No CD Petition

[Franklinnoble]

Fact: I haven't applied the latest patch because I haven't found a no-cd crack for it.

Requiring the CD is a pain. Like so many others, my laptop is now my primary computer. Toting the disc around leads to loss and breakage (I've had this happen).

I didn't screw with no-cd cracks until I busted my cd of CivIII, and had to replace it at my own expense. Sorry, but it's too easy for a disc to get fractured in a laptop bag you tote around every day. So, now I use cracks, and my CDs stay safely and neatly stashed on a bookshelf in my home office.

Direct download games don't have this problem. Maybe more software companies should distribute this way.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by gunkulator
Don't know the particulars of this one but I'd say that simple human nature disagrees with you.

Even if the experience of Brad Wardell is somewhat exceptional, there is absolutely no serious research results that back up this assertion ("People won't buy what they can freely download"), otherwise the RIAA and similar organisations would have been brandishing that everywhere.

The UNC/Stanford research paper found no relation between illegal downloading and sales. The Harvard paper argued that such "freeloading" in fact is good for sales. I have also seen anecdotal evidence, such as CyberShy's personal account, that supports this hypothesis.

Originally posted by gunkulator
I'm sure you can produce an anecdote or two that is contrary, but just like with pollution, energy conservation and charity, we're all hoping that the other guy will do the right thing so that we can secretly still get away with being dirty, wasteful and cheap.

The problem is that you (and RIAA, etc.) are assuming that everybody who downloads something will buy that thing (song, game, movie, etc.) if somehow such downloads could be prevented.

This assumption is not suported by any real world evidence. From what I have seen, the opposite is true. If a person can't download a song, game, movie, etc., they simply just make do without it.

[greenday_234]

I thought I remember reading some blurb about the lack of success of GC2 by Dan Q. Of course I don't know about the particulars about this but I thought it was worth noting on here sense Wardell has been brought up so much.

[aran]

Lack of success of GC2? I'm pretty sure that game was fairly successful!

I'm another constant laptop user who is sick of having to tote his CD around. I bought this game the day it came out and i'm still playing a few days a week. When i travel, sometimes it just doesn't sit well with me to put a CD in whatever bag i'm using for my laptop. My system CD recently broke because of this--I don't want the same to happen to my CivIV CD.

One of the factors that pushed me over the edge to buy GC2 was the fact that there was no copy protection. I support companies that don't put unnecessary roadblocks in the way of their customers using the products they legally purchased to the fullest potential.

[Shivan]

Interesting Observation- Heh, this thread has turned from the ludricrous anti-piracy or anti-protection rhetoric of the masses to a reasoned discussion with the words "anecdotal evidence" appearing....

amazing

Thanks Urban Ranger! lol

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Even if the experience of Brad Wardell is somewhat exceptional, there is absolutely no serious research results that back up this assertion ("People won't buy what they can freely download"),

I didn't know the idea that buyers seek the lowest price for a commodity was so controversial. Adam Smith and many other have already written more on the subject than you or I have ever read.

The UNC/Stanford research paper found no relation between illegal downloading and sales. The Harvard paper argued that such "freeloading" in fact is good for sales.

Again this going against centuries of economic theory. One or two isolated studies (and how large were they?) may find exceptions, but they do not make a rule. Why buy the cow when the milk is free?

I have also seen anecdotal evidence, such as CyberShy's personal account, that supports this hypothesis.

And I have a whole dorm full of anecdotes that prove the opposite. Which of us is right?

The problem is that you (and RIAA, etc.) are assuming that everybody who downloads something will buy that thing (song, game, movie, etc.) if somehow such downloads could be prevented.

"Everybody" is too strong a term. No of course not everybody would buy if something was not free. People spend their disposable income however they see fit. The reason Old Milwaukee and Walmart stay in business is not because they are the best. It's because they are cheap. But does "everybody" go there? Of course not.

This assumption is not suported by any real world evidence. From what I have seen, the opposite is true. If a person can't download a song, game, movie, etc., they simply just make do without it.

And some of them buy it. Or not if it doesn't matter that much to them. I know I wouldn't pay for a game if it was available for free. In that same vein, I don't believe that getting rid of welfare and letting private charities take over would amount to more money going to the poor.

[Nubianmercenary]

:Hi, I personally would like to sign the "Petition" for a no cd patch. I believe that its ultimately up to the single individual if he or she wishes to use or not use a "no cd patch" I however think its a fabulous way to play civ4, have fun, but at the same time keeping your original disc safe and clean.

: But that said, If they wanted us to play civ4 without the cd, they would of sold me the no cd patch.

Petition signed by NubianMercenary 30/4/2006

[Eli]

Petition

(not that anything will come out of it)

[Solver]

Nubianmercenary, a warning: posting any links to cracks or other software or pages that allow circumvention of CD protection is against the forum rules.

[Metaliturtle]

You could buy Civ4 from Direct 2 Drive, and then you wouldn't need a cd either...

[Elby]

Kuciwalker,

If you're going to have a signature, at least correct your typos so you don't repeat the mistake over and over again.

[padillah]

Originally posted by gunkulator


I didn't know the idea that buyers seek the lowest price for a commodity was so controversial. Adam Smith and many other have already written more on the subject than you or I have ever read.



Again this going against centuries of economic theory. One or two isolated studies (and how large were they?) may find exceptions, but they do not make a rule. Why buy the cow when the milk is free?

The problem is, in this situation, the milk isn't free - it's stolen. I, for one, would rather do without than stoop to something illegal. Are you trying to posit that I'm one of the only people that would do that?

There's a difference between something that IS free and something that's been stolen.

"Everybody" is too strong a term. No of course not everybody would buy if something was not free. People spend their disposable income however they see fit. The reason Old Milwaukee and Walmart stay in business is not because they are the best. It's because they are cheap. But does "everybody" go there? Of course not.

Again, you are comparing valid, legal, cheap ways of getting a product with illegal, immoral ways of getting it.

No body said they were against waiting until the game was on the $4 shelf and buying it then. It's not against the law to be cheap, it's against the law to steal.

And some of them buy it. Or not if it doesn't matter that much to them. I know I wouldn't pay for a game if it was available for free. In that same vein, I don't believe that getting rid of welfare and letting private charities take over would amount to more money going to the poor.

I must admit, I'm mystified by the "welfare" reference but the other reference is again placing the paid for version and the free version of a game on equal footing, they are not.

For a person to be so cavalier with such an obviously immoral, blatantly illegal act is not the kind of person whose point of view I can give weight to. I only hope you don't position yourself in a carrer that sells anything. You might be forced to provide that service for "free".

Tom P.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by padillah


The problem is, in this situation, the milk isn't free - it's stolen. I, for one, would rather do without than stoop to something illegal. Are you trying to posit that I'm one of the only people that would do that?

Actually, I wasn't responsding to you so no, I'm not taking any position about you.

Again, you are comparing valid, legal, cheap ways of getting a product with illegal, immoral ways of getting it.

You're barking up the wrong tree. I happen to agree with you. However if there wasn't rudimentary copy protection, games would be copied so much that they would effectively be free. Few people would bother to pay. There will always be hackers and people with more time than money. They can't stopped but the casual thief should not be so tempted with such an easy to steal product.

I must admit, I'm mystified by the "welfare" reference but the other reference is again placing the paid for version and the free version of a game on equal footing, they are not.

The welfare thing refers to the old canard that private charities would pick up the slack if welfare was eliminated because people would voluntarily divert their ertswhile tax money there. I don't buy it. Likewise I don't believe that people would pay for something that they can get for free and without risk.

For a person to be so cavalier with such an obviously immoral, blatantly illegal act is not the kind of person whose point of view I can give weight to.

As 12 million illegal immigrants proved, what is immoral and illegal becomes pretty fuzzy when there is a very large number of people engaging in the behavior. Morality, after all, is determined by society.

I supposed every MP3 you have is from a CD you have personally purchased and you haven't taken home so much as a single pen from a hotel or job. If so, congratulations. You're the only one on this site.

[padillah]

Originally posted by gunkulator


Actually, I wasn't responsding to you so no, I'm not taking any position about you.

You were replying that if a person could get something for free, they would. But you disregard the "costs" of doing this in the face of commiting an illegal act.

I've been on a BBS/Internet since I was about 8 years old. I KNOW some of the better hackers, at least they used to be. I am able to get most software I want free regardless of what protection you may think is on it. I used to know a guy that had an attachment to his floppy drive that allowed him to control the spindle speed so it could read different formats of floppys (that was an old trick, write everything but the boot block in MAC format so it couldn't be copied no matter what).

I think there are moral people who simply will not alow themselves to steal, regardles of the ramifications.

It's not always about the ramifications, it's about my self-worth.

You're barking up the wrong tree. I happen to agree with you. However if there wasn't rudimentary copy protection, games would be copied so much that they would effectively be free. Few people would bother to pay. There will always be hackers and people with more time than money. They can't stopped but the casual thief should not be so tempted with such an easy to steal product.

Admittedly, software theft would be subject to a larger audience than currently. In light of the wider audience numerically higher numbers of people would steal the software. Whether this means that everyone would is a point I deny. There are people with self-worth and a greater sense of morality.

The welfare thing refers to the old canard that private charities would pick up the slack if welfare was eliminated because people would voluntarily divert their ertswhile tax money there. I don't buy it. Likewise I don't believe that people would pay for something that they can get for free and without risk.

I agree to an extent, look at your tax refund (assuming you get one). I view it as a return of my money and prefer it to being responsible for paying all at once. I have a friend that views it as giving away free money and can't stand the thought so goes to even greater lengths to not pay as much as humanly possible. My sister looks at it as "free money" and spends it on crap as soon as she gets it.

I think you are short-changing a large number of people that are actually good, nice people. I don't mean to cast aspersions but this kind of attitude is self-fulfilling - Why should anyone bother being good if you're not going to give them credit for it anyway? If they steal it's expected and if they don't they are stupid. Not a very uplifting attitude.

As 12 million illegal immigrants proved, what is immoral and illegal becomes pretty fuzzy when there is a very large number of people engaging in the behavior. Morality, after all, is determined by society.

NO What's moral is determined by your own self-worth. Being led around by the nose is not a form of morality. Doing what's right, even in the face of great odds, is what defines morality.

And any fool with a book can look up illegal. Just because there was a demonstration of strength doesn't mean anyone there was here legally. It just means there's quite a number of people breaking the law.

I supposed every MP3 you have is from a CD you have personally purchased and you haven't taken home so much as a single pen from a hotel or job. If so, congratulations. You're the only one on this site.

I will not try to intimate that my life has been led as perfectly as it could have. As I said above, I've known some of the better software theives in the world (I don't want to sully the name "Hacker"). But, now that I can afford to buy my own CD's and pens, yes everything I own is legal (most of it is second-hand, but legal). You may have missed a few posts where I reveal that I am a content creator and take it personally when someone steals content, including myself.

I don't mean to sound self-rightious, just self-defining. I have a set of morals that I live by and it will not move regardless of what society thinks. For example, I will not go into a house or private area alone with a girl that is not my wife. I have sat in my car in winter waiting for our other friend because an other woman was the only other person in the house. I can not (much to my wife's dismay) open my wife's purse. I can't even open it, much less go through it. I pick it up and take it to her, she opens it, gets what she wants, closes it and I put it back.

Some people do have morals regardless of what society says or does. I may not have any justification for them but they are not based on following the rest of the world around like a brainless little lump.

Tom P.

[LDiCesare]

Requiring the CD is a pain. Like so many others, my laptop is now my primary computer. Toting the disc around leads to loss and breakage (I've had this happen).

Agreed. My Civ-IV CD is dead. In the license, it is supposed to be useful only for backup purposes, yet I can't play the game anymore. I wonder it it's even legal to have the CD in the drive for playing considering the way the license is worded.
Anyway, I'll have to see if I can get my CD changed, or buy a CD without buying the license...