Legal no-CD patches

[Adagio]

Legal cd-patches
That was about time

I doesn't make much difference for me, since I always download the games before I buy them, so the bought cd's never get into my cd-drive anyway

[Urban Ranger]

I don't see how no-CD cracks are illegal. The only law it may break is DMCA, but most countries don't have something this stupid and anti-consumer.

In fact, CD protection should be illegal because you can't make backup copies of your games. Unless of course you can make copies of them normally, then why bother in the first place?

[Adagio]

On a funny sidenote:

I just found a game today that requires the cd to play (*suprise* *suprise*), but according to what I've read the files needed to run the game without the cd is directly taken from the demo of the game, so there wasn't any need to actually edit the game-files to make it work
I didn't try the demo myself so I have no idea what levels are in the demo, but I doubt the demo contains all the levels that I've played until now so it seems to work fine

[child of Thor]

And people wonder why PC gaming is becoming the poor relation?

[Solver]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I don't see how no-CD cracks are illegal. The only law it may break is DMCA, but most countries don't have something this stupid and anti-consumer.

It breaks the EULA, which says you're not allowed to modify or use modified executable files, and cracks are just that.

[snoopy369]

I'm not convinced that there's a 'right' to a backup copy being creatable. Rulings have always, to my knowledge, held that you are allowed to make a backup copy, assuming you have that ability, and it does not modify the original content; but just like a painting, which of course may easily get damaged or otherwise ruined, you don't necessarily have to be given a method of making a duplicate.

[Kataphraktoi]

didnt i buy the game?as long as i do not make any profit or sabotage the company in some way,i *own* the game and can modify to my hearts desire.

i didnt know you arnt allowed to edit the exe :hmm: its my exe on my computer,no?

[Skanky Burns]

You buy the "right" to use the company's software. As such, they can legally restrict your rights regarding modifying the game or any files therein. Enforcement is a problem, however.

[Kataphraktoi]

i must be my own robin hood huh?taking from the evil corperation and giving to poor me

in the old days it used to be that people wanted to make a game not squeeze every last dollar out of a inferior product and support it as little as possible

some peeps i know download games just to see if there ok before buying,cause the company refuses to give demos,cause they would show how crappy their game is


far as i can see there is a link between the corperation taking over games like any other industry(and bringing their idiocy) and the bad piracy issues....but i havnt done a study on this yet

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Solver
It breaks the EULA, which says you're not allowed to modify or use modified executable files, and cracks are just that.

I can't remember Alpha Centauri having a EULA...

At any rate such one-sided contracts are considered coercive in most places, and thus not valid. They are also not valid if they restrict you more severely than applicable laws.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
You buy the "right" to use the company's software.

There may be a case in the bad old days of mainframes, but I can't see how it is possible for them to try to sell you "licenses" and avoid responsibilities (e.g. fixing bugs, indemnifications, etc.)

[snoopy369]

Of course UR they would not be valid if they violated a law, but they generally don't; they have plenty of lawyers writing standard ones. They're not coercive, because a computer game is not remotely important; you can just not buy it. It's not like it's a car or a house or something. I'm sure SMAC had an EULA, in one form or another, although probably slightly less substantive than the current ones as it was published before the current standard came out (like 1999 or something I think).

You just don't have the right to do it, plain and simple. The law protects the copyright holder in a case like this; always has. I'm all for legal no-cd games; but if the maker wants it to require a CD, then so be it.

Perhaps if software piracy weren't rampant, more companies would feel safe not requiring a CD (which at least makes it a bit harder, if not that much, to pirate a game ... and more blatant of a violation, which is probably more to the point.) But instead far too many people defend the pirates as 'defenders of the people' or whatever, and thus ... bah.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I'm not convinced that there's a 'right' to a backup copy being creatable.

US copyright law, clause 117, (a)2:

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

Restrictions placed on such a right is considered illegal AFAIK.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


US copyright law, clause 117, (a)2:



Restrictions placed on such a right is considered illegal AFAIK.

No restriction has been made. As I said before, you have a right to make a backup copy, but the software maker has no obligation to make that possible or easy. That would be an absurdly broad interpretation of that law, and certainly not one that has been made to date.

Particularly note the language ... "It is not an infringement..." That indicates that the intent of the law is that this is an exception to the rights of the copyright holder, not an extension of the rights of the copier.

[DrSpike]

Hope this doesn't degenerate into another copyright thread.