Isn't there a better copy protection?

[Sleestax]

Originally posted by gilfan
Yes, and that's why it's there, to stop the casual user from copying the game for his friends. Just because some people know where to find the tools to break the protection doesn't mean you don't protect it at all.

You're taking something of value without paying for it. If you can't see that that is wrong, then there is something wrong with you.


If you lose the cd, that's your own damned fault. If you lost a pair of sunglasses, would you expect the manufacturer to mail you a new pair? If spot chews up the disk, most publishers will replace the cd if you mail them the chewed up one. Neither of which is an unreasonable burden to put upon legitmate purchasers of the game.

Wow. Your position on the issue is rather extreme. You seem to be saying it's unacceptable for a legal purchaser of the game to want a better mechanism for startup than checking for a CD. Many other posters went on to talk about how easy it is to circumvent the CD check. Wouldn't it be in Firaxis's benefit to provide a legal mechanism for something that obviously a lot of people are doing anyway?

Do you play on a laptop? Do you expect people to carry aound every game CD that they may or may not want to play while out and about?

I travel nearly every week. The majority of my Civ time is sitting in airports or on airplanes. I would like a legal way to start my legally purchased and installed copy without needing the CD to be in the drive.

If you think this is an unreasonable request then there is really nothing to talk about with you.

[gilfan]

There were a couple different things being talked about in this thread. One of them was the guy who borrows a game from his friend, gets a no-cd crack, and plays the game without paying for it. Those are the people I'm calling thieves.

The other thing was people like you, who've actually purchased the game but want to play it without the cd. I don't care about that. I've done it myself, in fact. But to suggest that since it can be done, there shouldn't be any copy protection at all on the cd is naive in the extreme. Yes, it will not deter people who are determined to pirate the game and have a reasonable knowledge of how to find game hacks, but that's enough to stop the vast majority of illegal copying.

Yes, it's annoying to have to carry cds around sometimes, but explain a reasonable alternative that would allow you to play the game without a cd, but would stop someone from borrowing a friend's game and keeping it installed on his computer without paying for it. Come up with something that works better than a cd check and you'll be a millionaire.

Some people have a pretty cavalier attitude about this, but that's just rationalizing immoral behavior. Developers and publisher spent 2-5 years and millions of dollars developing a game, and have a right to be paid for their work. If you install a game and play it without paying for it, you're a thief, and no amount of rationalizing will change that.

[Henrik]

Originally posted by gilfan
There were a couple different things being talked about in this thread. One of them was the guy who borrows a game from his friend, gets a no-cd crack, and plays the game without paying for it. Those are the people I'm calling thieves.

Though in many countries even this would be legal...

[gilfan]

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's moral.

[Bhruic]

No, but despite what you may think, you aren't the authority on what defines moral behaviour.

But I think this is probably straying pretty far from the OP comments. Personally, I've never been happy with the "must have CD in drive" copy protection system, but, then, there haven't been many systems I have been happy with. It seems no matter what they choose, it's a hassle for people who bought the game, and easily circumvented for the people who haven't.

Bh

[Caltone]

Originally posted by SirSebastian

I haven't read the EULA but that sounds like just installing the game is a violation. We all clearly have parts of Civ IV on our computers...

Well perhaps you should read it then

I snipped parts of it obviously, it does state that the installer will copy parts of the program to your PC and this is not what is referenced in (c)

[Caltone]

I work as a developer in a small shop and we're currently going through some compliance checking.

It amazes me to see the same people work so diligently at implementing controls and compliance yet laugh and joke about how they 'downloaded' the latest game.

It seems to me from what I see among some coworkers and what I read in this thread, there is a distinction made between business applications and entertainment applications. No one at my job would ever download a commercial app and put it into production, yet they have no problem going home and playing the latest game they grabbed off the net.

Yes it it a pain to insert the CD anytime you want to play. But the agreement I entered into when I bought Civ4 says that is what I must do. Any other way of playing my game breaks the agreement, and that is something I woud have a hard time living with. How do you decide which agreements you enter into you can break? Only ones where it benefits you? Only ones where you don't get caught? It's a slippery slope and I'd advise all game entusiasts to stay off of it.

[marvinkosh]

The copy protection on the original Civ was good for a laugh

[Dubhghlas]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Please refrain from using such an ill-defined, confusing term.

Are you talking about copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret?

It is, as you know, a violation of copyright law to make a copy in violation of the agreement you entered into with the licensing party. I won't quote the relevant USC code sections as I am certain you are as aware of them as I.

However, violation of a copyright isn't theft.

What is theft is using something you don't have a right to without the permission of the owner. Whether you like the concept or not, the 1's and 0's on the CD/DVD of the game you purchased (It WAS purchased, right? Or is a staff member of this forum claiming that he is playing a copy of the game that wasn't purchased (or otherwise legally obtained from the owners of the game)?) belong to the people who created the game. They simply let you purchase the right to use those digital bits to play the game within the limits of the contract you agree to before you can play the game. If you are playing a copy of the game that is made in violation of that agreement, you are using something that doesn't belong to you. That's theft, bucko, and the fact that it is done to avoid something that is a pain doesn't change that legal truth.

Now, I'm not certain I disagree with you on the issue of copy protection in general. I really like the fact that I can play [i]Europa Universalis II[i] and not have to have the disc in the drive when I fire the game up. I suppose if I used a laptop, I'd love the ability to have the game on both my desktop and laptop and play at will without carrying a damn disc around. Indeed, I consider it a selling point in favor of the game.

Still, almost no one seems to be accepting the main point on the subject, yourself included: copy protection affects a very small percentage of the purchasers. The plain fact is that an overwhelmingly large portion of people who purchase and play the game won't give copy protection a single thought. They will, however, be deterred from what the company wants stopped: sharing of the game to multiple users who then don't buy their own copy.

The very second that a game distributor demonstrates that its sales of games increase from the fact they don't use copy protection, then you will see it disappear. Not until, though.

[SpencerH]

I think that software developers should be allowed to defend their intellectual property in court. I dont think that software developers (or any other purveyor of digital merchandise for that matter) should be allowed to interfere with your 'right' to fair-use of a legally purchased product.

[Targonis]

The only protection that tends to work decently without the need for an original CD would be an activation model, which has it's own set of problems.

CD key method alone would let one person install the game on an unlimited number of computers as long as multi-player isn't involved. Copy protection with CD works, but as you have mentioned, it's a pain for those who travel. CD key with activation can work, but can also be problematic if a company goes out of business since long-term, you may want to play a game for years after a company goes out of business(I don't see Firaxis going under, but we have seen companies like Interplay fold, and they used to be a big name in the industry.

That's the real trade-off here. There is also the issue of computer upgrades. With the normal activation system, if you replace your motherboard, or change your system configuration(add hard drives, replace old dead drives, etc), that can cause an installed program to need to be re-activated.

There are companies like Alcohol-soft(they make Alcohol 120%) that have a live-check. You activate, and when you run the program, it checks your current system. You can install the program on multiple computers, but you need to change the active profile on their site to point to the computer you want it to be working on. This avoids piracy while allowing you to run the program on multiple computers, just not at the same time. This system would work well for all applications, except that if the company goes out of business, you can't run the program ever again without a crack.

In all of these cases, you have both positives and negatives. Having an original CD requirement tends to be the best method over the long-term since you can ALWAYS install and play the game. All other methods are either too easy for people to bypass(too easy for pirates), or too much of a pain for customers.

[Targonis]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I think that software developers should be allowed to defend their intellectual property in court. I dont think that software developers (or any other purveyor of digital merchandise for that matter) should be allowed to interfere with your 'right' to fair-use of a legally purchased product.

Fair use of a legally purchased product is the key here. If the copy protection is preventing you from playing and you own a legal copy, then there is nothing illegal about using a no-CD crack. The same applies to CD emulation software. As long as you arn't using these things to play the game on multiple computers at the same time, you arn't in violation of the terms.

[Bhruic]

Originally posted by Dubhghlas
It is, as you know, a violation of copyright law to make a copy in violation of the agreement you entered into with the licensing party. I won't quote the relevant USC code sections as I am certain you are as aware of them as I.

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

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Caltone
How do you decide which agreements you enter into you can break? Only ones where it benefits you?

I obey those agreements that are legal. This agreement isn't binding because it's in itself in conflict with many swedish laws (the same is true in _most_ western countries). That said, I haven't had any reason to spread my copy of civ, I do use a program to not have to use the cd. One should be aware though that the agreement bundled with the game isn't binding at all.

[Caltone]

Originally posted by Henrik


I obey those agreements that are legal. This agreement isn't binding because it's in itself in conflict with many swedish laws (the same is true in _most_ western countries). That said, I haven't had any reason to spread my copy of civ, I do use a program to not have to use the cd. One should be aware though that the agreement bundled with the game isn't binding at all.

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???