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."
Just wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Make that 80 percent of those 90 ; the rest gets stuck in the horrible site design.
Re:Just wait... (Score:5, Interesting)
Somehow, I think it's not that. It seems to me that what they're really afraid of are people who download these games and programs for free off of P2P software (I'm thinking Kazaa, Morpheus, Gnutella, etc. more than BitTorrent). Even the RIAA has said that making a copy for a friend or neighbor is fine and that it's the mass distributors they're really focused on.
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.
Re:Just wait... (Score:3, Interesting)
You're missing the point that busting the early-adopters is a powerful technique for keeping the rest of the population in line. Especially since they're so easy to find, they post about it on
Re:On the subject... (Score:5, Funny)
In the meantime, your wife will be open-sourcing her vagina because your penis doesn't meet her system requirements.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I want the second disc damnit! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I want the second disc damnit! (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Have it resurfaced (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree, with your position though, that if media companies are going to take the we-own-the-media-you-have-to-return-it-to-us-on-d
Lunar 2 was better on the Sega CD anyway. The animation was more charming.
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
Re:Have it resurfaced (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:I want the second disc damnit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I want the second disc damnit! (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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:I want the second disc damnit! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I want the second disc damnit! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I want the second disc damnit! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I want the second disc damnit! (Score:3)
That's exactly backwards - in terms of both statute and case law, the more recent law supersedes the older law. It has to be that way. After all, if old law always trumped new law, you'd never be able to repeal old laws - they'd simply trump any attempt to do so ;)
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:
But we were unaware they were being taken... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't return software once it's been opened.
It's hard to vote with your dollar once they already have your money.
Re:I want the second disc damnit! (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I certainly think they should replace it i
Re:I want the second disc damnit! (Score:3, Insightful)
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 extr
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the same EA (Score:5, Interesting)
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:This is the same EA (Score:3, Funny)
Thou art a town crier, sworn to tell the decrees from the lord of the land to the townsmen unaltered. The lazy and vain lord asks thee to begin the news with a pompous praise to him. Dost thou
A) Honestly refrain from praising the lord, knowing the townsmen dislike him as well, or
B) Honor thy agreement and do as thou hast been told?
Aww heck, as if that would matter. =)
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.
Re:Yes and apparantly yes (Score:3, Interesting)
He's lying, and modded up Informative... (Score:5, Informative)
Kids (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Kids (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Kids (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Kids (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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.
-
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:Kids (Score:5, Insightful)
Hypothetical Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hypothetical Question (Score:5, Informative)
Disney FAQ, see "How do I replace a damaged DVD?" [go.com].
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: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:Hypothetical Question (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Now I know (Score:5, Interesting)
What will I do with my knew found awareness? Probably nothing right now, but I'm sure I'll let others know about it eventually and there's a slim possibility I might buy a copy before they're gone...
Thanks EA and Atari! Now I know about another great 321 Studios project!!
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.
Fair Use (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Fair Use (Score:3, Insightful)
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
DMCA (Score:5, Funny)
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:321 Studios (Score:4, Funny)
Re:321 Studios (Score:4, Interesting)
These are the good guys. They are pissing off the evil copy-protection guys. They have a very reasonable argument.
you obviousally never owned one of their products... their activation and CALL HOME scheme is nastier than anything any game maker or movie maker has ever created.
I a msitting here with a legitimate copy of DVD X copy PLatinum that they REFUSE to give me a activation key for bcause they did not see a "uninstall call home" when my hard drive crashed.
they are Assholes that are no better than the people suing them. and their products are BASED on open/free versions that are on the net now... DVD shrink is 20 times better than their dvdXcopy product. (I unfortunately found out about 2 months after I bought the crud from 321.)
and the tools to backup PS2 games have been on the net for just as long...
they are NOT the good guys otherwise they would not be jerks to their own customers.
There oughta be a law (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe... (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe consumers should sue game makers... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Maybe consumers should sue game makers... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Maybe consumers should sue game makers... (Score:3, Interesting)
Few years back I bought a copy of Steinbergs LM4 and 3 sample cds to go with it (200$ total I think)... LM4 won't install on Windows 2k because it has a LAME copy protection that only works in 95 EVEN THOUGHT WIN2k IS A SUPPORTED PLATFORM FOR CUBASE (lm4 plugs into cubase). Steinberg basically says "fuck you" and I download the Oxygen release of LM4 and continue about my business having vowed not to purchase any more stei
These guys are whacked. (Score:4, Insightful)
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:These guys are whacked. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
DMCA exemption for obsolete games (Score:5, Interesting)
(2) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete.
(3) Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.
I know these classes apply to old, obsolete console systems, but couldn't they apply to CD-ROM anti-circumvention programs for games that are no longer being manufactured, because in that case the original CD-ROMs themselves are the necessary systems? If so, copy-circumvention programs like this would have a legal, legitimate use.
Of more general concern is the fact that such special exemptions need to be made in the first place, suggesting that the whole DMCA is bogus in the first place.
hey, that's pretty cool (Score:3, Interesting)
BPAC (Score:3, Interesting)
BPAC [adiungo.com]
Pissing off their customers. (Score:5, Insightful)
(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:Pissing off their customers -yup (Score:5, Insightful)
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 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: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?
DRM only harms those who actually buy the software (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
I think copy protection is fine, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Ironically, the Eisner Company agrees with you (Score:3, Interesting)
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)?
Buena Vista Home Video has actually implemented this [go.com]. But that still doesn't end the boycott [losingnemo.com].
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
A bit of Apple ][ nostalgia (Score:5, Interesting)
This was innadaze of badly mimeographed manuals and a couple disks in a ziploc bag. BTW, that was the first ziploc bag usage I recall. Sue Glad, eh?
I still have an s.keyed "Wizard and the Princess" floppy here somewhere. How the HELL do you get past the snake???
Re:A bit of Apple ][ nostalgia (Score:3, Funny)
Mushroom! Mushroom!
A bit of nostalgia (Score:3, Informative)
Throw stick [gamewinners.com] at it, it would seem.
From where I am standing (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Don't get me wrong, its their work and they should keep ownership rights, but for the money consumers pay for the product, they should at least have some freedom to copy the data providing it is for personal use. Whatever happend to "fair usage"? I can understand their concern over piracy, but from a business point of view, is screwing over your customers in an attempt to stop a few people getting the product for free really a wise move? Seems like the path most corporations and companies are travelling recently.
Also, by preventing your customers from copying the data, you are implying guilt before innocence, ie: people are more likely to be pirating than making legimate backups, so treat them as criminals by limiting their experience.
Without backups (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
I hope they ignore first-amendment arguments (Score:3, Interesting)
I truly hope they skip the 1st-Amendment arguments entirely. There was an early case in computers involving a user making backup copies of software, and the software maker tried to sue him for violating copyright. IIRC the judge in that case not only ruled that making backup copies of computer software was fair use under copyright law (and the DMCA specifically says that nothing in it may be construed as limiting fair-use rights) but that any license provision purporting to take away or limit those rights wasn't legal. That right there would take the legs right out from under the game company's case, and would leave 'em with the hard argument to make that the courts should ignore existing precedent.
fuck the lawyers, just use alcohol 120% (Score:3, Informative)
Re:fuck the lawyers, just use alcohol 120% (Score:3, Informative)
They got my dollars - are they seeking to guar
Ooh. (Score:4, Funny)
Free publicity. I'd never heard of this software before...
321Studios? (Score:5, Interesting)
As Macrovision (creators of SafeDisc) have said in the past, their products are not so much copy protection as copy dissuasion: making it more of a pain in the ass to copy stuff. And it sure is. Copying a SafeDisced game takes hours in raw mode, as exactly duplicating the ECC/EDC data on the disc is a painfully slow process (probably because ECC/EDC checking has to be done in software for every block when it's disabled on the drive).
Anyway, all the above is besides the point. 321Studios have made a critical error which I see as remarkably foolish: Marketing their product as "HAY GUYS, SOFTWAREZ TO KOPY UR GAMEZ!" Who in their right mind would do this and not expect their ass to be kicked severely by some legal body? You don't get any more obvious than calling it "GameXCopy" which is a name that doesn't even make sense anyway. What the hell is the X about? Other software remains legal because it sells itself on the fact you can create exact clones of any CD for back up purposes: not just games.
It's not this kind of software they should be going after anyway. People don't copy games onto another CD anymore. People create images of a game and distribute it over the internet. It's considerably easier to create an image file, and from what I can tell GameXCopy doesn't let you do this. Furthermore, software such as Daemon Tools, Alcohol 120% and Virtual CloneDVD will let you mount ripped protected images in Windows as if they were a CD-ROM drive. Just download and mount. No burning. Surely this should be what they're worried about?
Copy Protection is not worth it. (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a much smaller amount of people who use DRM software because they are normally lazy. So their profits should be going up from all the sales that they are not loosing. But they are not. It is a simple reason why. Piracy on a small scale is good for business! what piracy is, is a form of advertisement for their product and for the company. Lets use some old true story to show my point. Back when I was a kid on my Amstrad 8086 (thats right a 8086 (Or a 086 or the Pentium -5) not an 8088) I liked to play games but mostly action games but my friend gave me a copy of Sierra's Kings Quest 4, (and for the amstrad buffs) the 80's Kings Quest 4 came with a video for the Amstrad 16 Color Display! The only game that had it to my knowledge. So I was in awe of the graphics it displays if you squinted it looked almost real), All my other games were in 4 Colors (Red Green Yellow, 1 of 16 background colors usually back) or (Cyan, Magenta, white, and one of 16 background colors usually black) that was in 300x200 resolution. so a 16 color game was like heaven. After that I was hooked to the Sierra Game company and Ill save up my money and buy myself a new game when it comes out (and copy the video driver over) Like Quest for Glory 1 (hero's quest back then), Code Name Iceman, Space Quest 6, Quest for Glory 3, then share it back with my friends and they did the same Space Quest 3, Quest for Glory 2, Kings Quest 1 remake. So except for the company making 1 sale from 2 people of the product they actually made 4 or 5 sales out of 2 people because each version was a little better and encouraged them to get the next game.
Controlled piracy is great for business and the companies should not try to hard to contain it, just get the big guys who actually sell the pirated software, or people who mass spread it. But for the friend to friend sharing it actually is helpful.
Re:Copy Protection is not worth it. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
I know most of this has been dead above.. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
EA Games: (Score:3, Funny)
"/Dread"
*Except EA Games.
CDs *need* to be backed up (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
EULA? (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps they should be held to their side of the EULA, just like the users of the software? Or maybe they should have to put a "copyright-protected" notice on the box.
The Big Lie (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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: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:Good on the DMCA (Score:5, Interesting)
Copy protection my ass, I had to go and look for a way around it just to play it. I'm glad I did though, damn its fun.
Re:Good on the DMCA (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good on the DMCA (Score:3, Interesting)
Do tell them you get alot of people complaining about the 'protection' who thing the problems thier computers are having are cause by your code and it's often the protection.
Tell them you can always find a bypass for it within a week of release on the net.
Tell them they are being sold snake oil by "the purveyors of that junk".
That last one is telling. If you can show them how it hurts thier bottom line, they'll stop doing it.
And that
Re:Good on the DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
-
Guns don't kill people.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Too bad (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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
Could someone please (Score:5, Funny)