Slashdot Mirror
EA, Atari Sue Over Videogame Copying Software
Thanks to the Monterey Herald/AP for its news story regarding EA, Atari, and VU Games' lawsuit against the makers of the Games X Copy backup software. The article explains: "The federal lawsuit [PDF version], filed Tuesday in New York, alleges that Games X Copy software by 321 Studios Inc. of suburban St. Louis violates copyright laws by illegally cracking copy-protection systems used by [PC] game makers." Doug Lowenstein of the ESA trade body, also backing the lawsuits, explains: "I wouldn't get into speculating on dollar losses here. What's at stake here is a rather important legal principle - that products with no purpose other than to circumvent copyright protection are illegal under the DMCA." The piece also notes that "Federal judges in New York and California have barred 321 from marketing... [similar] DVD-cloning software - a victory for movie studios, which contended that such products violate the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act."
You are aware that the software is useful for allowing people who legitimately own the game to make backup copies, as otherwise it is impossible due to copy protection measures put on the CDs, right? Yes, it could be used by someone who wants to dupe the game for a friend, but this software is hardly going to encourage widespread piracy.
Honestly, I'm sick of CD protection on PC games. It does nothing to curb piracy, but it does impact legitimate owners who now can no longer make legal backups of their software (and thus their game is ruined if the original CD gets scratched) AND it often imposes artifical system requirements as users need to make sure that their CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drive is capable of handling the nonstandard code that makes the copy protection work -- and since SafeDisc, SecureROM, etc are constantly updating their software, it is impossible to get a steady list of supported hardware.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
For the others who had no idea what the parent was talking about, see the following site:
Disney FAQ, see "How do I replace a damaged DVD?".
P.S. I am in no way owner, involved, employed with alcoholsoft. I just use their software and am happy with it.
For what it's worth, they actually can't refuse even after the 30 days. Game companies, as well as music companies, are obligated to replace media that becomes damaged (even if the owner is at fault) for the cost of replacement.
I've had software CDs replaced long after they were originally purchased, usually about $5-$15 dollars. I think $15 is probably a bit stiff, but the original software cost enough that we were more than happy to pay it.
Whoever you talked to didn't know their posterior from a whole in the ground. Next time, insist on talking to a superior and - if necessary - call their legal department if the superior is also an idiot.
Just FYI, here are some addresses in case you wish to speak your mind about copy-protection issues in general. I find that writing letters is a better way to create some sort of stir opposed to firing off an email. EA and Atari are bigwigs, some sort of "political" response has to start somewhere.
Electronic Arts Inc.
209 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood City, CA 94065-1175
U.S.A.
don't forget to send one to their "report piracy" address:
Electronic Arts Inc.
915 - 118th Avenue SE, Suite 370
Bellevue, WA 98005
Atari:
Head Office
Atari, Inc.
417 Fifth Ave.
New York, NY 10016
Tel: +1 212-726-6500
Product PR
us.pr@atari.com
Tel: +1 978-921-3700
The opinion of the Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft upheld the Bono Act, but it also upheld that the fair use exemption implements the First Amendment, and without a fair use exemption, the constitutionality of copyright law as we know it would be even more in question:
Some analysts have pointed out that this holding in Eldred could be used to argue against the constitutionality of the DMCA, which bans possession of circumvention devices even for purposes of fair use.
The only serious problem I have with your premis is the fact that many copy protection schemes are BAD for your computer.
The most common issue is software that boots on startup and always runs, stealling cpu cycles. but at least one system not only doese that, but installs itself as a driver, one that till recently conflicted with the usb drivers used by windows to work with usb-memory key type device. I read at least one report by a colledge student who lost a good part of a semesters work while transfering files to such a device.
Then there are copy protection schemes that like to write to areas of the HD in the boot track so that they can hide data and protect it from a format, nevermind that the owner might be dual booting with an os that needs that area to boot properly.
So no, even if they were willing to replace a damaged or defective disc for free, should they be putting that crap on my computer. especially when they don't even tell you thier doing it. If it runs when the program I installed is not running, or it writes to parts of the HD that are NOT in user space, or tinkers with my o.s. without my explicit and informed consent, it's morally the same as hacking in and trojaning my system.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
Secondly you are buying a licence to use/listen to/watch whatever it is you bought.
I've said it countless times before, and I guess I'll have to repeat it countless times more.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LICENCE TO USE.
You no more need a licence to play a CD or install and play a computer game than you need a licence to read a book. US law at least is quite specific on this. You buy some media with stuff recorded on it and you are the owner of that specific copy.
The only exclusive rights the copyight holder has are listed in title 17 section 106 - the rights to create new copies and distribute them and public display. And those rights are loaded with exeptions and limitations.
Normal consumer purchases never come with any of those rights included, thus it is completely licence-free. About the only exception I can think of is a few rare software products that come with a licence to install copies on more than one computer.
The RIAA and others are certianly trying to change the law to create some sort of licence to play music and run software and read books, they are certainly spreading plently of misinformation about the law, painting an image that the law already says what they want it to say.
If you can convince everyone (including congress) that the law already says what you want it to say then it becomes very easy to get congress to chage the law to say what they think it already says. Very insidious.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
then surely I would need such a licence to install any software product, even on a single machine - wouldn't I?
Nope.
Congress even specifically went out of their way to exclude the possibility of such an interpretation:
TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 Sec. 117. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(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 mannerr, 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.
When you buy software you do not need any licence at all to install and run it. Copyright law is NOT about use. As far as copyright is concered the single installation of software is not the creation of a new copy - it is the normal use of a single functional copy.
they decide to [o]nly distribute copies to entities which agree to a contract of sale
Sure, they are perfectly free to refuse to sell me a copy unless I sign a contract first. But if I state that I have no interest in that contract and they sell me the copy anyway, well, then they got my money and I own that copy and there is no contract.
All of the EULA cases thus far (at least so far as I am aware) are NOT in any way based on a legal theory of needing a licence to install and run software. They are all based on a legal theory that the buyer somehow actively and willingly chose to be bound by a contract.
I'd say it's a rather doubious legal theory that someone chose to be bound by a contract simply by opening a box. But even if we grant that rotten legal theory, it is still not copyright infringment to install and run software if you somehow still manage to do so without agreeing to that contract.
EULA's are not licences. With the exception of those that licence you to make additional copies they do not licence you any rights you do not already have. They are contract offers. You are free to decline contract offers, but then obviously you do not receive anything that contract offers. EULA's generally offer nothing you want or need anyway. That's why they want the UCITA - to force EULA's to be binding.
So there are certianly legal arguments about whether EULA's are binding or not, but is has absolutely no connection to copyright infringment.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
There's a setting in the UO.CFG file ShowIntroAnim=on/off which controls whether the intro movies are played or not. It also happens to be the FIRST setting in the ingame options, under Misc. "Show the intro movie on launch". It controls both the spinning EA Logo, and the Intro Story Movie to Ultima Online. You cannot be banned for changing this setting.