Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Tuesday June 06 2017, @05:45AM   Printer-friendly
from the russians-everywhere dept.

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

In what could be a severe case of irony overload, anti-piracy company Denuvo is being accused of using unlicensed software to protect its infamous anti-piracy tool. A developer of VMProtect, software which itself protects against reverse engineering and cracking, says that Denuvo has been using the product without obtaining the necessary permission.

[...] According to a post on Russian forum RSDN, Denuvo is accused of engaging in a little piracy of its own. The information comes from a user called drVanо, who is a developer at VMProtect Software, a company whose tools protect against reverse engineering and cracking.

[...] drVano says that around three years ago, VMProtect Software and Denuvo entered into correspondence about the possibility of Denuvo using VMProtect in their system. VMProtect says they were absolutely clear that would not be possible under a standard $500 license, since the cost to Denuvo of producing something similar for themselves would be several hundred thousand dollars.

However, with no proper deal set up, drVano says that Denuvo went ahead anyway, purchasing a cheap license for VMProtect and going on to “mow loot” (a Russian term for making bank) with their successful Denuvo software.

Source: TorrentFreak


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @09:36AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @09:36AM (#521239)

    Whether you consider it extortion or not, copyright and patents are basically all about this. They give monopolistic control over who can do what with their stuff. Denuvo doesn't have permission to ignore copyright law just because they disagree with what they're told. They can try to take it to court if they think they have a legal leg to stand on - apparently they didn't, so they didn't. If they get sued here as a result, I can't see them having a leg to stand on. Looks fairly cut and dry that they -willfully- infringed.