Isn't there a better copy protection?

[Zan]

Why exactly are you discussing if playing the game without paying for it is bad or not?

The answer may be an important matter, but has nothing to do with the problem stated, "The copy protection is an imperfection in the game. It solves nothing, as cracking software is trivial nowadays, and makes the game better for those who don't pay for it.".

It doesn't matter if stealing (or whatever word you want to use) the game is wrong or not; the current protection doesn't avoid it in the least. Actually it would be quite hard to find a non-cracked edition of the game unless buying it.
The only use of copy protection is to try to make paying customers believe that not everyone else is playing free.

I don't thing the carrying the CDs thing is really a big problem. However, forgiving useless protection methods serves no purpose.


· If you don't pay, you don't care if the protection is there or not as you never get to see it.
· If you pay and don't mind other people not paying while you do, you'd rather not have the useless protection.
· If you pay and you actually care that other people doesn't pay (even if just because them not paying make game programming less profitable and thus reduces the production of more and better games.) stop supporting useless protections. Ask for better methods that don't cause problems to the legit user and make the copying harder or, at least, worse than buying the game.

[gilfan]

Yes, copy protection does prevent theft. If you make theft extremely easy, as would be the case if there were no protection at all, many, many people would do it. However, even the smallest of barriers is enough to stop people from giving the game away.

Robbing a convenience store is easy. Anyone could do it. Grab a carving knife from the kitchen, point it at the cashier, and take the money and run. Anyone could do it, but the vast majority of people don't, even if they were certain they could get away without being caught.

If however there were no cashier, no camera surveillance, no nothing... just an open tray full of money on the counter with a sign that says Pay Here... some people would grab their candy bar and put in 60 cents, and some people would steal money from the tray.

Most people are basically decent folk, but when presented with overwhelming temptation right in their face, might give in and do the wrong thing. Any sort of discouragement is enough to keep most people from giving in to their baser instincts. That's what copy protection does.


On top of all that, there's also the fact that despite what you may think, the large majority of the public is totally unaware of no-cd cracks or where to find them. Yes, anyone who's reading a civ fansite web forum has probably heard of them, and probably knows google well enough to find such a site with some effort, but that does not describe most people.

[Caltone]

Excellent point gilfan. There's an old saying that goes:

locks are to keep an honest man out

I remember something from an ethics class that talked about the 10%-80%-10% rule. It states that the 10% on the right will never steal no matter what (these are the people that would pay at the self serve store gilfan mentions), the 10% on the left will always steal (the hackers that spend thier days cracking copy protection on games), and the rest of the population is in the middle. They are basically honest but could be tempted to be dishonest if the circumstances were right. Thats where the locks come in, or in this case, the copy protection.

Any copy protection is better than no copy protection.

[Zan]

Originally posted by gilfan
If however there were no cashier, no camera surveillance, no nothing... just an open tray full of money on the counter with a sign that says Pay Here... some people would grab their candy bar and put in 60 cents, and some people would steal money from the tray.
Any sort of discouragement is enough to keep most people from giving in to their baser instincts. That's what copy protection does.

Let me twist your example to explain what I mean.

If people had two choices:
1- make a two hour long queue to put your money in the "pay here" box.
2- skip the queue and don't pay.

There would be people who would pay by mail and still skip the queue (Buy the game and still use a cracked copy to avoid bothering with the cds).


I'd like people to stop telling everyone else that they should wait the two hour long queue because that's the legal way. They are paying for the robbed goods. They should tell the cashier to find a better theft-protection method.

[Zan]

Originally posted by Caltone
the 10% on the left will always steal (the hackers that spend thier days cracking copy protection on games), and the rest of the population is in the middle. They are basically honest but could be tempted to be dishonest if the circumstances were right. Thats where the locks come in, or in this case, the copy protection.

The problem here is that your hacker 10% is breaking the lock, the 80% is passing through, and the 10% honest ones are paying for a new lock every day.

Remove the lock. Put a sniper. Let the 90% pass when they pay their tiny part of the sniper's salary and shoot the 10% lockpickers.

Originally posted by Caltone
Any copy protection is better than no copy protection.

Thus the thread title asking for a better copy protection.

[gilfan]

As I've said previously in this thread, I have no problem with someone who buys the game then uses a no-cd crack for his own use. I've done it myself. The debate is...

1) Whether borrowing a friend's game and installing it with a no cd crack without paying is stealing.

2) Whether there's a point to having copy protection when a knowledgable person can circumvent it.

3) Whether there is a better copy protection method available than requiring the cd to be in the drive.


To question 1, the answer is so clearly YES that I can't understand how anyone could think otherwise. If you answer no, then you're only in denial so you can justify your own immoral actions. You're taking something of value without compensating it's creators, and you're a dirty thief.

To question 2, the answer is yes due to any discouragement at all being enough to stop most people from stealing, as I outlined in my previous post.

To question 3, I'll repeat one of my earlier posts and say "show us a better way". The guy who comes up with a better way will be a millionaire. Confirming your computer configuration, as someone mentioned earlier, has major drawbacks. I'd much rather have to have the cd in the drive than have to be connected to the internet.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Bhruic


Even assuming that the US laws were universal, which they aren't... That's extremely easy to get around. I've got a little program that allows me to click on the "next" button when I've got the "I don't agree to these terms" button checked. The game installs fine. So, I haven't agreed to the EULA, but I've got the game installed. Therefore, I'm violating no agreement, since I didn't make one. And the program used to 'enable' the next button doesn't violate any laws either.

Really, if someone wants me to agree to a contract, they need to present it to me before I've paid for their product. As far as I'm concerned, if I've paid for it, you no longer have any right to try and say how I can use it - you should have done that beforehand. Whether that attitude agrees with law doesn't really interest me. People have got in the habit of saying "It's the law" as if that makes it inherently right. But they seem to forget that there's a long history of poor or outright bad laws.

Bh

Well, you are a crook.

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Caltone
Haven't had any reason to spread your copy of Civ? Do you truely believe there is nothing wrong with "spreading your copy of Civ" if you had a reason???

By Swedish law I'm allowed to make copies for close friends should I chose to do so (for instance I could make a copy of the game for my brother to play as we live in the same house). I'm also allowed to make multiple copies of it on several computers that I use should I chose to do so (at times I live in another place, I might still want to play civ when I'm there. Thus I would need to install it there as well).
And even if you consider this immoral I won't lose any sleep over the fact that someone somewhere might consider it to be so. Laws are a collective agreement in a nation of what's wrong and what's right.
Any restrictions above or beyond this is up to individuals. You can say it's theft but the fact that you say so does not make it so. You are not, as someone allready stated above, the sole judge of what's right and what's wrong.
Frankly it's none of your bussiness at all.

Do you also propose that there should be a limit on who may use my copy of civ after I've bought it? Perhaps we should install video cameras infront of my computer in order to make sure I'm the only one that play civ on it?

Many copy protection schemes could in themselves be considered ilegal as they restrict my use of a product that I've bought (the eula is irrelevant as that in itself is grossly illegal).
Or even worse, some games come with copy protection schemes that does things to your computer if they considered themselves threatened (for instance they might disable software designed to circumvent them). These programs are legaly the same thing as virueses, they have no right to alter anything else on my computer. Atleast we are, as far as I know, spared from such things in the civ 4 copy protection.

All anyone asked for here was a copy protection that doesn't restrict the use of a program to it's legitimate buyers though. Paradox has allways shipped their games without any copy protection, this seems to have worked nicely for them. It would thus seem that clumsy copy protection schemes are not required to make money...

Originally posted by gilfan
To question 1, the answer is so clearly YES that I can't understand how anyone could think otherwise. If you answer no, then you're only in denial so you can justify your own immoral actions. You're taking something of value without compensating it's creators, and you're a dirty thief.

I wonder how I can be in denial to justify actions I have not yet commited (and may in fact never commit)? Clearly there's a difference of how you make copies of your game and to what purpose...

[Zan]

Originally posted by gilfan
2) Whether there's a point to having copy protection when a knowledgable person can circumvent it.
3) Whether there is a better copy protection method available than requiring the cd to be in the drive.

To question 2, the answer is yes due to any discouragement at all being enough to stop most people from stealing, as I outlined in my previous post.

My problems with this assuption are:

- It doesn't stop most people, it stops the people that wouldn't play if it wasnt't free. I don't think this helps the industry in the least.

- Believing the current protection makes people pay because they can't avoid it only pushes a solution to (3) further in the future.

[RalphTrickey]

Originally posted by Henrik


By Swedish law I'm allowed to make copies for close friends should I chose to do so (for instance I could make a copy of the game for my brother to play as we live in the same house). I'm also allowed to make multiple copies of it on several computers that I use should I chose to do so (at times I live in another place, I might still want to play civ when I'm there. Thus I would need to install it there as well).
And even if you consider this immoral I won't lose any sleep over the fact that someone somewhere might consider it to be so. Laws are a collective agreement in a nation of what's wrong and what's right.
Any restrictions above or beyond this is up to individuals. You can say it's theft but the fact that you say so does not make it so. You are not, as someone allready stated above, the sole judge of what's right and what's wrong.
Frankly it's none of your bussiness at all.

Do you also propose that there should be a limit on who may use my copy of civ after I've bought it? Perhaps we should install video cameras infront of my computer in order to make sure I'm the only one that play civ on it?

Many copy protection schemes could in themselves be considered ilegal as they restrict my use of a product that I've bought (the eula is irrelevant as that in itself is grossly illegal).
Or even worse, some games come with copy protection schemes that does things to your computer if they considered themselves threatened (for instance they might disable software designed to circumvent them). These programs are legaly the same thing as virueses, they have no right to alter anything else on my computer. Atleast we are, as far as I know, spared from such things in the civ 4 copy protection.

All anyone asked for here was a copy protection that doesn't restrict the use of a program to it's legitimate buyers though. Paradox has allways shipped their games without any copy protection, this seems to have worked nicely for them. It would thus seem that clumsy copy protection schemes are not required to make money...



I wonder how I can be in denial to justify actions I have not yet commited (and may in fact never commit)? Clearly there's a difference of how you make copies of your game and to what purpose...

Swedish law apparently agrees that it's theft

http://www.statesman.com/business/content/business/stories/05/30techdigest.html

BTW, I hope that I run into a program that does something if it feels threatened. I could make a lot of money from suing them, here in the US. That was decided over 20 years ago, I believe. Someone put a time bomb in a program if payment wasn't received by a certain date.

[Caltone]

Originally posted by RalphTrickey


Swedish law apparently agrees that it's theft

http://www.statesman.com/business/content/business/stories/05/30techdigest.html

BTW, I hope that I run into a program that does something if it feels threatened. I could make a lot of money from suing them, here in the US. That was decided over 20 years ago, I believe. Someone put a time bomb in a program if payment wasn't received by a certain date.

Nice find Ralph. Unfortunately it's probably too little too late for many people. For many people have convinced themselves they can freely share the fruits of anothers labor.

LOL on the other paragraph, can we say starforce Or better yet, ask Sony about copy protection gone bad

Microsoft Anti Spyware Targets Sony's copy protection

Sony sued over copy protection scheme

[Saldrin]

Personally, I think the CP is a pain in the ass. I'm tired of carrying around original CDs. I'm an avid lan person, and I dread carrying my original CDs to where ever it is I am going to on a said weekend.

The only people copy protection "harms" are the average consumer. Here is a great opinion posted not the NYT (via slashdot): http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/opinion/06kulash.html

Even the music artists are getting tired of it, and they have been the main voice in keeping it around.

Most of us here can agree, the copy protection has done nothing to deter the piracy of games. I don't even look that hard and I can pretty much find any game I want on the internet. Yes, I paid for my game, but I did resort to "darker" site for my my no-cd patches/methods. If anything, the developers are putting me at risk of introducing unwanted virii and god knows what, because their copy protection is there.

It doesn't stop the hackers, and pirates. Just google for a game and you will see this. Why the developers keep throwing money at companies like secuROM and harrassing the customers that pay for a product, is beyond me.

Also, I can't really tell who is making the most out of this, the actual companies like secuROM ( I'm sure Fraxis had to pay for the copyprotection), or the hackers trading this game for free. I can tell from personal expirence that the only people inconvienced are the actual game developers as well as the paying customers. How is that fair?

I don't understand the liberties that software developers get away with. Lets take a local pizza place as an example. I order a pizza, I get the pizza.... can I not share the pizza with my neighbor? Can I not eat my pizza without carrying the pizza box around with me? Can I not eat my pizza in a room other than my kitchen? If I reheat the pizza, do I need to call the restaurant and ask permission or re-aquire a license?

I bought the game, I own my copy. Its my computer, I paid for that too. Why some complete stranger has the authority to tell me how to use my paid for product, as well as what needs to be running on my computer when I decide to use it is obnoxious.

If I was renting the game, or leasing... then yeah I would agree to the EULA. But guess what, when that store transaction was completed, and I got my product and receipt, the developers got their money, its mine all mine thank you very much. Devs/publisher get my money, I get their game, its how marketing works. No other products sold may it be cars, TV sets or cheeseburgers, have such a strict policy on use. Its abuse to the consumer, bottomline.

Whew....long rant. sorry.

[Sleestax]

I don't see why they can't give us a legal mechanism using a two-hash method.

I buy my game and register it. I have a serial number. I want a no-CD option. So I go to the website and download a program that generates a hash (based on hardware, comp name, whatever combo they see fit). I then send that hash plus my serial number to Firaxis. They then use the info and generate a hash they send back to me that I have to enter to unlock the "no-cd" option that would have to be built-in.

The no-cd option could easily use that second hash to make it difficult enough that the average user isn't going to be able to "crack" it. Also, as I-tunes and others have shown, if you give people a legal path to do what they want, most will follow-it.

Even in a worst-case scenario where Firaxis somehow goes out of business, you are no worse off than you are today.

[Saldrin]

There is another article, that shares that view:

Movies and video games are more problematic. They take millions to make in the first place and a good many of them don’t earn back their investment, even with full copyright protection in place. If we’re going to go on making video games, the publishers have to find a way to make them pay for themselves. One approach is an advertising model, although I’m reluctant to say it because I hate the idea of ads in games. Another is to treat games as a service rather than a product. With broadband distribution, I think this is increasingly likely: you won’t ever have a durable copy of a game, you’ll download it every time you play it. Each instantiation will be unique, personalized for a particular machine and Internet address; encrypted to discourage hacking; and expires after a few hours. After that you’ll have to download a new copy.

It was a blog on "End of copyrights". Source: http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20...adams_01.shtml

[glsunder]

Allow users to use either check:

1. user puts in CD for CD check.
or
2. user connects to the internet and submits for a key check, but doesn't need the CD in the drive.

At most, you have the potential for 2x as many people playing as paid for it.

Then, after most of the potetial sales have happened, don't require the CD check for single player games anymore. 3-6 months seems reasonable here. If single player is a minor part of the game, then disabling the CD check requirement could happen sooner, say in 1 or 2 months. If they're playing a multiplayer game, they most likely have access to the net as well and wouldn't need a CD, but you could still check for the CD for multiplayer if there's no net connection.