I would like to copy the CD

[Executor]

Originally posted by Venger
Are you sure about the sub-channel data being the only required special adjustment (besides DAO+RAW, which is just REQUIRED to copy games these days)? I could swear when I copied Civ3 it had some weak sectors just like a Safedisc v2 game...

I got my copy just the same, mind you...

Venger

CD Media World says that sub-channel is the only requirement for copying Safedisc 2. Could be wrong, though.

[Venger]

Yeah that's REAL wrong. The new Safedisc uses weak sectors to make the CD burner screw up on the copy. Sub channel data still needs to be read, but that alone will not get you a good copy. I had to use BetaBlocker on my Mitsumi 4804TE drive to get it to copy Civ3. I burned 3 coasters prior to it...BetaBlocker looked at the CloneCD image, found the weak sectors, and fixed them so the burn works. Voila, I have an unscratched, unscathed Civ3 CD while I beat up my Civ3 copy...

Venger

[Elowan]

My solution to this 'problem'

BetaBlocker seems to be unavailable at the moment - BTW.

To copy the CivIII CD, merely copy all the CD files onto your HD and then burn your copy(s).

Then DL and install the NoCD patch from gamecopyworld.

Don't give away the copies either! Infogrames is entitled to their due.

I'd like a Ferrari but I can't afford it so I do without. No one will give me one either! Poop!

[Simple Girl]

use weak sectors amplifier in latest clone cd version, then you can use usual burners

[Venger]

Originally posted by Simple Girl
use weak sectors amplifier in latest clone cd version, then you can use usual burners

Weak sector amplification is in the new CloneCD? WOOHOOO!!!!

Venger

[Jack_www]

In the United States you can make one copy of the software you have for back up purposes. This is what I have read in the Licence agreements in all the software I own. You cant make as many copies as you like for your own personal use as some in European countries say that they can do legaly.

[kailhun]

Originally posted by sophist


Well, read your End User License Agreement (EULA). It's a contract. And it says, "thou shalt not reverse engineer this holy software." Or something like that.

Nope. In the United States, and I believe most other nations, software is covered by contract law, not by property law.

I will say it again, because people seem to be missing this important point and imagining the law is what it should be and not what it is. You have a contract with Infogrames. You do not own Civ3; Firaxis does. You are renting the software from Firaxis (through the intermediary of Infogrames). Firaxis/Infogrames agree to provide certain things. You agree to give them money and abide by the EULA. Nowhere does the contract state that you have the right to make backup copies. Nor does it state that Firaxis/Infogrames have to provide you with a replacement in case your original goes bad. Sorry.

But in Europe we have art. 1 of the first protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Council of Europe Treaty, not EU although you have to have signed this treated to be able to join the EU, and the EU does indirectly enforce this treaty.):

'Article 1 – Protection of property

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.'

A right is a piece of property under this article, which means that my right to use the software which i've bought under the licensing agreement is protected by this article. Any law which interferes with this right has to be applied in a way that does nog violate this article or not at all.
Copyrighting a cd is therefore not protected by law as it does not fall under the public interest to do so.
Furthermore a contractual provision forbidding me to make backup copies also violates this article, and therefore violates the 'algemeen belang'(public interest)/'openbare orde'(publoc order?) which are grounds for setting aside a contractual provision under Dutch law (and I suspect most continental European law as it is all based on the french Code Civil).

My conclusion is that I should be allowed to make backups for personal use and that Infogrames copyright protection is in violation of my Human rights.
As would be making software illegal needed to make these personal use backups.

This is what happens when you don't vote.

Speaking of voting: If the Merkins are so powerful and can indirectly influence the way The Netherlands should be governed (which they can and do), shouldn't the Dutch people get to vote on who the Merkin Prez. should be? Under the same conditions as a state? 'We live in a democarcy' after all. So how many 'electoral votes' does a state with 17 million people get?

/me climbs off soapbox once more.

Dito.

Robert

[sophist]

Originally posted by kailhun


'Article 1 – Protection of property

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.'

A right is a piece of property under this article, which means that my right to use the software which i've bought under the licensing agreement is protected by this article. Any law which interferes with this right has to be applied in a way that does nog violate this article or not at all.
Copyrighting a cd is therefore not protected by law as it does not fall under the public interest to do so.
Furthermore a contractual provision forbidding me to make backup copies also violates this article, and therefore violates the 'algemeen belang'(public interest)/'openbare orde'(publoc order?) which are grounds for setting aside a contractual provision under Dutch law (and I suspect most continental European law as it is all based on the french Code Civil).

My conclusion is that I should be allowed to make backups for personal use and that Infogrames copyright protection is in violation of my Human rights.
As would be making software illegal needed to make these personal use backups.

Are you sure that the law would define that software CD as your property? You mentioned the license, so I doubt it, but if it does, well, that's great. And I expect that would probably kill the market for proprietary software. Regardless, I don't see how this helps you until you get an affirmative ruling that this is what it means in this particular case.

Originally posted by kailhun
Speaking of voting: If the Merkins are so powerful and can indirectly influence the way The Netherlands should be governed (which they can and do), shouldn't the Dutch people get to vote on who the Merkin Prez. should be? Under the same conditions as a state? 'We live in a democarcy' after all. So how many 'electoral votes' does a state with 17 million people get?

17 million people? Lessee... New York has 18 mill, so that would give you just under 31 House representatives and 2 Senators. 33 Electoral votes. Wanna join up?

[sophist]

from your EULA

OWNERSHIP; COPYRIGHT: Title to the Software and the Documentation, and patents, copyrights and all other property rights applicable thereto, shall at all times remain solely and exclusively with Infogrames Interactive and its licensors, and You shall not take any action inconsistent with such title.The Software and the Documentation are protected by United States,Canadian and other applicable laws and by international treaty provisions. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved to Infogrames Interactive and its licensors.


1) Infogrames owns this bizitch
2) You can't do nothin' with it unless they tell you that you can

So we get to:


OTHER RESTRICTIONS: You may not cause or permit the disclosure, copying, renting, licensing, sublicensing, leasing, dissemination or other distribution of the Software or the Documentation by any means or in any form, without the prior written consent of Infogrames Interactive. You may not modify, enhance, supplement, create derivative work from, adapt, translate, reverse engineer,decompile,disassemble or otherwise reduce the Software to human readable form.


Further up in the same document is


LIMITED LICENSE:You are entitled to download or install, and operate this Software solely for your own personal use, but may not sell or transfer reproductions of the Software or Documentation to other parties in any way.You may download or install, and operate one copy of the Software on a single terminal connected to a single computer.You may not network the Software or otherwise use it on more than one computer or computer terminal at the same time.


That's pretty clear. It does not say anything about allowing you a backup. Everyone here who has made such a backup has violated the license agreement ("You may not cause... the ... copying... of the software."). I don't know how broad "cause" is, but it could also include telling people how to make such unauthorized copies. I don't want this to be how this works, but it is. Pretending otherwise will solve nothing. I plan on making a backup because I don't want to be left in the lurch if my CD gets scratched, but I'm going to do it knowing what it means.

[kailhun]

Originally posted by sophist


Are you sure that the law would define that software CD as your property? You mentioned the license, so I doubt it, but if it does, well, that's great. And I expect that would probably kill the market for proprietary software. Regardless, I don't see how this helps you until you get an affirmative ruling that this is what it means in this particular case.

When you buy a book, music cd or computer program you are buying two things: the carrier (paper, cd, floppy whatever) and the right to use the interllectual material (read the story, listen to the music, run the software).The subject of this discussion is the latter. This right is a piece of property and is protected as such by the aforementioned art. 1.

17 million people? Lessee... New York has 18 mill, so that would give you just under 31 House representatives and 2 Senators. 33 Electoral votes. Wanna join up?

Wow, 33 electoral votes. That would make us one of the biggies right? As to joining. Would you really want a state that is on the way to legalizing drugs, and makes the ownership of guns illegal? (public interest exception of art. 1 apllies here I think.).

Robert

[kailhun]

Re: from your EULA

Originally posted by sophist
OWNERSHIP; COPYRIGHT: Title to the Software and the Documentation, and patents, copyrights and all other property rights applicable thereto, shall at all times remain solely and exclusively with Infogrames Interactive and its licensors, and You shall not take any action inconsistent with such title.The Software and the Documentation are protected by United States,Canadian and other applicable laws and by international treaty provisions. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved to Infogrames Interactive and its licensors.


1) Infogrames owns this bizitch
2) You can't do nothin' with it unless they tell you that you can

a. Just because the contract says something does not mean they're right.
b. Not all contractual provisions are as solid when held up to the cold light of the law.
c. Infogrames has sold you the right to use the game. That is not mentioned above and that is what we're talking about here. It would be odd if Infogrames could sell something and still retain ownership. That right you own. It's all yours.

So we get to:


OTHER RESTRICTIONS: You may not cause or permit the disclosure, copying, renting, licensing, sublicensing, leasing, dissemination or other distribution of the Software or the Documentation by any means or in any form, without the prior written consent of Infogrames Interactive. You may not modify, enhance, supplement, create derivative work from, adapt, translate, reverse engineer,decompile,disassemble or otherwise reduce the Software to human readable form.

In so far that this restriction is in violation of art. 1 of the Convention, it is non-applicable (the restriction that is, not art.1).

Further up in the same document is


LIMITED LICENSE:You are entitled to download or install, and operate this Software solely for your own personal use, but may not sell or transfer reproductions of the Software or Documentation to other parties in any way.You may download or install, and operate one copy of the Software on a single terminal connected to a single computer.You may not network the Software or otherwise use it on more than one computer or computer terminal at the same time.

See previous remark. The law is of higher rank than a contract and a treaty is of higher rank than a law. So a treaty could set aside a law and a law could set aside a contractual provision.

That's pretty clear. It does not say anything about allowing you a backup. Everyone here who has made such a backup has violated the license agreement ("You may not cause... the ... copying... of the software."). I don't know how broad "cause" is, but it could also include telling people how to make such unauthorized copies. I don't want this to be how this works, but it is. Pretending otherwise will solve nothing. I plan on making a backup because I don't want to be left in the lurch if my CD gets scratched, but I'm going to do it knowing what it means.

Doesn't need to allow you. Your right to protect your property (right to use the software) allows you to backup a cd for personal use. Any law or contractual provision that infringes on this right is non-applicable.

I also know what it means. We are however in disagreement on the legal position.

Robert

[ElitePersian]

Is it gonna be possible to apply the upcoming patch if im using the NO-CD crack?
cause i did a full install with the CD and i lost the CD itself and i didnt make any backup copies.
im worried this will be a problem.

[Dire Wolf]

No, the No-CD 'patch' will not work with any updated executables. Most No-CD patches perform a CRC16/32 check on the executable before attempting to apply the patch. If it didn't, you'd probably end up with a useless/broken executable.

BTW How the hell do you lose a CD so quickly? You know how many times I've heard that? "I installed xxx program and then lost the CD," or "I installed xxx but can't find my serial number! Please give me yours." etc.

When I was younger, I'll admit that I bought some software from someone who used to make copies of games like Zork, Ultima, etc. At the time game software was very new (we are talking early 80s) and since I was only 12 at the time I didn't know any better.

In my teens I'd download a warez game to try it out. If I liked it, I'd go out and buy a legal copy. Back then there were no stores that allowed you to return software and it was opened. Back then it was easy to copy games so it kind of made sense.

Now that I write software, I find my outlook on copyright-laws to be a bit different. I strongly dislike warez. Most game developers put a lot of hard work into their products and deserve to make money. Alas, there seems to be many publishing houses/game developers that rush their products to market. Who really protects the consumer from these wrong-doers? n the software industry it seems we focus so much attention on protecting the "corporation" that we forget about the "consumer."

For instance, in the automotive industry, if Ford sold a model of car that had defective brakes (or tires), no one would dispute that they'd be liable for a lawsuit. But what of the publisher/developer that releases a half-finished product full of obvious bugs? Sure software has bugs; software is too complex to be completely bug free. Still, there is a level of acceptability that I measure a product by and quite a few games don't measure up. All too often do we see expensive games released that require a patch or some convoluted hoop-jumping, to make them work. The problem with software is that there is no effective way to rally against unscrupulous publishers/developers. Most people would go to court after spending $20K on an unsafe vehicle but who would really go to court over a $50 game? Granted, there was a court case against Ultima Online but I can't remember what happened there.

Another problem that doesn't sit well with me is when a publisher/developer expects you to buy a copy of a game for each computer that it will run on. Granted, this gripe only applies to game software. In my opinion, if all the computers are located in the same residence, that game should be allowed to run on any number of computers at the same time. My wife and I enjoy playing LAN games together. Considering the lack of quality and life-expectancy of most games, who would really want to buy two copies? As I already stated, non-entertainment software such as word processors, operating systems, etc should require separate licensing. The difference with this software is that they are long term use (typically used for longer than 6 months.)

The software industry is cracking down on piracy. I think "we" should also be cracking down on them. It seems the law is all for software companies, even when they are in the wrong. So who will protect the consumer?

BTW I'm in no way attacking Firaxis here. My frustration is more directed at developers like Cornered Rat Studios, makers of the bug-filled, virtually non-playable World War 2 Online.

[dr.charm]

In defense of Cornered Rat - are you saying that frisbee isn't a fun game

More seriously, whatever happened to spawning? AoE had it, so did at least Starcraft. That solves the problem beautifully, shame no one does it anymore. If I want to LAN I will seek out a no-cd crack so that I can play the game I purchased with a friend.

Cheers,

Dr. Charm

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by Raleigh
Although I can't dispense legal advice as a lawyer (at least not for another 12 months) I think that general US copyright law permits the copying of software for "backup" purposes.

However, an individual contract might be able to modify that general provision (that's where I am unclear). In theory this means that as long as Infrogames doesn't forbid such copying it is legal. In any event, even if their contract forbid it, you probably would only be liable commercially not criminally as long as you did not distribute the copy.

Exactly, creating a personal backup for your own use is legal I believe, but there is no law preventing a publishing company from doing something to the cd to make it hard to copy. (this is normal with most software in the US and I presume with this game, but don't take my word for it.)