CD Protection - what ended up happening?

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Switch
I say, get a copy per computer. Not only is that the legal way, but you'll feel much better about yourself for having a conscience and not trying to screw over gaming companies.
How would you like it if you made a piece of software, and half the people using it didn't pay for it?
Apparently MS lost $30 000 000 000 to piracy. And people call MS greedy

sorry, but i don't agree to this AT ALL.
maybe, if you sum up the price of all illegal copies of all MS-products, you might get this figure. but microsoft would NEVER had got this powerful and rich without piracy.

let's say you're a student, have no money and don't know much about computers. if it were impossible to copy MSDOS or windows, they would have had to choose another operating system.

that's were microsoft won: they got the rich (mainly companies and adults) to BUY the product and got the poorer to chose their product (they earn just as little if you take a substitute). so everyone has MS and it's even harder NOT to use it for the new companies (they only know MS).

so if MS says, they lost 30 billion through piracy, i'd say that was worth it for them: they're the monopolist now and only some artists, musicians, geeks and nerds use mac and unix-derivates.

[monkspider]

Interesting theory sabre. In any event, I don't condone piracy, but it is quite silly to ask this poster to buy two seperate copies just to play over LAN. He is fully within his fair use rights to make a copy for the Mrs, or to do the disc swap method described earlier.

[vmxa1]

Not within your right to make a copy for anyone, not even youself to use on another machine. You are not allowed to use software on more than one machine with one copy unless you have a site lic.

[sabrewolf]

vxma1: well, actually making copies is not forbidden, for you buy the product, not the CD. however it is forbidden to use it twice. so backups only...

as for different machines: what if you're the only one playing the games, but have two computers. a nice high end desktop and a notebook for travelling. you're never using more than one version at a time and it's always the same person playing the same game. so morally it should be allowed to use the CD twice. but is that legally allowed?

[woody]

Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
And i'd just get two copys of PtW, since you can play sp or multi with it. And since its just you and your wife i'd really say 1 copy of each would be enough, if not for the cd protection.

Since multiplayer doesn't even work, if he wants to waste his money then he should by 1 copy. But if he wants to be a fool, then he should by 2 copies!

Stick with plain, old Civ3 1.29f. It's much more stable than PtW.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by HappySunShine
Ming you need to stop interfering in other people's affairs. This Moderator job has gone to your head. If they want to talk about piracy of a horrible game that should have lawsuits filed on its behalf, let them. Infogrames should be happy I don't get everyone together and start filing class action lawsuits. I'm sure that would really help infogrames since they're already going under and are about to be removed from the Nasdaq.

HSS

You are such a joke.

I'm sure you do scare Infogrames with your impotent threats.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
vxma1: well, actually making copies is not forbidden, for you buy the product, not the CD. however it is forbidden to use it twice. so backups only...

as for different machines: what if you're the only one playing the games, but have two computers. a nice high end desktop and a notebook for travelling. you're never using more than one version at a time and it's always the same person playing the same game. so morally it should be allowed to use the CD twice. but is that legally allowed?

True you were allowed to make a backup. I said were as I am not so sure now with the millenium act if that is still legal.
You are not allowed to install it on two pc's with only one lic. There is a law against that and many compies and individuals have been busted. so the answer is you are not legally allowed to do that. You will probably never be caught, but you have better make sure you have no ex wives or girlfriends that are mad at you. That is how people get caught.

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by vmxa1
... but you have better make sure you have no ex wives or girlfriends that are mad at you. That is how people get caught.

Actually, if my partner ever decided to "rat me out," he could find better "illegal" activities to report me for than copying a game CD...

[CiverDan]

I think some people are confused because their are 2 separate laws at work here. The first is piracy law, which (I believe) most people know states that you may not copy or otherwise use a piece of software in a manner which violates the license. In this particular case, as with most standard licenses, any attempt to install one copy on two separate machine at the same time is piracy.

The second law I was referring to is the 1998 Digital Millenuim Copyright Act (DMCA). This law makes it illegal to circumvent copy protection mechanisms designed to prevent piracy (like anything done to not require CD use to play). The law also makes it illegal to link to any site which engages in this kind of activity. That is why linking to cracking sites is not allowed on here, for anyone who did not know. It's because it violates the DMCA. Whether or not you agree with it or not is up for you to decide, but regardless, it's the law and has to be followed.

I hope this clarifies things regarding this topic.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Wittlich


Actually, if my partner ever decided to "rat me out," he could find better "illegal" activities to report me for than copying a game CD...

No doubt anyones could, but you get the picture and I was too lazy to cover all the bases.

[vmxa1]

CiverDan, thanks that is what I have been saying the DMAC is not settled law and it is not clear if it will be used to stop even a safety copy, it looks like it could be found to be a no no.

[sabrewolf]

so if i understand you all correctly, you're officially NOT allowed to make a copy of any kind.

so if you buy a music CD, you have to listen to it from THAT CD, not from tape (for the car), not from mp3 (for on the journey), etc.?

damnit... if they'd write more intelligent law they (RIAA, etc.) wouldn't have so much fuss with the copies. legalizing copies (for your own purpose!) would boost the sales. because the illegal copies are out there anyway (napster and successors), these laws just harm the honest people who actually bought the CD.

[sabrewolf]

sorry for ranting... it's frustrating. to me, it sounds like if i'm driving just a tad bit to fast and the police takes me out while being overtaken by 100 real speeders.

sometimes law doens't make sence to me, the least of all is that recent greek one

[LordCanar]

Funny how everyone seems to be sayin don't screw over infograms, just buy two cd's, when its infograms who's screwed us over with this piece of crap bundel of bugs that they call a game, and that we had to pay for twice.

[monkspider]

You can still make a legal copy under the DMCA, as long as not hacking or cracking or anything of that matter is involved. If you can get past the copy-protection without any sort of "circumvention" you are fine, legally. There are quite a few burners that can burn virtually any type of protection there is.

Anyway, perhaps making a copy to use on another machine is illegal, but it certainly isn't immoral. Licensing laws arent divinely inspired after all.