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. Xihr (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They should both be in the intro, because they are between them the most notable piece of information in the article. Perhaps not the first sentence, but they are definitely top-priority information. --Tom Edwards (talk) 11:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News coverage (moved from external links)[edit]

In keeping with WP:EL, these links should be incorporated into the article and cited as references. I have cut and pasted the list of news articles so that editors may refer to them as needed. Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Removal of StarForce drivers[edit]

StarForce always has granted a free SDK solution to remove driver along with app uninstalling. And this information is exist in StarForce manual. StarForce driver can not be removed by game uninstalling because it installs on the first run of the protected program and can't be handle by Installer program. Russinovich told about it but his citation has been removed from the article.

The link to the offical removal utility always been exist on the offical SF webpage. And now it also displays on the FRONT PAGE of SF website. Nobody never has hided that onlinesecurity-on is the StarForce recource. It has been made for other StarForce product called Safe'n'Sec. If they wanted to hide the fact of belonging of onlinesecurity to SF they would have managed to do it. =) So the haters used that to make another round of anti-StarForce hysteria.

Starting the SF 4.0 there is a driver auto removal service. You may check it by your self. Go right to Services and fined the string "<Product name> Drivers Auto Removal". In my case the service located here - C:\WINDOWS\system32\pr2amlab.exe. It works as I'v described in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopinsci (talk • contribs)

The addition of new, relevant information is fine; that does not mean you can remove valid critical information as well. If you're claiming that StarForce never attempted to sockpuppet, there is still no explanation as to why the drivers were placed on another website in the first place; nor why that website refers to StarForce/Protection Technology in the third-person. Are you editing against WP:COI? Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, relevant information without reliable cited sources isn't fine. Sopinsci's additions look like original research to me. --DachannienTalkContrib 12:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Ham Pastrami's citation "in order to deflect negative attention away from the main site" seem to me as POV. Haw can you know what for they placed the utility on another website? Let us leave here only facts - utility exist on another site but has link from coroporate site - this information will be quite enough. Also modern StarForce has nothing share with removing method is described on cimmunity website. It concerns only SF v.3 (and now we have 5.5 already). So i'v edited the text for better fitness.
Sure Dachannien, I know the StarForce protection from the deep have been working on it almost 7 years. I'v opened my IP on the "history" page, as i have nothing to hide. And please note - there were no POVs from me only the real facts of StarForce program features and behaviour. Sopinsci (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dachannien wrote: "Better way to remove POV; also, none of the cited sources specify that these methods are limited to version 3.0, so mentioning 3.0 is original research". There was a forum on Boycott StarForce website which points that described method of StarForce removal doesn't fit the modern SF versions. The forum has been gone, but I based my corrections on the fact that StarForce now has totally new architecture and only 1 single driver instead of 3 one mentioned in the manual method. Nobody may make a reserch concerning new SF protection and I just wish the article to be truthful, nothing more. Sopinsci (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter; WP:COI is pretty clear that as a StarForce employee you should not be making content edits to this article. Nearly all of your information is coming from a primary source, i.e. StarForce/Protection Technology, which does not represent a neutral POV. I'm glad that you disclosed your affiliation which makes it clear what your interest is, but providing disclosure does not change the fact that you have a conflict of interest, especially when your edit history shows that you have not been editing neutrally, but only to advance StarForce's position. Also note that this is an encyclopedia, not a press release; what new versions of StarForce do won't change the fact that old versions did something else. This article covers the subject of StarForce as it has been documented in the media and secondary sources; not what the current feature set of StarForce is according to Protection Technology. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When i take an encyclopedia book I'm awaiting of right, inspected opinions, adjectives and definitions. Otherwise that book can't be called encyclopedia. Copy protection is very controversial and closed area and its very complicated process to get proved and inspected information through it. Almost everybody worldwide hate copy protections and they are constantly blacken the subject. How can we avoid POVs in this case? Where facts and where fiction? What should we do with sources without citation? For instance - "The user changes the ACL to point at any arbitrarily chosen executable, which is executed with full system privileges on next reboot. This can be verified with the security tool "srvcheck2", which detects such potentially insecure driver configurations.[citation needed]". Have you checked that tool by your self? It shows nothing concerning StarForce but is mentioned in the article. I know that most of materials over the Internet about StarForce are myths. But when such myths penetrate the Wikipedia article its not normal for such respected source. Potential customers read it! In this case Wiki becomes the very good and effective PR tool for damaging competitors' business. I'v already wrote here and want to repeat once more - 90% of the article information is outdated. But this fact isn't interesting for community. The main thing that StarForce known as the universe evil. May be you have noticed that I didn't remove bad things about StarForce from the article. But when I add descriptions of new features and products they are removed almost immediately. I believe that if person search for something that he interested in, he should know everything and not only rumors and community vision. Sopinsci (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If, as you say, everybody across the world does in fact hate copy protection (StarForce in particular), then that is exactly what the encyclopedia article should get across. This is not POV, this is consensus. POV is when a party with a minority view (see WP:UNDUE) or a clear conflict of interest are editing against consensus in order to push their own agenda. Also, as I stated previously, an encyclopedia isn't about documenting current features of software. It is about documenting issues that are relevant from a scholarly viewpoint. The information regarding StarForce's negative press is not "outdated", the information comprises a history of the company's actions, and is entirely relevant to its current perceptions among consumers. As for unverified claims that negatively impact StarForce, the proper action is to A) attempt to find reasonable sourcing and add it, or B) if no sources are available, tag or remove the offending statements. Trying to counter them by adding first-party POV and COI is obviously not conducive to the neutrality of the article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the Wikipedia policy on verifiability - The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. --DachannienTalkContrib 13:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone reading can verify the claims themselves by following the link and running the program. Are we going to withhold this useful and critical piece of information just because nobody with the correct reputation has pressed the correct series of buttons on their keyboard to fulfil some people's interpretation of Wiki rules? Or are we going to live in the real world? This kind of blind rulebook-following is incredibly frustrating to me, as you can probably tell. --Tom Edwards (talk) 07:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's like saying that an article on how to build a nuclear reactor could be verified by following the article's instructions and seeing if it works when you're done. In other words, that's not a source. This article has already been given tremendous amounts of leeway with regards to the use of self-published sources, not-very-reliable sources, etc., from both sides of the "StarForce is good/bad" argument. --DachannienTalkContrib 12:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What critical piece of information are you referring to? Tom, wiki policies exist for a reason, and that goes beyond the scope of this discussion. If you have a problem with policy, go discuss the policies on their talk pages, don't try to reinvent or ignore them here. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for external link[edit]

Do you think an external link to http://talkjack.wordpress.com/2008/07/19/is-drm-killing-pc-games-part-2/ would add value to the StarForce entry here? I do not suggest this with the intention of promoting my blog, but because I think the content is relevant. Talkjack (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ELNO, blogs are generally to be avoided. Ham Pastrami (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. Thanks for the quick response Talkjack (talk) 11:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needing[edit]

For heaven sake, PLEASE USE THE COMMON SENSE instead to fill with useless citation needing tag, if i say "roses are red", do i need to show a proof of it?. Several "citation needing" tags in this wiki are overused, several (if not all) can be proved spending some seconds in google.

In my opinion exist a ill intention toward to fill this wiki with USELESS tags, for example it's show "StarForce FrontLine 4.0" and give some specification but *not source*, using the common sense and a little of research you can find and validating this data, so it's correct but also other information (specially data talking about the problems with this product) are debunked and put in doubt without any prior research. --200.104.187.13 (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are clearly needed when something remotely controversial is being mentioned. This article is clearly full of them.  Xihr  04:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Vandalism[edit]

I reverted the version of this page to a previous one after someone vandalized it. (mcdonis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcdonis (talk • contribs) 14:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

StarForce DiscFree Technology[edit]

Why you, Xihr, removed information about DiscFree? I'v tried to accompany it with sources and citation. The technology has been already implemented into a game and there is independent sources mention it. Plz advize. Sopinsci (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I indicated why in my edit summary. Wikipedia is not for advertisements, and that read too much like one.  Xihr  06:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highly Biased[edit]

This entire article has taken a major turn for the worse since I last read it back in late 2008. It seems the anti-starforce anti-DRM brigade has really gained a strong foothold in this article and/or in Wikipedia, because every potentially positive mention of Starforce has been removed (e.g. the important fact that Starforce 3.0 protected Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory for 422 days - not exactly a minor achievement for any protection system and certainly noteworthy). In place of it there are a range of extremely broad, unverified and/or borderline malicious claims designed to vilify starforce. I have no association with starforce, nor do I work in the games development or drm industry, however I'm going to search further as to the method for lodging a complaint with Wikipedia regarding the quality of editing on this page. Very basic safeguarding of the information that was on this page has not been undertaken, and much of it has been removed for absolutely no reason (e.g. the Splinter Cell Chaos Theory protection which I have now reinserted along with a reputable source site). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.52.7 (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it, this article IS highly biased.. Any mention of criticism has been consistently removed. Even though there are many reputable journalistic sources saying StarForce causes crashes and bluescreens, and many reputable reports of its rootkit-like behaivor, any mentions of such are removed from the page immediately. I wonder why. 24.68.73.192 (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection Technology controversies removed from this article[edit]

I recently deleted some information from the Controversies section of this article. The reason for this is because those particular controversies were ones originating from and caused by Protection Technology; the business that owns StarForce, not StarForce itself. Specifically, StarForce is incapable of writing threatening emails or posting links to torrents on forums. A few hours ago, another editor added this information back into the article, stating as their reason that the PT article redirects here. This is irrelevant. This article is about StarForce and should contain info specific to SF (including it's own controversies), not the business that made it. I have added the removed information to the talk page of the PT redirect page. If that page ever becomes a full article, that is where it must be placed. Alternatively, maybe find an article that provides examples of controversial business practices. -XJDHDR (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:StarForce/Archive_6&oldid=1136231690"