Is copy protection fair?

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
I like the printed manuals - I tend to do my reading on the subway, and not on the computer. Reading anything longer than a couple of pages online is a pain in the ass, anyway.

No subways where I live (don't use any public transportation to get to work), and I prefer to spend my time "learning while playing" instead of spending more time reading the manual than actually playing the game
After a quick look at the manual to Civ IV, there doesn't seem to be anything in there that you can't learn while playing, so pretty much a waste of time if you ask me

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Adagio


No subways where I live (don't use any public transportation to get to work)

My condolences.

, and I prefer to spend my time "learning while playing" instead of spending more time reading the manual than actually playing the game

I prefer to not waste my playing time making dumb mistakes that could have been avoided by reading the manual.

The point (which you seem to have missed) being, everyone has different preferences as to how they approach a new game. Frankly, if I'm paying $50 for a game, the least they could do is print the damn manual instead of expecting us to print it ourselves.

[fed1943]

I agree with 6000 years old man.
If a buyer doesn't want to read the manual,or to play the game,or
both, is in their rights.
But the seller must provide to media to play and the manual to say
what the game and the program is about and to allow the buyer
(that is not under the duty to be engineer) to learn and play.
Best regards,

[Solver]

Heck yeah, if they want to sell games for 50$, they need that extra content. That's how I always convinced myself that game prices are okay - you get a manual and whatever other supplemental stuff. But paying such money for a small box with the CD and a miniscule instructions booklet? Grr!

[MightyTiny]

I wonder what happened to the alternative type of copy protection you used to get in C-64 days WAAAAY back.

I'm talking about having some sort of external gadget, that came with the game, which you would have to consult to get a code that you'd enter at various times in the game.

I personally didn't find entering codes while playing, if they were required infrequently enough, much of an inconvenience.

But then again, it didn't stop me copying some games from my friends either - in my defense, I was very young at the time, and at 11 - 14 years old, copy protection wasn't an impediment, it was a challenge; getting around it was half the fun in playing games! And we didn't really even think that there might be an ethical issue involved.

The codes just ment that for the games that used them, we had to copy them by hand - which would probably discourage many less patient casual players.

But I remember one game with a very effective system - it took quite a bit of planning and and imagination to figure out how to make a substitute, and it literally took hours to copy that system. Most of my friends didn't have the patience and just skipped the game, and I suspect that that game didn't suffer from much piracy at all. It was a game called Neuromancer on C-64 (late 80's), and it used a kind of a code-wheel system.

I found a picture of it on the net: http://www.antonraubenweiss.com/gibs...ame-wheel2.jpg

Essentially, you have three interlayed wheels with holes at specific spots, and you'd have to align certain words on each layer to reveal a code which you'd then enter into the game.

The code was PART of the game, integrated into the gameplay, so it didn't feel as much like copy protection, but more like a feature of the game.

I personally wouldn't mind this sort of copy protection being used today, instead of the rather inefective and annoying CD-checks - especially if a little imagination was used to integrate the use of the wheel, or some similar devise into the gameplay.

Of course, then there'd be people all over game forums complaining that the dog ate their wheel, but then again, that's life teaching you a lesson. Learn to keep your game-wheels away from hugry dogs!

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
The point (which you seem to have missed) being, everyone has different preferences as to how they approach a new game

No, I didn't miss that, but I just posted my opinion on why I prefer games to come in DVD boxes instead of huge boxes (or rather that post was more about showing why I don't mind if there's no room for a manual)

[Solver]

Quite relevant to the subject.

How copy protection creates pirates, some comments by Brad Wardell with a link to an interesting article.

[LordShiva]

In the OT thread about CFC, I read that they post cracks to the Civ games. Since Firaxis people post there, and since the Firaxis website links to CFC, then Firaxis must be OK with No-CD cracks

[Keygen]

Originally posted by Solver

Quite relevant to the subject.

How copy protection creates pirates, some comments by Brad Wardell with a link to an interesting article.

Jarrett is right

[Keygen]

I read somewhere sometime ago that SafeDisc v4.60, the copy protection system used by CIV would not permit a legitimate purchased copy to run on a computer not having any IDE but SCSI only drives installed, even if the disk was inside the CD/DVD-ROM drive. That because popular CD/DVD-ROM emulation software created SCSI virtual drives and was a method not to run disk images in virtual drives.

I never had the chance to test that myself - I have no SCSI drive - but if true it's very lame...

[Solver]

I don't know about that. I only have IDE drives myself, but I've heard of way fewer problems with SafeDisc than with, say, Starforce, which is horribly notorious.

I find games that refuse to run if they detect emulation software very annoying. I have several fully legal uses for emulation software (I like mounting newly downloaded Linux distribution ISOs, it's also useful for testing how ISO images created by myself work), but some copy protection automatically assumes you're using that software for illegal purposes.

[Keygen]

Originally posted by Solver

I find games that refuse to run if they detect emulation software very annoying.

That was one of my points. How legal can this be? Doesn't affect negatively the spread of this kind of software, which some of them are commercial btw?

[Solver]

I guess that, as long as games don't start to delete emulation software, it's legal. Deleting would clearly be illegal, but just refusing to run is legal because you don't own the software .

Last night, I read the Windows Vista EULA, out of sheer curiosity stemming from what I had read about it. Pretty awesome, according to that EULA, you don't own the software, you consent to validation checks at any time Microsoft sees fit, and Microsoft has the right to suspend your access to the operating system or any components at any time - it's even more restrictive than the previous version EULAs.

[Keygen]

Originally posted by Solver

I guess that, as long as games don't start to delete emulation software, it's legal. Deleting would clearly be illegal, but just refusing to run is legal because you don't own the software .

I was referring to the legality of the copy protection system both against the companies/developers that make CD/DVD emulation software and to the end user from the perspective that prevents him from using emulation software in the same time with the game that utilizes the protection.

Because it is there and is used by game developers/publishers doesn't automatically mean it is legal, might mean that nobody ever tried to find out if it is, they consider it is "so natural" to be legal

Originally posted by Solver

Last night, I read the Windows Vista EULA, out of sheer curiosity stemming from what I had read about it. Pretty awesome, according to that EULA, you don't own the software, you consent to validation checks at any time Microsoft sees fit, and Microsoft has the right to suspend your access to the operating system or any components at any time - it's even more restrictive than the previous version EULAs.

Well, if the copy is illegal I guess they have all the right to do that but I am amazed that they're not clear enough to mention under what specific circumstances do they have the right to do so.

Again this right for use only troubles me. Does this mean they own the CD/DVD, content, manual, box and everything else of the copy that I payed for? Do they have the right to take the CD/DVD I bought as long I can use it without it?

[Solver]

I was referring to the legality of the copy protection system both against the companies/developers that make CD/DVD emulation software and to the end user from the perspective that prevents him from using emulation software in the same time with the game that utilizes the protection.

It's probably legal because lawyers from companies producing emulation software haven't sued game protection software yet, and lawyers can be expected to sue/threaten the first chance they get .

Well, if the copy is illegal I guess they have all the right to do that but I am amazed that they're not clear enough to mention under what specific circumstances do they have the right to do so.

No, even if the copy is illegal, it would be illegal for them to delete emulation software. It would be legal for the game to delete itself, and not anything else. There was a Slashdot discussion recently on the subject of some new protection system for software that did something of the sort - deleted your data or something, I don't remember the details. That's clearly illegal. To use an analogy, if I steal your wallet, you're within your rights to take it back using reasonable force if required, but certainly not tp break my arms afterwards in retaliation.