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?".
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.
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.