Isn't there a better copy protection?

[SirSebastian]

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

Not in the traditional meaning of stealing.

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

The question is whether there's a point to having copy protection when a knowledgable person can circumvent it for everyone else.

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

The truth is that the "must have cd" copy protection isn't actually copy protection at all. It does not protect against installing the game on multiple machines (copying) -or- playing the game on those machines. It only has the ability to protect against simultaneous play on computers that are not in close proxmity.

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.

You are assuming that only someone who would violate the copyright would try to justify this action as "not stealing." I however, have a nice little Special Edition copy, but that does not prevent me from believing that copying software is not stealing.

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.

This is just supposition on your part, though. I would argue that CD copy protection is so weak that it even sends the message that the company is not serious about copy protection. In some people's minds this probably means that the company doesn't mind if they get an illegal copy - especially if they can't afford it so would never buy the game anyway. I consider it a strong argument that it is only token copy protection to satisfy lawyers but not actually prevent people from getting illegal copies. One could argue further that the companies may implicitly support this illegal copying to increase the popularity of their game - driving sales.

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.

While there are much more secure methods, they will tend to increase the annoyance of users. Have you considered that the "better way" might not be a more robust copy protection, but the removal of existing copy protection - which costs money, causes errors for some users, can take up precious RAM, and is ineffective?

[gilfan]

[SIZE=1]
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?

...

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.

This example doesn't hold up, because there's a finite amount of pizza. They sold you 8 slices of pizza, and it doesn't matter who eats how many slices. If you give your friend four slices, you're losing 4. Once all 8 are gone, that's it, no more pizza. That's not the case with video games. If there's no copy protection, 1 person could buy the game and give it away to 20 friends and let them play the game indefinitely without paying for it. You effectively just STOLE 19 copies of the game, worth $950.

If you loan someone else your car, tv, whatever other example you want to use, you're denying yourself the use. While you're friend has your car, you cannot use it. If you want to LOAN your friend your game WITHOUT breaking the copy protection, no big deal. You're denied use of it while he has it, and no one could really call that theft.

Taking steps to prevent giving away free copies of the game is not abuse of the customer. Giving away free copies of the game is theft, and getting indignant about not being able to steal is laughable.

[Zan]

Originally posted by gilfan
getting indignant about not being able to steal is laughable.

And still you're talking about the imaginary people who can't get a free copy.

There is no people who can't play because they didn't buy the game. That imaginary people can't be part of the reasoning because they simply don't exist.
The mythical "knowledgable person" is anyone who can read and use a mouse. Maybe a three year old child can't find a game, but he wouldn't be able to pay for it anyway.

Stop defending the current system based on a case that doesn't occur. You can either ask for a better protection or ask for the removal of any protection at all.

I think the best solution is to remove the current system until a real one is found. I can be wrong in the approach, there may be better solutions, but stating that the current protection works is simply ignoring the reality.

[Zan]

A couple ideas for steps in the right direction.

1- If the game is cracked in less than 6 months, the protection is not paid.

That would be simple and hard to fight by the software protection business; unless they're willing to say that their protection will most probably be cracked before the game is even finished.


2- All the cost derived from customer service directly related to the protection is deducted from the protection cost.

Also hard to fight, unless they admit their protection will probably cost more than twice what they get.


They should make good protections or not make them at all. Why is Securerom not being sued by every game company who paid for nothing?

[smellymummy]

about the copy protection ...

is it certain that it only checks for the CD at startup, and then you can take the CD out and keep playing?

i was planning to do some backing up by burning dvds, and play civ at the same time.

so can I just load the game, take out the game CD, then pop in blank media and start burning, all the while still play civ4, without worrying that civ4 will do any I/O with my dvd drive?

[SpencerH]

Given the fact that there are some funky problems with CIV4's memory use you may want to rethink trying to burn DVD's at the same time you're playing civ. Personally, I dont do anything else while burning stuff.

[Saldrin]

Originally posted by gilfan

Taking steps to prevent giving away free copies of the game is not abuse of the customer. Giving away free copies of the game is theft, and getting indignant about not being able to steal is laughable.

What to know what's really laughable, is your believing that the copy protection actually does something to prevent the theft.

My anger is not not in the ability to theft a product I paid for, you're reasoning doesn't make any sense, I'm going to thieve a product just to give it to myself? And speaking of that point, yeah, the present system actually does make the paying customer find ways to circumvent that mechanism, because we don't want to have to carry around a CD.

I don't understand what you are advocating here. You are saying copy protection is good? In theory its great, but face it, it doesn't work. I want the developers to get paid, they should after thier hardwork. If I tried hard enough I could probably find a dozen or so sources for this game in about 5 minutes. Doesn't really seem likes it working, eh? So who is really paying the price of the copyprotection? The consumer.

So lets look at what it does. It prevents the paying customer from using the product they paid for in a means they want to. That's where my anger is. I paid for the game, why do I need to go through an inquistion everytime I want to start it up? The questioning should stop once I tendered over the money for the product, and installed it the first time. You cannot say or imply any other reason to make me beleive other wise.

Its pretty common knowledge that copy protection is a joke, and I have no idea why media distrubitors have not went through the process to find another means to collect retribution for their hard work, and at the same time find a way not to treat the common consumer as a criminal.

And I am quite "indignant" about you accusing me of wanting to thieve the game, a game I paid for. Your statement is about as dumbfounded as the publishers that actually think copyprotection is stopping piracy.

I said it before and I say it again, copy protection does NOTHING but punish the consumer. And frankly I am "indignant" about it, if fact, I'm down right pissed. I'm tired of feeling like a criminal just because I want the freedom to play the game as I see fit: without the CD always within arms reach.

[SpencerH]

Not to mention the system crashes that can occur as a result of the 'copy protection'.

[player1]

Originally posted by RalphTrickey
I agree with another poster that something like the GalCiv model might be the wave of the future for many PC games. Take one game, and upgrade it many times in response to user input. GalCiv is very similar to Civ 4 in terms of gameplay and audience too.

Wouldn't that just force pirates to distribute patches too?
(with their own "warez" installers)

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger Your analogy doesn't work. Try something else.

You should explain why you think it doesn't work.

Originally posted by Caltone
Seems to me we're just discussing semantics. I'm looking at the EULA which says among other things:

****************************************

You agree not to:

(c) make copies of the software or any part thereof
(e) copy the software to a hard drive or other storage device and must run the software from the included CD-ROM or DVD-ROM ...

****************************************

Doing so puts you in violation of the copyright laws which is what gilfan has been saying (in his own way)

It's wrong to do these things and you agreed not to do so when you purchased the game. It doesn't matter if you disagree with the form of copy protection Civ4 uses. That was thier choice and you are bound by the license that came with the software when you purchased it.

Note that you didn't saw that license before you paid for that game. That alone makes it illegal. Also, it's against the law to demand that a user can't make a backup copy. Most EULAs contain absolutely retarded statements like that company can make any changes to that EULA and you automatically agree with all these changes by agreeing now (no judge in the sane mind will tell you that it's legal to demand that).

Originally posted by 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.

That's easy. There are fair agreements and there are unfair agreements. If there is no other choice but to agree with an unfair agreement, then so be it. But i don't have any obligations anyway by signing an unfair agreement.
If someone thinks it's unfair to them... Well, that's their problem, not my. After all, they started to make problems for me first so they should suffer the consequences.

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20...adams_01.shtml
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.

That's because these games just suck. Solution: make better games.

Originally posted by Saldrin
What to know what's really laughable, is your believing that the copy protection actually does something to prevent the theft.

Well, it's HARD to pirate something that is protected by StarForce. It's possible to run a game protected by even the latest version of StarForce, but it's impossible to make a simple installer for that pirated game that will make all necessary steps automatically. It's impossible to make a no-cd patch either.

[Aileron]

Originally posted by ghen
sorry to bring back an old thread but Aileron needs to turn on his PM's pretty please

They are turned on. I just tried sending one to myself and it worked. Nevermind ghen, thanks anyway. Actually I stopped playing Civ4.

[Zan]

Originally posted by Ellestar
Well, it's HARD to pirate something that is protected by StarForce. It's possible to run a game protected by even the latest version of StarForce, but it's impossible to make a simple installer for that pirated game that will make all necessary steps automatically. It's impossible to make a no-cd patch either.

It is hard but Starforce has lost most of it's strength after many iterations of the same protection scheme. There are installers and no-cd patches.
Starforce was a good idea that would have worked if it hadn't entered the "cover as much games as possible" competition.

Copy protection is not yet at the same stage as modern criptography. There is no need for a genius mathematician (great person? ) to break an anticopy system. However they sell it as if it was.

They should still be relying on minor advantages, like obfuscation and uniqueness. If Securerom had been made by the CIV developpers the game would most probably still be uncracked.
No cryptologist would even think on relying on this, but encription systems are not broken in two weeks and then used for two more years.