No CD Petition

[Akaoz]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Same with morality

Indeed.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Akaoz


That, by itself, don't give them the moral high ground though.

No, the fact that they are right gives them the moral high ground. The contents of the CD and it's application are theirs to control. Any use by us, slight situations withstanding, can be argued as a breach of copyright.

For example, they have every right to argue that when I use the application to load in WBS files to help debug WorldPainter that's NOT what they intended for use and I'm reverse engineering knowledge of the application and a couple of other things I may not be aware of.

Other than playing the game all rights belong to the publisher. That's how strict copyright laws are.

Problem with debates like this is:

People confuse legality with morality, and forget that what is legal in some areas of the world is illegal in others and vice versa.

Copyrights are international law, they are legal everywhere.

Try copying a DVD and use "I'm from a different country" as your defense. It will not work.

Tom P.

As for morality, it's not the same even whithin the same city so all bets are off there.

[LzPrst]

@ padillah, unfortunately for you you live in a state that values corporation's rights over individual's. there has been a lack of an extremely important and principle debate over the rights of consumers vs corporation's copyright laws where the rights of consumers has been largely ignored. in europe we, yet, dont have that kind of insane copyright laws. things are different in different countries.

the US is the worst when it comes to copyright restrictions. the record industry demands that they should receive royalties whenever a song is played in public. even if its a radio in a barber shop, then the barber shop has to pay royalties, or worse can be sued for a completely unrelated sum of money for letting this happening without having paid those royalties. the barbershop can be sued just for having their radio on! is this justice in americe?

what about iTunes' demand that music purchased through downloads should be tied to ONLY the platform it was originally downloaded to. if you were to buy a music CD that would only play on ONE stereo, not in your car, not on your computer, not on your discman people would be outraged. the only reason copyright-crazy companies can get away with these things is because people dont understand it this new media.

people in the US should stand up to these unreasonable laws and repeal them.

@ Locutus

The discussion about piracy is somewhat of a derailment. The request for a no-cd requirement for games I have purchased is not directly linked to piracy.

Furthermore, the reason that Firaxis should give out a patch is that there shouldnt be a cd requirement to start with. Now just to demonstrate how easy it is to circumvent this, I bought civ4 from play.com and didnt have the patience to wait for it, so I downloaded it, bypassed the cd protection and played it for the week it took for the cd to arrive in the mail. I in fact didnt use the CD until the first patch came out and rendered the initial no-cd crack obsolete. Then I installed the game with my CD and downloaded the updated no-cd crack. piece of cake really.

Now before all you blindly lawful people out there start tearing my head off, I wish to argue that I havent done anything wrong. I have purchased the right to use that software. How I get it isnt really relevant.

Once my Tekken4 cd for playstation2 broke and I sent it with a letter to the retailer demanding a new one based on the fact that it was the right to use the software on the CD I had paid for and not the CD itself. I did in fact receive a new CD. The company had accepted my argument, most likely because of consumerfriendly laws in Norway where I live, but they still accepted my claim and thus sets presedence that the corporations in question in my country agree that it is in fact that what is stored on the CD that I pay for not the actual medium, the cd, it is stored on. From that argument, downloading something I've already paid for isnt illegal since it cant be considered theft as I have already paid for the item I acquire.

According to US law I could probably be sued and as mentioned above take everything I owned. however there is a principle in law (at least norwegian law) called legitimacy. this principle states that a law is not valid if it goes against the peoples' common understanding of justice. the above example of Padillah is a clear case of completely unreasonable use of law in the eyes of most individual's, therefore, at least in my country it is invalid. as a now a majority of people in scandinavia consider filesharing to be acceptable, laws that say it isnt, is in fact to an extent illegitimate and this can be argued in a court and it is.

in europe as I understand it, at the moment, in order for such a case to be held there must first and foremost be proved that the company who owned the copyright must have had a provable financial loss, and furthermore the amount demanded in reparations can not exceed that of that provable loss (lawyers fees may be added though...). anything else is imo unreasonable and illegitimate as it would be for most people I would think.

and just to argue further, if I buy a book and then let a friend borrow it, is that a crime? is it a copyright infringement? what does most people feel about that? most people would probably say no. why does this apply for books, but not computer games? how about movies? can I legally let a friend watch a movie with me?

copyright laws have spun out of control and they should be strongly and thoroughly revamped in favour of the interests of common people not commercial companies.

and Finally, to hopelessly try to revert this thread to its original purpose though I feel it is too late, this isnt about piracy. it is about a consumer's reasonable request. unfortunately this petition has been destroyed by people not agreeing with it by putting in posts in what should be a petition. in case people dont know what a petition is I'll explain it. A petition is something you either agree with and sign or disagree with and dont sign. unfortunately this is a forum and dumb as I was I should have made the petition a vote not a request for //signed// as people can easily derail and threadjack such a petition by voicing a contrasting opinion. regardless, this debate is interesting and important, and despite the fact that I dont have too much hope that firaxis/take2 will remove the cd requirement from their games at least I know that I did try to do something. and I'll keep trying to do something, cause persistence is our only weapon.

I hope at least some people agree with me and support me.

[LzPrst]

btw padillah, if you visit the pirate bay they have their own section called legal threats where they openly print what is copyrighted material in the U.S. and ignore legal threats from american laws since they are swedish and US law does not apply to them. every country has its own copyright laws and US law has no jurisdiction over these countries.

[Aro]

Originally posted by LzPrst
@ padillah, unfortunately for you you live in a state that values corporation's rights over individual's...
.................................................. ......................


however there is a principle in law (at least norwegian law) called legitimacy. this principle states that a law is not valid if it goes against the peoples' common understanding of justice. the above example of Padillah is a clear case of completely unreasonable use of law in the eyes of most individual's, therefore, at least in my country it is invalid. as a now a majority of people in scandinavia consider filesharing to be acceptable, laws that say it isnt, is in fact to an extent illegitimate and this can be argued in a court and it is.

.................................................. ........................................
I hope at least some people agree with me and support me.

@LzPrst and Locutus.

Btw, LzPrst, you live in a civilized country. I can't say the same about... err... myself.

[Akaoz]

Originally posted by padillah
Copyrights are international law, they are legal everywhere.

In a word: No.

Ref.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

[BigFree]

/sign

I would argue on behalf of this petition but there are enough knuckleheads who won't change the opinion no matter the argument, so, what's the point of arguing.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MadDjinn
did you download the no-CD patch from the makers of the games? likely not.

therefore you're trying to get around some very simple and basic protection illegally.

It's perfectly legal if I own the game.

this fight has been going on for a very long time, and is not going to end because of a mild inconvenience.

Companies want to make sure that the people who are playing the game, bought their own copy. This is the only legitimate argument to make about the issue.

Except the fact that their method doesn't work. The only people affected are those who paid for the game.

On the other side are those who apparently think they are allowed to benefit from other peoples hard work, without paying. They can go remove themselves from the gene pool for all I care.

then there are those paying customers in the middle who need to make moral choices about what they do.

What's the immorality of playing a game I paid for without the CD in?

[Tae]

I must applaud LzPrst's post. I now wish I lived in Norway.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Akaoz


In a word: No.

Ref.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

You expect me to believe someone that gets their legal advice from Wiki? You should be able to download the entire Depeche Mode cataloge with impunity then, right?

You believe Wiki, I'll continue to use a lawyer, let's see who stays out of court longer.

Tom P.

EDIT: Not sure what you meant by your post but for some reason you felt it wise to defende your stand on "no international copyright protection" by siting an aticle with links to the two international conventions that protect artistic and writen works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Copyright_Convention

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works

Oh well. Some people feel they should provide proof of their argument, you are trying a different tack. I admire that.

[padillah]

@LzPrst: You make some very valid points however not all of them are as neat as you represent.

I am not a lawyer, much less an international lawyer that trades in Norway and Europe, so I can't definitively speak for all laws everywhere.

I have had experience in the US and can speak to laws here. I merely brought up the previous examples to illustrate that this COULD be construed as a violation. Though it probably wouldn't be. There's "Fair Use" to be considered, and direct and indirect impact... several other things come into the mix when it gets international as well. I bet few people realised that the song "Happy Birthday" was protected by copyright laws until just recently. Not that anyone has been sued over it's use at parties.

When I use a CD copy of a song to enhance the quality of a video camera capture I don't have to pay anything, I just have to take steps to make sure I'm not making too many sync copies and that others are informed that the music and other contents are still under their original copyrights blah, blah, blah...

The reason for this is if the company doesn't defend itself it may loose the copyright to the Public Domain. The best examples of this are words, like Xerox, Kleenex, and even Cocaine. These were all brand names (yes, Cocaine is a brand name) until they were overtaken by public use. Now you see comercials for "Kleenex Brand" facial tissues and "Xerox Brand" copiers.

So companies have to give it a shot at least. Otherwise they are not showing interest in their properties and they may fall into the Public Domain.

I've heard tell that iTunes doesn't "work" in France because the laws there won't allow them to restrict the music to a single device type.

And it's this kind of discourse that makes an entire branch of law devoted to Copyright infringement.

Nothing we're gonna solve here.

Tom P.

[Akaoz]

Originally posted by padillah

Oh well. Some people feel they should provide proof of their argument, you are trying a different tack. I admire that.

I'm very much aware of the two treaties, but you seem to think theese are implemented in the same way around the whole world. This is not the case. Different countries have, to this date, very different implementation of copyright and fair use. It is true however, that things are moving in the direction you seem to think is universal at the moment, but many countries have a long way to go.

Russia, large parts of Eastern Europe, Asia and even some counbtries in western Europe still have very liberal fair use laws. International laws are allways "iffy" at best. Loads of countries sign onto treaties with no real intetnion of folloing up on them. Kyoto, Human Rights, GATT, etc, etc, the list goes on.

Treaties one elected government agrees on can be reverted by a new one, and passing new laws can take years.

The fact remains, that even though piracy is rampant in scnadianvia, very few people have been brought to court and even fewer have been sentenced. This is because scandinavia has yet to pass the same kind of laws as the US on copyright.

As for that certain sweedish pirate site... It's not that spreading copyrightert material is legal in Sweeden, it's just that their perticular way of spreading it has found a loophole in the legal system. The "backbone2 of the system is legal, what the users use it for isn't. So far the anti-piracy people can only go after the users, not the site itself.

padillah, don't get me wrong. I'm not defending people who steal/pirate software, music, books, movies or anything else for that matter. I just think it's important to remeber that very little is cut and dry when it comes to laws and regulations from one part of the world to another, and that morality is not dependant on legality.

sorry about all the typ0z, I'm at work...

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by Zoid
8) Point out that a true Civ player only has a few games installed...

and they are all civ games

[padillah]

Originally posted by Akaoz


I'm very much aware of the two treaties, but you seem to think theese are implemented in the same way around the whole world. This is not the case. Different countries have, to this date, very different implementation of copyright and fair use. It is true however, that things are moving in the direction you seem to think is universal at the moment, but many countries have a long way to go.

If something I posted gave you the impression that copyright law is the same everywhere (or that I held this belief) than I miscommunicated. I was meerly stating that "the protection of writen and artistic works" is an accepted principle in every country. There are forms of copyright laws in every country and they are, indeed, implemented to greter or lesser degrees.

As for that certain sweedish pirate site... It's not that spreading copyrightert material is legal in Sweeden, it's just that their perticular way of spreading it has found a loophole in the legal system. The "backbone2 of the system is legal, what the users use it for isn't. So far the anti-piracy people can only go after the users, not the site itself.

There is an American site that does the same thing. You can buy a CD for $1. Because the copyright laws allow for the transfer of license, provided there's a transfer of original source material, you can sell the songs on a CD if you sell the CD itself.

We have yet to see if this will actually work in a court of law.

padillah, don't get me wrong. I'm not defending people who steal/pirate software, music, books, movies or anything else for that matter. I just think it's important to remeber that very little is cut and dry when it comes to laws and regulations from one part of the world to another, and that morality is not dependant on legality.

sorry about all the typ0z, I'm at work...

Oh, no. Like I said in my post to LzPrst "That's why there is an entire branch of law devoted to copyrights and their violations.

And "legal" and "moral" have never even MET so I have no problem supporting that point of view.

Tom P.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by MadDjinn
Last I checked, stealing was a 'bad' thing. We don't live in a perfect society, so somethings need to be done.

Piracy is NOT stealing. It's definitely a form of freeloading that takes unfair advantage of other people's effort, but it's not stealing.

If I steal something from you, you no longer have it. My act of theft causes you to have less than you would have if I had never been born. I'm actively harming you by depriving you of something you previously had.

In contrast, when a person pirates a computer program, the effect on the company that makes the program is exactly the same as if the pirate had never been born. The pirate does not actually take anything away from the software company. The pirate just denies the software company an opportunity to make money (and thus denies it a reason to keep producing software).

The real mess is that the economic model we use for movies, music, computer programs, and even books (which can now be distributed electronically as e-books) is extremely poorly suited to the Information Age. We deprive society of untold billions - perhaps even trillions - of dollars in potential value by refusing to allow people to use any content unless they are willing and able to pay the price the publisher demands.

If people only consider something worth five dollars when the sales price is fifteen, or only consider it worth twenty dollars when the sales price is fifty, it is illegal for them to use the content at all. If those people follow the law, the result is that society is deprived of the value those people would have been willing to pay. The people don't get the content, and the publishers don't get any money from those people, so everyone loses.

Worse, the current economic model encourages content producers to deliberately limit the value society can get from their work. The higher the price, the higher the profit margin, but the fewer people are willing and able to pay the price. So if a company can charge a price that brings four times the profit margin but that causes it to sell only sell a third as many units, it comes out ahead by preventing two thirds of the people who would have been willing to pay the lower price from being able to use their product legally at all. The one third who can afford the higher price might get a little bit better product because the company can afford to put a little more money into development. But the product is rendered worthless to the two thirds who are not allowed to use it because they are unwilling or unable to pay the inflated price. That problem is most serious with music CDs, where the cost of creating the content is often trivial compared with the amount of money the recording artists and record companies demand, and with old movies that long ago earned enough money to pay their production costs.

Piracy helps society get back some of the value that is lost due to companies' pricing many or even most of their prospective customers out of the market. Piracy provides a way for people to get access to content that they regard as being worth something but not as being worth what they would have to pay to purchase it legally. As long as the only things people pirate are things there is no way they would buy legal copies of, no harm is done.

But that "as long as" poses its own problems. For one thing, once people start to regard piracy as acceptable, they can too easily rationalize away their piracy by telling themselves they wouldn't have bought something even though in reality they would have. They probably wouldn't have bought everything they're pirating, but they would have bought at least some of it, so they are in fact depriving companies of income. That, in turn, damages the quality and variety of products available to other customers, and may force companies to charge higher prices to their paying customers (which, in turn, creates a still greater incentive for piracy).

Also, there is no way our laws can possibly make it legal to pirate things people know they wouldn't buy anyhow while keeping it illegal for people to pirate things they might, or even definitely would, have bought if piracy were not an option. Thus, as long as payment for content creators depends on people's buying their content, piracy has to be illegal. Similarly, piracy needs to be something our social pressures discourage.

What we really need, if we can find something workable, is to develop an entirely different economic model for paying for things like computer games, movies, CDs, and books. Ideally, we need a way to make all content available to everyone without having to pay extra depending on how many things people use or how much they use them. (After all, once content exists, having more people use it or having them use it more often creates no extra costs.) But at the same time, a viable economic model would have to have a way of paying content producers based on the value of what they produce - based on how many people use it, on how much they use it, on the economic value created by its use (for example, if a highly specialized program is useless to most people but extremely valuable to a few in a particular industry), and so forth.

I don't know how to do that, although I do have a general idea of a possible direction. One approach would be to pay for such things through taxes (as much as such a thought rubs against my generally conservative grain) and distribute the money to content providers based on how much people use the content and, if they use it only once or twice, on the rating they give it. (If they use it more often, the frequency of usage would itself serve as a rating.) Unfortunately, even assuming my basic outline is sound, turning it into a workable and reasonably fraud-resistant system in practice would be a mess.

In the meantime, unless and until we can find a better economic model, I think it's both grossly unfair and contrary to the public interest the way content providers seek to maximize their own profits at the expense of the public interest. Companies should be viewed as having a civic responsibility, and ideally a legal responsibility as well, to honor the "fair use" rights of their customers. And I regard being able to use a program without having to wear out my CD-ROM drive, and possibly the CD, as a legitimate fair use right.

So I would definitely like to see a “No CD” patch for Civ IV.