EA, Atari Sue Over Videogame Copying Software

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."

Just wait...

[infonick]

13 torrent will become avialible in the following minutes, and their worst fears will come true.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Hypothetical Question

[phaetonic]

If all of the companies (like EA) who sold CDs (movies, music, video games) had the same sort of support that Disney movies have (disc replacement program), would there still be a justification for this sort of program?

Fair Use

[UnCivil Liberty]

"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."
What's at stake here is a rather important legal principle Mr. Lowenstein, it's fair use. A fair use clause must be added to the DMCA, this is a travesty.

Re:Good on the DMCA

[Wehesheit]

and when my 4 year old nephew grabs a disc off my computer when I'm not looking and trashes it I can go ahead and do what exactly?

I backup the current game/dvd I'm watching and put the original away. Coincidently all my originals are in excellent condition despite having children and my own clumsy ass around.

This will not stop piracy but it sure as hell makes it a pain in the ass for ME.

Re:Too bad

[thedillybar]

These guys don't seem to be making any friends.

Unfortunately, they have many suckers who have bought the console and now must buy the games.

Who cares if you're a friend or just a customer?

Have you ever called their technical support? They're not trying to make friends; they're trying to make money.

There oughta be a law

[RLiegh]

...protecting the consumer's fair use rights. Too bad there's no money to be made going that route.

Re:Kids

[CAIMLAS]

They're kids. For the most part, they've not reached the point where they realize that things actually break, deteriorate, or die - they don't have the perspective of multiple years of life yet to reflect back on. A week is a very long time for 10 year old, and a month an eternity.

Sure, kids shouldn't abuse their stuff, and most don't unless they're spoiled. But expecting a kid to keep a CDROM scratch-free is a bit absurd when most grown adults have difficulty with it.

Re:321 Studios

[RLiegh]

The problem seems to be that they are using the "throwing ourselves under the wheels of the juggernaut" school of social reform.

I'll agree they're pissing people off, but they don't seem to be doing so in a particularly productive manner.

Maybe consumers should sue game makers...

[meanfriend]

Three makers of video games sued a Missouri company marketing software that enables consumers to make backup copies of computer games.

Very well then, if I cant make a backup or bypass the copy protection, then they should be legally required to issue refunds for software if that backup protection renders the software defective.

From my own personal experience, I bought KOTOR the first day it came out for PC. For some reason, when doing the cd check when launching, the game would hang about half of the time requiring a hard reset. After a couple weeks I got fed up and downloaded a no CD-crack and havent had a problem since.

My PC met all the requirements on the box, yet when it doesnt work properly because of stupid copy-protection schemes the publisher has no accountability to the consumer, yet *I'm* the one breaking the law (DMCA) when I take steps to make the damn thing usable?

If I bought a toaster and it only toasted half the time, I'd return it to the store and get a new one with an apology. Yet if it's software, why does consumer protection go right out the window?

Re:Hypothetical Question

[KnacTheMife]

yes, because regardless of any disc replacement program a company offers, the "fair use" exclusion is an established part of copyright law. no company policy can ever be an adequate replacement for constitional law, if for no other reason than a company can easily change their policies. if a product is produced that allows people to excercise their rights, then that is justification enough, even if other choose to exploit that product to break the law.

Re:Good on the DMCA

[SlashdotKeefey]

I'm actually sick of copy protection full-stop. A couple of examples that wind me up (and ensure I make a point of circumventing them):

Copy-controlled music CDs - I travel A LOT, and don't want to have to lug my entire CD collection with me everywhere I go, when I have a hard drive big enough to have it ripped and stored. I legitimitely own each and every one of them, but I have to go through hoops to get this stuff onto my machine. This doesn't target the professional hacker, who'll get past all measures anyway, but targets the consumer, and makes it more likely that they'll just download the sodding thing in the first place.

Secondly - in terms of games, most copy protection can be put into the same category. A typical games pirate will get the software anyway (through the vast array of P2P, FTP, and IRC clients available to all but the most novice of users), but I, as a consumer, am forced to either cart the CDs everywhere if I want to enjoy a game (legally), or get round it all by downloading a "patch" from somewhere like GameCopyWorld (note, I patch legally bought software).

In terms of piracy, I think they are tackling the wrong end of the situation: the problem, rather than the cause.

It's impossible to make a legal backup

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter if you paid for the software yourself, if you need to bypass "any" kind of copy protection in order to perform a single backup for your own personal use, it is illegal. Even if it's just typing a single key to bypass protection. That is the DMCA at work.

So you want a legal way? I suppose software companies could just include a copy of the disc for you, they're dirt cheap to make. But I'd rather just backup my games to a nice raid 5 array.

These guys are whacked.

[mark-t]

The purpose of this software, and software like it, is *NOT* to circumvent copyright protection, as they would seem to have us believe.

It is to circumvent *COPY* protection, not copyright protection.

These two ideas are not one and the same... And they need to get it through their skulls that this is the case.

Re:Maybe consumers should sue game makers...

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

" If I bought a toaster and it only toasted half the time, I'd return it to the store and get a new one with an apology. Yet if it's software, why does consumer protection go right out the window?"

I think this is the case for a couple of reasons. Typically, to get consumer protection, it usually takes negative publicity to force the company and/or government intervention. Both of these take a motivated consumer group that is going to push for reform and has the power/money to make it happen. Also, a news story on 60 Minutes where some old grandma buys a toaster, it doesn't work as advertised, and the company won't make it right is a public relations nightmare. Some male between the age of 15 and 40 who can't play his computer game isn't going to receive much sympathy from the viewing public, if such a story were to even make it onto 60 Minutes.

Another issue that I see is the fact that most people have a very limited understanding of computers and the software running on them. Sure, you knew that the copy protection scheme was what was causing the problem. How many other people can figure that out? A lot of people don't know that copy protection schemes are leading to these problems and will instead blame it on their own computer instead of the company for including a mechanism to prevent theft.

So I guess we just need to get some old ladies playing KOTOR, call 60 Minutes, and start a rally to get some change.

Re:Hypothetical Question

[pla]

If all of the companies (like EA) who sold CDs (movies, music, video games) had the same sort of support that Disney movies have (disc replacement program), would there still be a justification for this sort of program?

From Disney: "If you accidentally damage or break one of your Disney DVDs, you can get a replacement disc for a nominal charge of $6.95. Please call [phone] for details."

"Replacement" program? The guys at Disney must love this! Considering that Wallyworld can make money selling older DVDs for $5, Disney must do very well "replacing" titles they actually publish for $2 more per copy. What a great scam they have going! Especially when you consider that younger kids, their target audience, tend to beat the hell out of everything they touch (including DVDs)... Wow.

Even at a more reasonable price, though, such an offer would not justify depriving us of our right to make backups. Either we buy the media, in which case we can do with it as we will (including copying it, since we would need to supply our own blank, the physical "product", to do so), or we license it, in which case the physical copy holds no special value (and thus, we can copy it at will because the license, not the media, reflects the purchase price). Either way, we have a right to back it up.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Pissing off their customers.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to have to put a CD in the drive to play a game:

(1) CD drives spinning up and down as I'm playing drives me up the wall. They're noisy fuckers. I had a game (Black & White) kill a CD-drive because it accessed the disk constantly for about 3 hours as I was playing. The drive overheated, the plastic holding a cog in place softened - and the mechanism broke. I've never seen a game that would allow me to play 100% from the CD anyway - so what the hell are those game developers doing?

(2) I have a notebook computer. I'm not going to carry a bundle of CDs with me when I'm travelling. Period.

(3) Copy protection methods don't work. People who copy games were never going to buy them in the first place. It only opens the door to organised criminals, a black market - and limits market penetration. If people copy your game they're going to be more likely to buy a sequel.

Anyway, the game I play the most on my notebook is Quake 2 simply because it doesn't require a CD in the drive. Newer games are such a hassle to start:

(1) find game disk
(2) set DVD movie that was in the drive somewhere on the table
(3) put disk in drive
(4) close drive, wait for drive to spin up
(5) double-click game icon
(6) remove wrong disk from drive (disk 2, oops), insert disk 1 instead, click okay
(7) wait for drive to spin up
(8) sit through annoying uncancellable logo / fanfare. snicker that the logo looks better than the game itself
(9) navigate horrible 3D rendered main menu

Ironically, this ritual has made me appreciate online game much more. They have personalised keys, accounts and passwords. No stupid CD in the drive. It's relatively bliss.

Re:Kids

[MMaestro]

True, but its goes beyond that. Do you REALLY think that just because you keep your CDs in a nice jewel case everytime you stop using it, its not gonna take some wear and tear? Course not, by merely owning it its gonna take damage. Lets go over the list of "what goes wrong, when you're doing things right."

1. Merely removing the shrink wrap from the jewel case exposes it to air and airborne chemicals which will erode your disc.
2. Removing the CD, causes pressure to be FOCUSED on the center because thats really the only part of the CD thats being used to hold it in place. This leads to potential cracks and simple wear and tear.
3. USING THE CD, causes its damage. Think about it, whats the RPM (rotation per minute) of your CD player? How long do you typically use that CD at a time? How hot does the CD get when its rotated that quickly and for so long? What about the heat generated from the rest of the system (PC of stereo system?)
4. The area you live in also predict the lifetime of your CD in the longrun. If you use the CD in a closed, temperture controlled, atmosphere controlled laboratory and use the CD maybe once a week, yeah its gonna last about the estimated 10 years. But if you live in a tent, in the middle of the Sahara Desert and the sand just somehow manages to get into your air-sealed CD case and scratch it up, you'll be lucky if your CD managed to make its way into the hands of a black market dealer with 2 tracks still playable.

Re:I want the second disc damnit!

[nasor]

You have to be very careful with this sort of "law A says I'm allowed to do such and such, but law B hampers it, so law B must be violating my civil rights" reasoning. It's true that the U.S. Copyright Act contains a provision that allows people to make backup copies of copyrighted works, but this does not mean that you have some sort of inalienable right to make backup copies - it merely means that there is nothing wrong in principle with making backup copies. You're still legally obligated to follow any other laws that might enter into the picture. You don't get to ignore the copy-protection circumvention sections of the DMCA in your pursuit of making a backup copy, just like you wouldn't be able to murder someone if shooting someone was somehow necessary for you to create your backup copy.

And no, I don't think that the DMCA is a good idea, I'm just trying to correct a common legal fallacy that I've see repeated many times on slashdot.

DRM only harms those who actually buy the software

[tmundar]

I have alway felt that all of the copy protection schemes only hurt those suckers (like me) who actually pay for the software. CDs won't last forever, and with no way to backup the games to another media (when CDs go the way of the floppy disk), the money I spend on copy protected software ends up being wasted.

The funny thing is, all of these copy protection schemes never stop the real pirates. You can find a cracked version of any popular piece of software. All that the software companies do when they attack a company that enables users to backup their software is stop a few amateurs from giving the games to their friends. Maybe they even drive a few to try to find another way to get the game for free, and suddenly the user who used to buy software finds out that they can get it all for free.

I have been burned by DRM in the past. I probably have paid about $1000 for games for my Amiga (a long time ago). I occasionally have a bout of nostalgia, and want to play some of my old games (that I paid for) through emulation. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a way to make image files of the copy protected games, and in order to play the games that I paid for, I had to find pirated versions of those games.

Now imagine it is 5 years from now and suddenly Microsoft somehow manages to push through "trusted computing" or some such, and the only way to play your older games is through emulation. Or more likely, one of the CDs for your favorite old game that you break out every once in a while starts having read errors. The game companies just tell you "too bad, sucker" because some people (or maybe even most people) out there might use the software to break a law and give the game to their buddy down the street.

I buy all of my software, or find a free alternative, and I actually have a legitimate use for backup software in order to protect the investment I have made in my software. It really annoys me that the software industry just assumes that all of us users are criminals.

When copyright law goes wrong

[sethstorm]

I'd not be surprised if they'd call tools such as cp, dd and friends piracy tools as well - they interact with data in manners that can be used in piracy if used for such purpose. The only worse I've seen outside of trade organizations (and other antitrust law dodgers) is Novell in the 1990's who'd sue BBS's left and right (and brag about it).

I think copy protection is fine, but...

[TimTr]

Contrary to FSF beliefs and other moral pundits, I actually think copy protection should be totally legal, protected, and respected. A company should have the right to say "you have rights to ONE instance of this software and rights to use this ONE instance for every $40 you pay". You want it on two computers, you pay for running it on two computers (or you take the CD and bring it to the other CD.)

Here's the problem and why the game companies and other media companies are full of "stuff". Their argument is that the $40 for the game is due to the effort and IP contained on the CD. Totally true, and since that thought pays my salary, I love it. The problem is, if I scratch my CD or DVD, shouldn't I be able to replace it for the price of the media (like $1)? I still have rights to the value I paid $40 to own, right? The crappy media scratched or whatever, so the company should make it POSSIBLE for me to replace that media so I can continue to get my $40 value.

Companies need this policy: "send us your scratched CD and we'll replace it for shipping costs and $1" or "bring the CD to your game store and they will replace it for you for $1." The software company I work for sells software for up to millions of dollars - the last thing we would do if a customer's CD died is tell them "tough luck". Why do game companies think "tough luck" is an ok answer for a scratched $40 CD? And when someone tries to protect that $40 investment with a backup they want to stop it? Maybe they do think the CD itself is the value?

If they had this replacement policy, then this legal argument that these backup tools serve no purpose but piracy would be legit. As it stands right now, if I am paying $40 for "rights" to the contents of the CD, I should be able to back up those contents. Some people could use those for piracy, but until the industry comes up with a way to know the difference, then backup tools DO serve a legitimate purpose.

When I had to buy a replacement copy of an XBox game a year ago I sure wish I had a LEGAL backup DVD...

~Tim

Re:These guys are whacked.

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, they're very aware that copy protection and copyright protection are two different things. But they use the words interchangeably on purpose, because that way consumers begin to associate the two. It's like that whole Al Gore invented the internet versus helped create the internet thing. He said the latter, but the former, which is only subtly different, sounds much worse. So people always use the former. Not that the second one is much better, mind you, but the point is that as it has less punch people avoid it.

These sorts of word games are one of the most basic concepts in propaganda. It's like the whole apocryphal story about Bush bringing up 9/11 everytime Iraq was mentioned, and although he never specifically stated that the two were related, the end result was that most Americans thought the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. This may actually be true but I'll be skeptical since I don't have a link to back it up, but anecdotally it demonstrates the point well.

RMS has similar problems with the terms "Intellectual Property", "Content Providers", and "Software Piracy", because these terms are designed to make people interpret a situation one way when it actually probably oughtn't to be.

I used to think that RMS was a hippie zealot tin-foil hat wearer, but I'm beginning to see what he's been going on about all these years. Free Software (using his definition of the word) is the only way to circumvent this kind of nonsense. When you have no corporate backing and the code is copied freely, it's very hard to sue anyone for it. When I first read his "Right to Read" I laughed my ass off. What a twat! But go reread it now. It's scary. Just imagine for a minute if he really is right about all that stuff he yammers on about.

Makes you think.

Re:Fair Use

[mothz]

What I don't understand about that quote is this: Suppose a brand of refrigerator, bicycle, wristwatch, or telephone had DVD cloning functionality. Would these products be legal simply because they have purposes besides copy-protection circumvention?

If that's the case, then DVD cloning cannot be illegal on its own (although any copyright infringements still would be, of course). And if that's the case, then DVD-cloner products are legal without any attached refrigerators.

If it's not the case, then any product which could possibly be used to break the law must inherently be deemed illegal. Then guns are illegal. Cars are illegal. Computers are illegal.

Without backups

[dtfinch]

You're basically just renting the game until the CD is damaged beyond usability. At an inflated price nonetheless, to pay for all their extra work, lawsuits, lobbying, and lost sales due to copy protection.

I can still listen to my music, despite some of the original CD's having turned into coasters, frisbees, or messes of shattered plastic. Had my purchases died with the CD's, I'd be out of luck.

I expect the same courtesy with my games. And it's not just the backup issue. "Copy protection" doesn't always work like it should, causing other problems. But since copy protection is now so widespread, my gaming budget has gone to the open source crowd. Commercial game developers don't want my money anymore, so now I just give it away freely to those who've earned it. $70 in the past year to support open source games, of which none of them demanded anything, only $20 to buy two commercial games from the bargain rack, and no piracy ever.

Re:Kids

[martinX]

That's like saying you are welcome to take your new car out and ram it into a lightpost because the manufacturer will just fix it for you.

Not really. When you buy software/music/movie whatever, you are buying two things. Firstly you are buying the physical medium which might cost a few dollars to make, burn, wrap and deliver to you. Secondly you are buying a licence to use/listen to/watch whatever it is you bought. (In the case of music, this is the equivalent of 'mechanical royalties'.)

While the physical medium can get wrecked, your licence should remain valid. It should not die just because your CD has. Therefore you should be able to get a replacement CD or DVD for the cost of the physical medium only, i.e. a few bucks.

That the copyright holders, under the interpretation of our current copyright laws, require consumers to buy the same things over and over again is disingenuous of them. They know it's wrong, but they like us replacing stuff every ten years.

Re:Just wait...

[Synonymous Yellowbel]

13 torrent will become avialible in the following minutes, and their worst fears will come true. Obviously you're joking, but I thought it worth reminding everyone else that the "powers that be" (that's the corporations, not the government, folks) aren't worried about the 0.05% of the population that are geeks using Bittorrent. It's the mainstream market finding out that they can copy their neighbours' software and music that keeps them up at night. Even more importantly, it's the legitimisation of such activity that they really want to crush. Even if it's legal to back up one's software, they want people to think it's not, because if the plebs know they can do that, it's just a short jump to widescale copyright infringement which they fear will wrest control from their cold, dead fingers. steve

Re:Pissing off their customers -yup

[Hellasboy]

I keep on hearing complaints from everywhere as to why people are still playing counter-strike.

you want to know why i still play it? i don't have to have that damn CD in my hard drive. The last game I bought was battlefield 1942 and it's sitting here collecting dust. I was sick and tired of it spending all of its time seeking and searching for the CD. It already takes up some 1.4 gigs of space on my HD so it obviously doesn't need to retrieve any gameplay information.

Battlefield 1942 will be the last game I buy from EA. If you want to treat me like a criminal for paying 50$ for a game, then fine ... go ahead. You won't see a further dime from me.

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.

If you're going to force me to go through the troubles of using no-cd cracks, etc, why should i even bother paying for your product when i could go ahead and download a fixed (pirated) version of your broken software? It seems like I would have less problems by going the pirated route.

Re:I want the second disc damnit!

[mrchaotica]

Until the company goes out of business, of course.

Re:Just wait...

[crazyray]

This is a very valid, and very true, point. They really don't care about the .001 per cent that can circumvent it anyway- its the "critical mass" of average joes and janes that cause concern. I would also add to your point that this can be seen in the "click to accept" agreements- no one really expects the user to read and understand them, but they do want the user to THINK that the software issuer grants and decides what is or will be "fair use".

Re:On the subject...

[Anonymous Coward]

Be happy. If making money and living out your Alpha desires with money is all it takes for you to be happy, so be it. If writing free software and being praised for his efforts is all it takes to make the "kid" (do I notice hints of child labour there?) happy, so be it. After all, you're just posting this to build up your ego, to make yourself believe you're better than others. Be happy, you jut delivered the proof that the human is nothing but a sophisticated animal.

Oh, and make sure to tell the women about your deeds, after all, what's being Alpha good for if not getting the best girl to fuck?

But we were unaware they were being taken...

[MacFury]

Most game boxes don't state that they have copy protection schemes.

You can't return software once it's been opened.

It's hard to vote with your dollar once they already have your money.

Money Whores

[SolidiusRock]

I see this a lot from these "software companies." They create schemes that don't protect them, but make them more money. It's ludicrous that they can sue companies for providing a service so that a legit user can make an archive of his legally obtained, license and all, copy. Being a software engineer, I do understand the importance of protecting ones work and getting paid your just reward, but it's coming to the point where the reward isn't enough. They want more. I say we boycott the bastards unless they give us a means to get replacement discs for free and/or cheaper than initial license ($2.95 max). This is reasonable.

Re:I want the second disc damnit!

[badasscat]

And no, I don't think that the DMCA is a good idea, I'm just trying to correct a common legal fallacy that I've see repeated many times on slashdot.

It's not a fallacy. US Copyright law specifically says "it's ok for you to make copies under circumstances including this, and this, and some other stuff". Case law supports making backup copies as fair use under that law.

Now another law comes along and says "well, whether or not you're allowed to make copies, you're not allowed to make copies by getting around this thing we put in place to stop you from making copies." This is like saying you bought a car, and yes, you own the car and are legally allowed to drive it, but you're not legally allowed to open the door to get into it. It doesn't make any sense, and one law is clearly designed to contradict the other, even if it doesn't do so specifically or by actually retracting any part of the original law. It's a sneaky way of taking away rights you were specifically granted by legislation and then case law.

So I realize that you're not arguing in favor of the DMCA, but it sounds like that's because you're morally opposed to it, not because you think there's any legal problem with it. There are legal problems with it, in as much as it basically retracts portions of copyright law in practice without doing so specifically. If you ask me, congress got hoodwinked on this - I don't think they meant to pass a law retracting portions of copyright law as they pertain to digital media, but the RIAA and MPAA told them the law was good and congress believed them. I think most members of congress probably honestly believed they were simply adding to and clarifying copyright law as it pertains to digital media. But that's not what they did; the DMCA by nature cannot be applied fairly (since it only applies to digital media - an artist holding a copyright on a painting, for example, can't invoke it), and it so far has only really been invoked in this one specific way in lawsuits, which is in the restrictions it places on fair use rights defined elsewhere in copyright law.

Re:I want the second disc damnit!

[Hungus]

In cases where laws overlap, legal precidence simply states that the previous law trumps the later one.

Re:I want the second disc damnit!

[Technician]

If companies replace my broken CDs at cost ($1-2). I have no problem with me not being able to make backup copies of my own.

I do have a problem having to wait 6-8 weeks and pay $5-15 for a replacement when I already have a CD burner and blanks are $0.25 each. Some games such as Nerf Arena was purchased for under $10 and does not have copy protection. $5-15 is not replacement media cost, it's retal replacement cost. (Nerf Arena works fine without the CD in the drive after editing it's .ini text file. It would have been nice if they eliminated the editing step.) Other than copy protection, I'd rather make the backup myself for about 2 minutes time on my part and 10 minutes on my computer's time. That way a spare is on hand with no waiting needed. All too often the game CD's the kids use end up being carpet protectors under the wheels of the chair. I back up all my games, software, and music and run from working copies due to the cost of originals. Games that prohibit that are simply not used by the kids. Other titles from the same manufacture go un-purchased.

DVD's because of the DMCA don't get a working copy. Due to the lack of back-ups, I pretty much limit DVD purchases to the under $10 movies. Copy protection lowers the value, not increases it.

The same applies to my music and PC software. My laptop does not travel with the originals of any software to prevent loss or dammage. Software that runs without the disk in the drive is a big plus. (Minesweeper and Hearts are the biggest office time wasters because they run from the hard drive. If they needed the original CD in the drive, they would not be work time-wasters that they are.) CD's for my car are also all working copies, not originals. They are at home in the case ready to produce another working copy if the work copy becomes dammaged.

Copy protected software that requires the originals in the drive are being ignored because there are online alternatives for the kids, such as NeoPets. It's free and there is no hunting for it's disk.

The copy protection keeps me from buying pig in a poke software. (No impulse buys because it looks like it might be nice) I pretty much limit my purchases to software that others have reviewed and given an OK for user friendlieness.

Re:From where I am standing

[SamNmaX]

Preventing people from making legal backups of their games that they purchased for $50 odd is insane.

That basically boils down to the fact that when you spend your hard earned 50 bucks, all you are getting is a CD / DVD disc (and hopefully a box and a manual), as you have no rights to do anything to the data contained on it.

That's one damn expensive disc.

Companies should be required to separate the content from the media when selling their product. If they will only replace a broken disc for the price of the original product, then clearly the disc itself is worth the entire price, and the content is worthless and doesn't need protection.

Realistically, if we are going to have laws like the DMCA, we really need laws that also protect fair use. The copy protection should either allow for backups, or the company should be required to replace the media. If neither is satisfied, either the company should lose the protection the DMCA gives them.

Re:Good on the DMCA

[Alsee]

Hmmm, you're other posts don't seem to be trolls, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Before you whine about getting modded down for "opposing slashdot groupthink", I'd say you were probably modded down for your rediculous and troll-looking arguments.

if you're gonna pirate a game

Who the hell it talking about pirating games? Making a copy of a game is not piracy (it is not copyright infringment either, blah blah blah).

There's being an 3733t haxxor group the takes pride in cracking stuff (whether that's good or bad - I have no comment)

Too late, I'd say your pejorative "3733t haxxor group" is already commenting.

If some dumb-ass company sells me crippled printer cartidges that actively try to prohibit refilling, or a crippled DVD designed to oxidize and self destruct after 24 hours, or a DVD player that refuses to fast forward during the commercials, or a music CD that attempts to autoinstall undesired software on my computer, or a computer game crippled to prevent me from making a perfectly legal and legitimate backup copy, then yeah, I'm gonna "take pride" in reparing that crippled and defective product.

I will melt open that ink cartidge and refill it and reseal it if I damn well please. I will spray that self destructing DVD with hairspray or other sealant to prevent it from oxidizing if I damn well please. I will enter the secret manufacture code or reflash the damn firmware on a DVD player to enable the fast-forward butting if I damn well please. As for the stupid DRM-installing music CD's I disabled autoinsert/autorun ages ago, and if I hadn't, I'll hold down the shift key any time I damn well please. And if I own a crippled game, I'll dig around in my copy with a hex editor any time I damn well please, and if I fix the problem working from the raw executable then I'll be damn proud of myself.

If that makes me an 3733t haxxor, well fine, I'm an 3733t haxxor.

a company who's hypocritical enough to say "games aren't worth paying money for

Here you REALLY sound like a troll. 321 Studios have never said any such thing.

I have a question - do you support the DMCRA? The DMCRA leaves "piracy" just as illegal as before. The DMCRA only decriminalizes NON-infringing activities, it only stops innocent non-infringing people from going to prison.

So, do you support the DMCRA? Or do you advocate imprisoning innocent non-infringing people?

You're assuming everyone who violates the DMCA is some evil pirate. When we attack the DMCA we're not talking about pirates. We're talking about the innocent non-infringing people it says are felons.

-

Re:Kids

[PhilHibbs]

the unsigned assent clause is the same one used by carparking companies and department stores; "by [parking your car here/shopping here] you agree to these terms and conditions"

Not the same - the company owns the car park, you have no right to park there without their permission, and their permission comes at the expense of you agreeing to there T&C. You do have a right to install the software without being further encumbered with any contract, so doing something that you do not need their permission for should not make you party to some bogus contract that they are forcing on you. If I said "By stepping on that flagstone, you agree to hand over your wallet", would you be scared to step on the flagstone? Would you call a cop?

Re:Either party?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then get out and vote them out! Stop listening to the same old bullshit that you can't make a difference, and vote for people who are not members of the two majority parties.

Re:I want the second disc damnit!

[dirk]

On the flip side of this though, you are expecting something that you couldn't get for any other product as well. If I buy a book and find out that 2 pages are ripped out at the end, the store won't take it back after 30 days (or whatever their policy is) and the publisher isn't obligated to replace the book (and won't replace it). Same thing if I buy a light bulb and notice it doesn't work. They may replace it, but they aren't obligated too.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly think they should replace it if you prove it's broken (i.e. send them the broken/defective part for replacement), but they aren't obligated too. Game makers aren't acting any different than anyone else in that respect.

Re:Have it resurfaced

[Rinisari]

The thing is, though, he shouldn't have to pay to have it resurfaced. He has a legal right to backup his own games for personal use (I would find and quote the USC, but I'm too lazy ATM) and since the gaming industry now seeks to prevent that, they should have to provide that backup copy.

I know most of this has been dead above..

[cbreaker]

But I really feel the need to comment here as well. It's my law-given right to make a backup of my games.

I take all my games, and put them into CD-Images. If they are copy protected, I use something like this or CloneCD. I never have to worry about losing my media. It's always right there on a hard disk. I simply mount the disc when I need it.

Many games now a days don't require the disc in the drive (or virtual drive) since you can play online, and they verify with your CD-Key. Making a copy of my CD won't allow someone else to use my CD-Key.

Now, if they SOMEHOW manage to get all the copy protected copiers off the streets (which they will never do anyways) I'll STILL be able to play all my games without the CD's because people will continue to write game cracks.

Going after this company for selling a lawful application is not just wrong, it should be illegal. They do not claim it to allow pirating, and it DOES NOT BREAK copy protection, it copies that too! You can't copy the copy.

Re:I want the second disc damnit!

[AviLazar]

My car was stolen years ago. Had about 20 ORIGINAL CD's (I didn't use my cd burner for anything other then data backup at the time). I have 20 empty cd cases with the booklets from the music, but I do not have the songs. I'll be damned if I have to buy those 20 CD's again.
For those that might say "your car insurance company should pay for it" - the car companies response to theft of non-auto parts (cds, clothing, books, etc left in your car) is that you are not covered for this unless you want to get extra insurance. Sorry, no, I am not paying an $$$ so I can have my personal property insured incase my car gets stolen. On a side note, i can understand if i told the car insurance company I had four laptops, and $5,000 in cash sitting in my car, but sheesh - a fleece, spare pants/underwear/socks, 20 cds, a blanket, pillow, quart of oil, windshield wiper fluid, jumper cables is NOT unreasonable!! Damn racket all of them (insurance companies have a racket)

Re:Just wait...

[FictionPimp]

what about the 90% of people that can just download a fixed exe from gamecopyworld.com?

Re:Copy Protection is not worth it.

[Mitleid]

I think this is a really good point. Take DOOM, for example. Now, that game boasts sales numbering in the millions, which I guess was pretty insane for its time, but for all those millions of people buying DOOM with cash money, my friends nor myself had ever paid a dime. Yet DOOM still remains one of the most popular games ever release for the PC, not to mention several other interesting ports...

Anyway, my point is that even though DOOM raked in enough cash to buy Carmack a shiny new Ferrari, it's "ownership" wasn't based completely on legitimate paying customers. However, the game was HUGE, and it still has a pretty strong loyalist following. Source ports, internet deathmatch clients, you name it. Bottom line is, a greater majority of the 14 year old pirates of today become the 23 year olds of tomorrow with a great deal of disposable income that goes to buying videogames.

The publishers really need to stop having kittens about the fact that people can copy their games. The widespread bootleggers and pirate organizations are the ones they need to go after, not the consumer-base. Strategies like suing a CD-copying software company just displays that the publishers have no faith in the value and merit of their product, and I feel it is essentially an admittance that they are trying to shill the customer with half-assed releases. Why else would anyone get so concerned about a few individuals having the ability to copy a game disc? People spend money on the things they want, and chances are if something is getting stolen or copied it's because that person wasn't interested in buying it anyway. I'm not suggesting that it's justified to take something you weren't going to pay for, but people take things because they can, not because they "don't want to pay for it". Closing off channels people use to take things is only a means of preventing the publisher from being the victim, not a method of increasing sales like the suing companies apparently claim.

Dear software publishers:

[veritron]

Copy protection doesn't work. It hasn't worked for years now. All software that's remotely valuable is posted on the internet for free weeks before its official release, with cracks that allow you to bypass the copy protection.

Also, all commercial copy protection is capable of being bypassed by a determined fifth-grader. It's not that damn hard to image a disk. It's a little harder to make the game accept the image as valid, but as long as you keep buying commercial solutions (all very recognizable in a hex editor, if a canned solution doesn't already exist.) Quit trying.

Re:Hypothetical Question

[pla]

Yeah, what a scam. They actually want to make a profit from their business!

Except, this targets people who already bought the DVD in question. Disney already made their sale, and this program targets only victims of the DMCA.

So yes, I do call that a scam. If not for the DMCA , I (or anyone, I don't mean this as some sort of whine about a personally missed marketing op) could provide that same service for under a buck per disc, including shipping, and still make a few cents per disc. Only laws passed thanks to "monetary incentives" from Disney and similar companies prevent me from doing exactly that.


If you can make your own bed, and I get a law passed requiring you to pay me to do it, that counts as a scam - Arguments about "how to fold sheet corners" as a trade-secret ignored.

Re:Guns don't kill people....

[Man in Spandex]

I was waiting for somebody to reply with something similar like this.

This is nothing but the pure truth. It all depends of the person's needs. I remember when I lost my cdkey for red alert 2. I emailed westwood and they simply asked for a picture taken of your game your box and your receipt to at least prove that you own it. By doing so, they shipped me a new, closed box, copy of Red Alert 2. I found that it would of been nice if other companies also cared about their customers.

Companies such as EAGames are too traumatized to even care at that group of customers who actually make LEGAL backups. The media which is in your hands does not have a lifespan, so I assume it should last a lifetime. Well why must companies be against the fact that some of us just want to protect our media which we payed for? So we can buy other copies to fill their deep pockets?

Sure the software can break copy protections but technically, anything in life can break any kind of law. For example, I can take my hammer which is used to bash nails and use it as a doorknob fucking device and technically that would be wrong. It's all in the person's mind. EAGames, when they see a software such as XCopy, they think immediatly that everybody using it will make illegal backups so they have to make sure we, the users, have no way to make backups which *can* be redistributed illegally.

Good thing there's no law against the use of AOL Cd's as coasters

CDs *need* to be backed up

[Sloppy]

If the games were on really robust media, like ROM cartridges or something, I might be able to buy into the argument that backup tools are somehow related to copyright infringement. But in this case, it just isn't true.

I don't know how anyone who has been around for a few years, can possibly believe tools that copy CDs or DVDs, are primarily intended for copyright infringement. It is just plain stupid to not back them up, and that is particularly true with games, which are often handled by children. I wonder if any of the legislators who voted for DMCA, actually own any CDs or DVDs.

Maybe this would be a sneaky way to both bribe and demonstrate the principle to legislators: Find the ones that have kids, and then give them a console game system that is based on CD-like media. Let the legislator spend their own money buying games for their kid, and then let them see what inevitably happens.

Estoppel?

[n6kuy]

Couldn't some brilliant lawyer argue that when a company tries to prevent fair use of their intellectual propertry, it constitutes an estoppel? In other words, if they don't want to play by the rules of the copyright protection game when it comes to fair use, shouldn't they then not expect to be protected by copyright otherwise?

I'm not a lawyer, so I would prolly get creamed in court if I tried to argue thusly...

The Big Lie

[Nom du Keyboard]

that products with no purpose other than to circumvent copyright protection are illegal under the DMCA.

And that's the Big Lie. The programs serve the purpose of allowing the making of legal, usable, backups. What you do with those backups may or may not be legal, but making them is. The DMCA was badly flawed from the beginning, and this type of lawsuit shows it. They can't sue on the basis of copyright violation, so now they sue on the fact that you have to break their anti-backup system to back it up. Damn the assholes that ever passed the DMCA in the first place!

Re:I want the second disc damnit!

[dslbrian]

90 days is a joke... It should be years like 3-4 years...

Even 3-4 years is a joke. Fair-use does not have a time limit. It should be for the life of the product. And if the company complains that providing backups for the life of the product is too much of a financial burden on them, then they should have no complaint about our ability to copy it ourselves. Otherwise fair-use is merely a theoretical rather than a practical concept.

I really don't understand how the courts can segregate digital works from the rest. Copying images or text from books has been allowed for a long time now (otherwise photocopiers wouldn't exist). CD/DVD copiers are nothing more than the digital equivalent of a photocopier. I can take a digital PDF file, print it, photocopy it, and scan it back into another digital PDF file - does the sum total of all that constitute a DMCA violation?

Seems whats missing from the DMCA is an "intent" clause. In other words you have to be copying with the intent of doing something illegal for there to be a violation. Judges decide things based on intent all the time, is that not a reasonable thing to have in there?

90 days?? vs Lifetime

[lcsjk]

The old audio casettes I purchased years ago came with a "lifetime" guarantee. I wish I had kept the guarantees so that I could go back to them now and ask for a replacemant for those tapes that squeal and won't work anymore.

I have an idea the CD, DVD and game companies could all have lifetime guarantees so defects sent in could be replaced for free. And, doing so would bring so much good-will to the industry that most people would not see them as the greedy moneygrubbers they seem to be now, and sales might actully go back up. Of course, the overall way of doing business has to change so people are not forced to buy music they don't want to listen to.