EA, Atari Sue Over Videogame Copying Software 409
Thanks to the Monterey Herald/AP for its news story regarding EA, Atari, and VU Games' lawsuit against the makers of the Games X Copy backup software. The article explains: "The federal lawsuit [PDF version], filed Tuesday in New York, alleges that Games X Copy software by 321 Studios Inc. of suburban St. Louis violates copyright laws by illegally cracking copy-protection systems used by [PC] game makers." Doug Lowenstein of the ESA trade body, also backing the lawsuits, explains: "I wouldn't get into speculating on dollar losses here. What's at stake here is a rather important legal principle - that products with no purpose other than to circumvent copyright protection are illegal under the DMCA." The piece also notes that "Federal judges in New York and California have barred 321 from marketing... [similar] DVD-cloning software - a victory for movie studios, which contended that such products violate the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act."
Dumbfucks . . . (Score:4, Informative)
God some people are so fucking retarded. 321 got spanked in court for decrypting dvd's without having a legal license to decrypt. The products functionality was never in question, the way they got that functionality going was . . .
321 Studios (Score:4, Informative)
These are the good guys. They are pissing off the evil copy-protection guys. They have a very reasonable argument.
I would like to see RMS write an article about this specific issue. It may help people to see how stupid these lawsuits are. I would like the Electronic Frontier Foundation to help out as well.
If I had a DVD-R drive, I would definitely buy their products.
Re:Good on the DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
Honestly, I'm sick of CD protection on PC games. It does nothing to curb piracy, but it does impact legitimate owners who now can no longer make legal backups of their software (and thus their game is ruined if the original CD gets scratched) AND it often imposes artifical system requirements as users need to make sure that their CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drive is capable of handling the nonstandard code that makes the copy protection work -- and since SafeDisc, SecureROM, etc are constantly updating their software, it is impossible to get a steady list of supported hardware.
Re:Hypothetical Question (Score:5, Informative)
Disney FAQ, see "How do I replace a damaged DVD?" [go.com].
Re:Good on the DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
P.S. I am in no way owner, involved, employed with alcoholsoft. I just use their software and am happy with it.
Re:I want the second disc damnit! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I want the second disc damnit! (Score:5, Informative)
I've had software CDs replaced long after they were originally purchased, usually about $5-$15 dollars. I think $15 is probably a bit stiff, but the original software cost enough that we were more than happy to pay it.
Whoever you talked to didn't know their posterior from a whole in the ground. Next time, insist on talking to a superior and - if necessary - call their legal department if the superior is also an idiot.
Write them a letter (Score:4, Informative)
Electronic Arts Inc.
209 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood City, CA 94065-1175
U.S.A.
don't forget to send one to their "report piracy" address:
Electronic Arts Inc.
915 - 118th Avenue SE, Suite 370
Bellevue, WA 98005
Atari:
Head Office
Atari, Inc.
417 Fifth Ave.
New York, NY 10016
Tel: +1 212-726-6500
Product PR
us.pr@atari.com
Tel: +1 978-921-3700
fuck the lawyers, just use alcohol 120% (Score:3, Informative)
Fair use implements the First Amendment (Score:5, Informative)
The opinion of the Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft upheld the Bono Act, but it also upheld that the fair use exemption implements the First Amendment, and without a fair use exemption, the constitutionality of copyright law as we know it would be even more in question:
Some analysts have pointed out that this holding in Eldred could be used to argue against the constitutionality of the DMCA, which bans possession of circumvention devices even for purposes of fair use.
Re:fuck the lawyers, just use alcohol 120% (Score:3, Informative)
They got my dollars - are they seeking to guarantee further payments upon the inevitable damage to the original cd?
Re:These guys are whacked. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Now I know (Score:4, Informative)
For example, DVD backup can be done much better by the stellar DVD Shrink. For games, one might consider GameCopyWorld.
Re:I think copy protection is fine, but... (Score:5, Informative)
The most common issue is software that boots on startup and always runs, stealling cpu cycles. but at least one system not only doese that, but installs itself as a driver, one that till recently conflicted with the usb drivers used by windows to work with usb-memory key type device. I read at least one report by a colledge student who lost a good part of a semesters work while transfering files to such a device.
Then there are copy protection schemes that like to write to areas of the HD in the boot track so that they can hide data and protect it from a format, nevermind that the owner might be dual booting with an os that needs that area to boot properly.
So no, even if they were willing to replace a damaged or defective disc for free, should they be putting that crap on my computer. especially when they don't even tell you thier doing it. If it runs when the program I installed is not running, or it writes to parts of the HD that are NOT in user space, or tinkers with my o.s. without my explicit and informed consent, it's morally the same as hacking in and trojaning my system.
Mycroft
What? (Score:4, Informative)
Delete the movie files. They won't ban you for that.
They might ban you if you modify the client, but why bother when you can just delete the file?
Re:Kids (Score:5, Informative)
I've said it countless times before, and I guess I'll have to repeat it countless times more.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LICENCE TO USE.
You no more need a licence to play a CD or install and play a computer game than you need a licence to read a book. US law at least is quite specific on this. You buy some media with stuff recorded on it and you are the owner of that specific copy.
The only exclusive rights the copyight holder has are listed in title 17 section 106 - the rights to create new copies and distribute them and public display. And those rights are loaded with exeptions and limitations.
Normal consumer purchases never come with any of those rights included, thus it is completely licence-free. About the only exception I can think of is a few rare software products that come with a licence to install copies on more than one computer.
The RIAA and others are certianly trying to change the law to create some sort of licence to play music and run software and read books, they are certainly spreading plently of misinformation about the law, painting an image that the law already says what they want it to say.
If you can convince everyone (including congress) that the law already says what you want it to say then it becomes very easy to get congress to chage the law to say what they think it already says. Very insidious.
-
They are NOT the good guys! (Score:1, Informative)
They were essentially selling tutorials on how to use a number of programs for dvd back-up, found free on the net.
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/3408.cfm
"321 Studios is still, at least to my knowledge, selling software and information found and distributed free of charge on the Internet."
Thats the only news item i could find on the subject with just a quick google. But the subject was also discussed on doom9 forums, where many of the authors whos software was stolen weren't pleased.
I have no symathy for 321, imo they are just as bad as whoever is suing them.
-twokay
Re:Kids (Score:5, Informative)
Nope.
Congress even specifically went out of their way to exclude the possibility of such an interpretation:
TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 Sec. 117. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs [cornell.edu]
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other mannerr, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
When you buy software you do not need any licence at all to install and run it. Copyright law is NOT about use. As far as copyright is concered the single installation of software is not the creation of a new copy - it is the normal use of a single functional copy.
they decide to [o]nly distribute copies to entities which agree to a contract of sale
Sure, they are perfectly free to refuse to sell me a copy unless I sign a contract first. But if I state that I have no interest in that contract and they sell me the copy anyway, well, then they got my money and I own that copy and there is no contract.
All of the EULA cases thus far (at least so far as I am aware) are NOT in any way based on a legal theory of needing a licence to install and run software. They are all based on a legal theory that the buyer somehow actively and willingly chose to be bound by a contract.
I'd say it's a rather doubious legal theory that someone chose to be bound by a contract simply by opening a box. But even if we grant that rotten legal theory, it is still not copyright infringment to install and run software if you somehow still manage to do so without agreeing to that contract.
EULA's are not licences. With the exception of those that licence you to make additional copies they do not licence you any rights you do not already have. They are contract offers. You are free to decline contract offers, but then obviously you do not receive anything that contract offers. EULA's generally offer nothing you want or need anyway. That's why they want the UCITA - to force EULA's to be binding.
So there are certianly legal arguments about whether EULA's are binding or not, but is has absolutely no connection to copyright infringment.
-
Re:Have it resurfaced (Score:3, Informative)
One of the home kits worked for me. I had a really badly scratched PS2 game (second hand, Prince of Persia, bought it on ebay). It refused to load a certain level. No amount of cleaning would make it work. I picked up a $5 kit, rubbed the chemical solution over it for 5 minutes, and the disc worked first time and every time after that.
Funny, those movies haven't been on my hd (Score:3, Informative)
You're just making shit up. There's even a setting in the UO.CFG file (ShowIntroAnim=On/Off) to bypass the movies.
He's lying, and modded up Informative... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I want the second disc damnit! (Score:3, Informative)
It's not a ruling, it's specifically spelled out in copyright law, TITLE 17, CHAPTER 1, Sec. 117 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs [cornell.edu]. Here's the relevant section:
Re:Hypothetical Question (Score:4, Informative)
Copyright is explicitly laid out in the Constitution. Fair use is a _defense_ against copyright infringement issues. It is not really a right in a legal sense.
In fact, fair use is a judgement call (literally, by the judge!) nased on whether certain mitigating factors are being met, and to what degree they are. Compare this to the rather specific laws of actually getting and enforcing a copyright. There's no comparison.
This is not to say I disagree with the idea of fair use rights, but they are nowhere near as legally strong as people make them out to be - similar to your right to privacy, it's something a judge determines rather than a specific set of legal requirements.
-Erwos
Re:Pissing off their customers -yup (Score:4, Informative)
-
Go ahead game companies. Use macrovisions latest "security" feature that end up pissing off all your paying customers (thousands and millions) so that you can delay crackers for an extra 5 minutes.
The latest version of Macrovision for games may have finally gone too far. It checks to see if you have certain "bad" software installed such as CloneCD. (There are others, I forget which though.) If it finds one of them installed, the installation fails, and without telling you properly why. Worse yet, if the software's not still on your computer, but the registry entries didn't get all removed it assumes the software's installed and fails.Now aside from the fact that the copy protection software is trying to tell you what other software you can and can't own to play the game is how I found out about this. The letter from the Editor in the latest copy of Computer Games. It happened to him on a new game, and he was quite unhappy about it. While other magazines might not be quite as bold about reporting this fact, it's not going to go over well with them either. Pissing off the gaming press is a really great way to get the gaming market in general riled up.
In any case I know that thanks to Macrovision and this latest idiocy I refuse to buy any more new PC games. I'll still pick up games for my PS2, since I don't have to worry about the copy protection making them unplayable, but for the PC I'll pass. Neat how they lost my business even without it affecting me directly ehh?
Re:DMCA exemption for obsolete games (Score:2, Informative)
They were arguing that by adding copy protection measures to a program on a CD-ROM they change the nature of that CD-ROM. The CD-ROM itself becomes part of the device that allows access to the software. The CD-ROM drive is not sufficient.
According to this law if it is no longer possible to obtain the access device, i.e. the CD-ROM itself, then according to this law it may be legitimate to bypass the copy protection.
Of course to enable the use of this law the CD-ROM would have to be defective such that the copy protection rendered the disc unusable.
Re:I want the second disc damnit! (Score:1, Informative)
A bit of nostalgia (Score:3, Informative)
Throw stick [gamewinners.com] at it, it would seem.
Re:Just wait... (Score:3, Informative)
This is probably not always the case with movies as they are generally recompressed to fit onto a DVD-R. Still, once that initial copy is made, the rest are bit-for-bit compatible.
Similar reasoning works even for friend-to-friend copies of music when said music is converted into MP3 first. That's a lossy process but every subsequent copy is digital (including copying an MP3 CD-R). So I'm not at all sure why you think analogue is involved. Nobody I know uses cassette tapes any more, most of my friends are even moving away from CD while listening to music.