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."

Comments

Just wait...

[infonick]

13 torrent will become avialible in the following minutes, and their worst fears will come true.

Re:Just wait...

[Synonymous Yellowbel]

13 torrent will become avialible in the following minutes, and their worst fears will come true. Obviously you're joking, but I thought it worth reminding everyone else that the "powers that be" (that's the corporations, not the government, folks) aren't worried about the 0.05% of the population that are geeks using Bittorrent. It's the mainstream market finding out that they can copy their neighbours' software and music that keeps them up at night. Even more importantly, it's the legitimisation of such activity that they really want to crush. Even if it's legal to back up one's software, they want people to think it's not, because if the plebs know they can do that, it's just a short jump to widescale copyright infringement which they fear will wrest control from their cold, dead fingers. steve

Re:Just wait...

[crazyray]

This is a very valid, and very true, point. They really don't care about the .001 per cent that can circumvent it anyway- its the "critical mass" of average joes and janes that cause concern. I would also add to your point that this can be seen in the "click to accept" agreements- no one really expects the user to read and understand them, but they do want the user to THINK that the software issuer grants and decides what is or will be "fair use".

Re:Just wait...

[cloak42]

It's the mainstream market finding out that they can copy their neighbours' software and music that keeps them up at night.

Somehow, I think it's not that. It seems to me that what they're really afraid of are people who download these games and programs for free off of P2P software (I'm thinking Kazaa, Morpheus, Gnutella, etc. more than BitTorrent). Even the RIAA has said that making a copy for a friend or neighbor is fine and that it's the mass distributors they're really focused on.

Re:Just wait...

[FictionPimp]

what about the 90% of people that can just download a fixed exe from gamecopyworld.com?

Re:Just wait...

[88NoSoup4U88]

" what about the 90% of people that can just download a fixed exe from gamecopyworld.com?"

Make that 80 percent of those 90 ; the rest gets stuck in the horrible site design.

I want the second disc damnit!

[RobPiano]

I had a game that takes several hours to defeat and spans more than one disc called, ``Lunar 2 Eternal Blue'' for Playstation 2. I was playing through the game very slowly and when I got to the second disc I realized the disc was scratched. Well, it had already passed the 30 day point, so I wrote the company and asked if they would sell me a replacement second disc. The answer, of course, was no. I would have to buy the whole thing over again.

What kind of crap are they pulling. I am legally entitled to backup my games, but they put in measures to prevent me doing so. Would these companies allow me to ask for a copy? No. Could I send in a damaged copy and get another? No.

Okay fine, piracy is a problem for you. You lose tons of money (well I don't actually believe this). Then it is your job to provide me with backups. I have a legal right, and a need as a consumer for legitimate backups.

It is in the best interest of corporations to take away your rights if they can instead sell them to you. The only way our rights stand a chance is if we stand up for them. In fact I will go a step further and say, the only way our rights stand a chance is if we demonstrate common practice what our rights are.

Laws are defined by practice. They are both made and broken by what we do. When we started buying ``copy protected'' materials we set a precedence that copying was not a legitimate activity. Had we wanted to keep our right to copy we would not have bought anything copy protected.

This case is clear. Our right to copy is almost gone. We set the precedence for it by buying things with copy protection and now we have to live with it.

Grr! I want the second disc damnit!

Re:I want the second disc damnit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you have the American version? According to the publisher's web site, "If you have a receipt ... we offer free replacement of defective discs for a 90 day period."

Re:I want the second disc damnit!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I want the second disc damnit!

[finkployd]

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. A democrat signed the DMCA into law.

Bad laws that hurt consumers are certainly not the sole domain of either party, they are both bought and sold to their corporate masters.

Finkployd

Re:I want the second disc damnit!

[nasor]

You have to be very careful with this sort of "law A says I'm allowed to do such and such, but law B hampers it, so law B must be violating my civil rights" reasoning. It's true that the U.S. Copyright Act contains a provision that allows people to make backup copies of copyrighted works, but this does not mean that you have some sort of inalienable right to make backup copies - it merely means that there is nothing wrong in principle with making backup copies. You're still legally obligated to follow any other laws that might enter into the picture. You don't get to ignore the copy-protection circumvention sections of the DMCA in your pursuit of making a backup copy, just like you wouldn't be able to murder someone if shooting someone was somehow necessary for you to create your backup copy.

And no, I don't think that the DMCA is a good idea, I'm just trying to correct a common legal fallacy that I've see repeated many times on slashdot.

Re:I want the second disc damnit!

[mrchaotica]

Until the company goes out of business, of course.

Re:I want the second disc damnit!

[badasscat]

And no, I don't think that the DMCA is a good idea, I'm just trying to correct a common legal fallacy that I've see repeated many times on slashdot.

It's not a fallacy. US Copyright law specifically says "it's ok for you to make copies under circumstances including this, and this, and some other stuff". Case law supports making backup copies as fair use under that law.

Now another law comes along and says "well, whether or not you're allowed to make copies, you're not allowed to make copies by getting around this thing we put in place to stop you from making copies." This is like saying you bought a car, and yes, you own the car and are legally allowed to drive it, but you're not legally allowed to open the door to get into it. It doesn't make any sense, and one law is clearly designed to contradict the other, even if it doesn't do so specifically or by actually retracting any part of the original law. It's a sneaky way of taking away rights you were specifically granted by legislation and then case law.

So I realize that you're not arguing in favor of the DMCA, but it sounds like that's because you're morally opposed to it, not because you think there's any legal problem with it. There are legal problems with it, in as much as it basically retracts portions of copyright law in practice without doing so specifically. If you ask me, congress got hoodwinked on this - I don't think they meant to pass a law retracting portions of copyright law as they pertain to digital media, but the RIAA and MPAA told them the law was good and congress believed them. I think most members of congress probably honestly believed they were simply adding to and clarifying copyright law as it pertains to digital media. But that's not what they did; the DMCA by nature cannot be applied fairly (since it only applies to digital media - an artist holding a copyright on a painting, for example, can't invoke it), and it so far has only really been invoked in this one specific way in lawsuits, which is in the restrictions it places on fair use rights defined elsewhere in copyright law.

Re:I want the second disc damnit!

[Hungus]

In cases where laws overlap, legal precidence simply states that the previous law trumps the later one.

Re:I want the second disc damnit!

[Technician]

If companies replace my broken CDs at cost ($1-2). I have no problem with me not being able to make backup copies of my own.

I do have a problem having to wait 6-8 weeks and pay $5-15 for a replacement when I already have a CD burner and blanks are $0.25 each. Some games such as Nerf Arena was purchased for under $10 and does not have copy protection. $5-15 is not replacement media cost, it's retal replacement cost. (Nerf Arena works fine without the CD in the drive after editing it's .ini text file. It would have been nice if they eliminated the editing step.) Other than copy protection, I'd rather make the backup myself for about 2 minutes time on my part and 10 minutes on my computer's time. That way a spare is on hand with no waiting needed. All too often the game CD's the kids use end up being carpet protectors under the wheels of the chair. I back up all my games, software, and music and run from working copies due to the cost of originals. Games that prohibit that are simply not used by the kids. Other titles from the same manufacture go un-purchased.

DVD's because of the DMCA don't get a working copy. Due to the lack of back-ups, I pretty much limit DVD purchases to the under $10 movies. Copy protection lowers the value, not increases it.

The same applies to my music and PC software. My laptop does not travel with the originals of any software to prevent loss or dammage. Software that runs without the disk in the drive is a big plus. (Minesweeper and Hearts are the biggest office time wasters because they run from the hard drive. If they needed the original CD in the drive, they would not be work time-wasters that they are.) CD's for my car are also all working copies, not originals. They are at home in the case ready to produce another working copy if the work copy becomes dammaged.

Copy protected software that requires the originals in the drive are being ignored because there are online alternatives for the kids, such as NeoPets. It's free and there is no hunting for it's disk.

The copy protection keeps me from buying pig in a poke software. (No impulse buys because it looks like it might be nice) I pretty much limit my purchases to software that others have reviewed and given an OK for user friendlieness.

Re:I want the second disc damnit!

[Firethorn]

This is where the difference between license/purchase scheme comes in. Companies want the best of both worlds (dictate how you use it, and you're responsable for the media). However, if they don't have a disc replacement policy, the idea is that judges will tend to see the 'purchase' point more than the contract point, and that means that you can do whatever you want with it. Kinda like when you buy a car.

Re:I want the second disc damnit!

[dslbrian]

90 days is a joke... It should be years like 3-4 years...

Even 3-4 years is a joke. Fair-use does not have a time limit. It should be for the life of the product. And if the company complains that providing backups for the life of the product is too much of a financial burden on them, then they should have no complaint about our ability to copy it ourselves. Otherwise fair-use is merely a theoretical rather than a practical concept.

I really don't understand how the courts can segregate digital works from the rest. Copying images or text from books has been allowed for a long time now (otherwise photocopiers wouldn't exist). CD/DVD copiers are nothing more than the digital equivalent of a photocopier. I can take a digital PDF file, print it, photocopy it, and scan it back into another digital PDF file - does the sum total of all that constitute a DMCA violation?

Seems whats missing from the DMCA is an "intent" clause. In other words you have to be copying with the intent of doing something illegal for there to be a violation. Judges decide things based on intent all the time, is that not a reasonable thing to have in there?

This is the same EA

[DAldredge]

This is the same EA that just made it IMPOSSIBLE to bypass the 15 second startup movies that play every time you start up Ultima Online. There is a way to disable them, but they can ban your account for making unauthorized mods if you use it.

Re:This is the same EA

[WWWWolf]

Thou art a town crier, sworn to tell the decrees from the lord of the land to the townsmen unaltered. The lazy and vain lord asks thee to begin the news with a pompous praise to him. Dost thou
A) Honestly refrain from praising the lord, knowing the townsmen dislike him as well, or
B) Honor thy agreement and do as thou hast been told?

Aww heck, as if that would matter. =)

Kids

[BancBoy]

Many children (young and old) treat their game discs with a bit less respect than they should sometimes. Who wants to buy a new copy everytime your copy starts skipping or fails? Won't you please think about the children!?

Re:Kids

[CAIMLAS]

They're kids. For the most part, they've not reached the point where they realize that things actually break, deteriorate, or die - they don't have the perspective of multiple years of life yet to reflect back on. A week is a very long time for 10 year old, and a month an eternity.

Sure, kids shouldn't abuse their stuff, and most don't unless they're spoiled. But expecting a kid to keep a CDROM scratch-free is a bit absurd when most grown adults have difficulty with it.

Re:Kids

[MMaestro]

True, but its goes beyond that. Do you REALLY think that just because you keep your CDs in a nice jewel case everytime you stop using it, its not gonna take some wear and tear? Course not, by merely owning it its gonna take damage. Lets go over the list of "what goes wrong, when you're doing things right."

1. Merely removing the shrink wrap from the jewel case exposes it to air and airborne chemicals which will erode your disc.
2. Removing the CD, causes pressure to be FOCUSED on the center because thats really the only part of the CD thats being used to hold it in place. This leads to potential cracks and simple wear and tear.
3. USING THE CD, causes its damage. Think about it, whats the RPM (rotation per minute) of your CD player? How long do you typically use that CD at a time? How hot does the CD get when its rotated that quickly and for so long? What about the heat generated from the rest of the system (PC of stereo system?)
4. The area you live in also predict the lifetime of your CD in the longrun. If you use the CD in a closed, temperture controlled, atmosphere controlled laboratory and use the CD maybe once a week, yeah its gonna last about the estimated 10 years. But if you live in a tent, in the middle of the Sahara Desert and the sand just somehow manages to get into your air-sealed CD case and scratch it up, you'll be lucky if your CD managed to make its way into the hands of a black market dealer with 2 tracks still playable.

Re:Kids

[martinX]

That's like saying you are welcome to take your new car out and ram it into a lightpost because the manufacturer will just fix it for you.

Not really. When you buy software/music/movie whatever, you are buying two things. Firstly you are buying the physical medium which might cost a few dollars to make, burn, wrap and deliver to you. Secondly you are buying a licence to use/listen to/watch whatever it is you bought. (In the case of music, this is the equivalent of 'mechanical royalties'.)

While the physical medium can get wrecked, your licence should remain valid. It should not die just because your CD has. Therefore you should be able to get a replacement CD or DVD for the cost of the physical medium only, i.e. a few bucks.

That the copyright holders, under the interpretation of our current copyright laws, require consumers to buy the same things over and over again is disingenuous of them. They know it's wrong, but they like us replacing stuff every ten years.

Re:Kids

[Alsee]

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.

-

Re:Kids

[Alsee]

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.

-

Re:Kids

[PhilHibbs]

the unsigned assent clause is the same one used by carparking companies and department stores; "by [parking your car here/shopping here] you agree to these terms and conditions"

Not the same - the company owns the car park, you have no right to park there without their permission, and their permission comes at the expense of you agreeing to there T&C. You do have a right to install the software without being further encumbered with any contract, so doing something that you do not need their permission for should not make you party to some bogus contract that they are forcing on you. If I said "By stepping on that flagstone, you agree to hand over your wallet", would you be scared to step on the flagstone? Would you call a cop?

Hypothetical Question

[phaetonic]

If all of the companies (like EA) who sold CDs (movies, music, video games) had the same sort of support that Disney movies have (disc replacement program), would there still be a justification for this sort of program?

Re:Hypothetical Question

[SenatorTreason]

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?".

Re:Hypothetical Question

[Erwos]

It's not. Not at all. You might get that impression from certain /.'ers, but it has no basis at all in reality.

Copyright is explicitly laid out in the Constitution. Fair use is a _defense_ against copyright infringement issues. It is not really a right in a legal sense.

In fact, fair use is a judgement call (literally, by the judge!) nased on whether certain mitigating factors are being met, and to what degree they are. Compare this to the rather specific laws of actually getting and enforcing a copyright. There's no comparison.

This is not to say I disagree with the idea of fair use rights, but they are nowhere near as legally strong as people make them out to be - similar to your right to privacy, it's something a judge determines rather than a specific set of legal requirements.

-Erwos

Re:Hypothetical Question

[pla]

Yeah, what a scam. They actually want to make a profit from their business!

Except, this targets people who already bought the DVD in question. Disney already made their sale, and this program targets only victims of the DMCA.

So yes, I do call that a scam. If not for the DMCA , I (or anyone, I don't mean this as some sort of whine about a personally missed marketing op) could provide that same service for under a buck per disc, including shipping, and still make a few cents per disc. Only laws passed thanks to "monetary incentives" from Disney and similar companies prevent me from doing exactly that.


If you can make your own bed, and I get a law passed requiring you to pay me to do it, that counts as a scam - Arguments about "how to fold sheet corners" as a trade-secret ignored.

Now I know

[BobPaul]

Thanks to this article, I know of the existance of "Games X Copy," a product I would never have known about had EA and the others sued.

What will I do with my knew found awareness? Probably nothing right now, but I'm sure I'll let others know about it eventually and there's a slim possibility I might buy a copy before they're gone...

Thanks EA and Atari! Now I know about another great 321 Studios project!!

Re:Now I know

[SmittyTheBold]

FYI, do yourself a favor and don't. Their software is crap; significantly better solutions are available for free.

For example, DVD backup can be done much better by the stellar DVD Shrink. For games, one might consider GameCopyWorld.

Fair Use

[UnCivil Liberty]

"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."
What's at stake here is a rather important legal principle Mr. Lowenstein, it's fair use. A fair use clause must be added to the DMCA, this is a travesty.

Re:Fair Use

[mothz]

What I don't understand about that quote is this: Suppose a brand of refrigerator, bicycle, wristwatch, or telephone had DVD cloning functionality. Would these products be legal simply because they have purposes besides copy-protection circumvention?

If that's the case, then DVD cloning cannot be illegal on its own (although any copyright infringements still would be, of course). And if that's the case, then DVD-cloner products are legal without any attached refrigerators.

If it's not the case, then any product which could possibly be used to break the law must inherently be deemed illegal. Then guns are illegal. Cars are illegal. Computers are illegal.

DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't the copyright protection have to be "effective" for the DMCA to apply?

Dumbfucks . . .

[DA-MAN]

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."

God some people are so fucking retarded. 321 got spanked in court for decrypting dvd's without having a legal license to decrypt. The products functionality was never in question, the way they got that functionality going was . . .

321 Studios

[Rick and Roll]

Somebody needs to come out in support of these guys.

These are the good guys. They are pissing off the evil copy-protection guys. They have a very reasonable argument.

I would like to see RMS write an article about this specific issue. It may help people to see how stupid these lawsuits are. I would like the Electronic Frontier Foundation to help out as well.

If I had a DVD-R drive, I would definitely buy their products.

Re:321 Studios

[ThatsNotFunny]

I would definitely buy their products If you want, I can make you a copy. ;)

Re:321 Studios

[Lumpy]

Somebody needs to come out in support of these guys [321studios.com].

These are the good guys. They are pissing off the evil copy-protection guys. They have a very reasonable argument.

you obviousally never owned one of their products... their activation and CALL HOME scheme is nastier than anything any game maker or movie maker has ever created.

I a msitting here with a legitimate copy of DVD X copy PLatinum that they REFUSE to give me a activation key for bcause they did not see a "uninstall call home" when my hard drive crashed.

they are Assholes that are no better than the people suing them. and their products are BASED on open/free versions that are on the net now... DVD shrink is 20 times better than their dvdXcopy product. (I unfortunately found out about 2 months after I bought the crud from 321.)

and the tools to backup PS2 games have been on the net for just as long...

they are NOT the good guys otherwise they would not be jerks to their own customers.

Re:Good on the DMCA

[Dimensio]

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.

Re:Too bad

[thedillybar]

These guys don't seem to be making any friends.

Unfortunately, they have many suckers who have bought the console and now must buy the games.

Who cares if you're a friend or just a customer?

Have you ever called their technical support? They're not trying to make friends; they're trying to make money.

There oughta be a law

[RLiegh]

...protecting the consumer's fair use rights. Too bad there's no money to be made going that route.

Maybe...

[NightWulf]

321 Studios should have listed 123 Fake St. as their address. Then the subpeona wouldn't have reached them.

Maybe consumers should sue game makers...

[meanfriend]

Three makers of video games sued a Missouri company marketing software that enables consumers to make backup copies of computer games.

Very well then, if I cant make a backup or bypass the copy protection, then they should be legally required to issue refunds for software if that backup protection renders the software defective.

From my own personal experience, I bought KOTOR the first day it came out for PC. For some reason, when doing the cd check when launching, the game would hang about half of the time requiring a hard reset. After a couple weeks I got fed up and downloaded a no CD-crack and havent had a problem since.

My PC met all the requirements on the box, yet when it doesnt work properly because of stupid copy-protection schemes the publisher has no accountability to the consumer, yet *I'm* the one breaking the law (DMCA) when I take steps to make the damn thing usable?

If I bought a toaster and it only toasted half the time, I'd return it to the store and get a new one with an apology. Yet if it's software, why does consumer protection go right out the window?

Re:Maybe consumers should sue game makers...

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

" If I bought a toaster and it only toasted half the time, I'd return it to the store and get a new one with an apology. Yet if it's software, why does consumer protection go right out the window?"

I think this is the case for a couple of reasons. Typically, to get consumer protection, it usually takes negative publicity to force the company and/or government intervention. Both of these take a motivated consumer group that is going to push for reform and has the power/money to make it happen. Also, a news story on 60 Minutes where some old grandma buys a toaster, it doesn't work as advertised, and the company won't make it right is a public relations nightmare. Some male between the age of 15 and 40 who can't play his computer game isn't going to receive much sympathy from the viewing public, if such a story were to even make it onto 60 Minutes.

Another issue that I see is the fact that most people have a very limited understanding of computers and the software running on them. Sure, you knew that the copy protection scheme was what was causing the problem. How many other people can figure that out? A lot of people don't know that copy protection schemes are leading to these problems and will instead blame it on their own computer instead of the company for including a mechanism to prevent theft.

So I guess we just need to get some old ladies playing KOTOR, call 60 Minutes, and start a rally to get some change.

Re:Good on the DMCA

[NightWulf]

Have you looked into Alchohol 120%? http://www.alcohol-soft.com/ are the makers of this fine software. I use it all the time, and the game copy protection companies change the software once in a blue moon. Atleast with Alchohol I can burn 1:1 copies with the protection right on it. It's completly legit.

P.S. I am in no way owner, involved, employed with alcoholsoft. I just use their software and am happy with it.

Re:Good on the DMCA

[0racle]

I bought SimCity 4 and the Rush Hour expansion. After installing the expansion, running it cam back with the error "Please insert the correct disk." Rush Hour is one disk and it was the one that was in there, so just to play the game I legally bought, I had to find a NoCD crack for it.

Copy protection my ass, I had to go and look for a way around it just to play it. I'm glad I did though, damn its fun.

Have it resurfaced

[cgenman]

Many places charge as low as 5 dollars to have a disk resurfaced, and unless the disk is cracked it always works. The home-resurfacing kits are mostly jokes, but the professional ones work... ask at a local used CD store where they resurface theirs. Of course, you can always buy it new from EB and return the broken copy... that would be dishonest, but let's just say they lost that protection the day they sold me an unopened copy of FF7 on the release date that was scratched to hell, and didn't have a replacement available for weeks.

I agree, with your position though, that if media companies are going to take the we-own-the-media-you-have-to-return-it-to-us-on-de mand position, we should get the rights associated with it.

Lunar 2 was better on the Sega CD anyway. The animation was more charming.

These guys are whacked.

[mark-t]

The purpose of this software, and software like it, is *NOT* to circumvent copyright protection, as they would seem to have us believe.

It is to circumvent *COPY* protection, not copyright protection.

These two ideas are not one and the same... And they need to get it through their skulls that this is the case.

Re:These guys are whacked.

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, they're very aware that copy protection and copyright protection are two different things. But they use the words interchangeably on purpose, because that way consumers begin to associate the two. It's like that whole Al Gore invented the internet versus helped create the internet thing. He said the latter, but the former, which is only subtly different, sounds much worse. So people always use the former. Not that the second one is much better, mind you, but the point is that as it has less punch people avoid it.

These sorts of word games are one of the most basic concepts in propaganda. It's like the whole apocryphal story about Bush bringing up 9/11 everytime Iraq was mentioned, and although he never specifically stated that the two were related, the end result was that most Americans thought the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. This may actually be true but I'll be skeptical since I don't have a link to back it up, but anecdotally it demonstrates the point well.

RMS has similar problems with the terms "Intellectual Property", "Content Providers", and "Software Piracy", because these terms are designed to make people interpret a situation one way when it actually probably oughtn't to be.

I used to think that RMS was a hippie zealot tin-foil hat wearer, but I'm beginning to see what he's been going on about all these years. Free Software (using his definition of the word) is the only way to circumvent this kind of nonsense. When you have no corporate backing and the code is copied freely, it's very hard to sue anyone for it. When I first read his "Right to Read" I laughed my ass off. What a twat! But go reread it now. It's scary. Just imagine for a minute if he really is right about all that stuff he yammers on about.

Makes you think.

DMCA exemption for obsolete games

[radimvice]

A while back (Oct. 28, 2003), the Librarian of Congress granted certain classes of works a three-year exemption from the DMCA. The classes of interest are:

(2) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete.

(3) Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.

I know these classes apply to old, obsolete console systems, but couldn't they apply to CD-ROM anti-circumvention programs for games that are no longer being manufactured, because in that case the original CD-ROMs themselves are the necessary systems? If so, copy-circumvention programs like this would have a legal, legitimate use.

Of more general concern is the fact that such special exemptions need to be made in the first place, suggesting that the whole DMCA is bogus in the first place.

Write them a letter

[eidolons]

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

Could someone please

[goombah99]

Could someone please post a copy of DVD-X-Copy and Games-X-Copy. I..er.."lost" my original copy and I need a back-up. Yeah that's it. Honest!

Pissing off their customers.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to have to put a CD in the drive to play a game:

(1) CD drives spinning up and down as I'm playing drives me up the wall. They're noisy fuckers. I had a game (Black & White) kill a CD-drive because it accessed the disk constantly for about 3 hours as I was playing. The drive overheated, the plastic holding a cog in place softened - and the mechanism broke. I've never seen a game that would allow me to play 100% from the CD anyway - so what the hell are those game developers doing?

(2) I have a notebook computer. I'm not going to carry a bundle of CDs with me when I'm travelling. Period.

(3) Copy protection methods don't work. People who copy games were never going to buy them in the first place. It only opens the door to organised criminals, a black market - and limits market penetration. If people copy your game they're going to be more likely to buy a sequel.

Anyway, the game I play the most on my notebook is Quake 2 simply because it doesn't require a CD in the drive. Newer games are such a hassle to start:

(1) find game disk
(2) set DVD movie that was in the drive somewhere on the table
(3) put disk in drive
(4) close drive, wait for drive to spin up
(5) double-click game icon
(6) remove wrong disk from drive (disk 2, oops), insert disk 1 instead, click okay
(7) wait for drive to spin up
(8) sit through annoying uncancellable logo / fanfare. snicker that the logo looks better than the game itself
(9) navigate horrible 3D rendered main menu

Ironically, this ritual has made me appreciate online game much more. They have personalised keys, accounts and passwords. No stupid CD in the drive. It's relatively bliss.

DRM only harms those who actually buy the software

[tmundar]

I have alway felt that all of the copy protection schemes only hurt those suckers (like me) who actually pay for the software. CDs won't last forever, and with no way to backup the games to another media (when CDs go the way of the floppy disk), the money I spend on copy protected software ends up being wasted.

The funny thing is, all of these copy protection schemes never stop the real pirates. You can find a cracked version of any popular piece of software. All that the software companies do when they attack a company that enables users to backup their software is stop a few amateurs from giving the games to their friends. Maybe they even drive a few to try to find another way to get the game for free, and suddenly the user who used to buy software finds out that they can get it all for free.

I have been burned by DRM in the past. I probably have paid about $1000 for games for my Amiga (a long time ago). I occasionally have a bout of nostalgia, and want to play some of my old games (that I paid for) through emulation. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a way to make image files of the copy protected games, and in order to play the games that I paid for, I had to find pirated versions of those games.

Now imagine it is 5 years from now and suddenly Microsoft somehow manages to push through "trusted computing" or some such, and the only way to play your older games is through emulation. Or more likely, one of the CDs for your favorite old game that you break out every once in a while starts having read errors. The game companies just tell you "too bad, sucker" because some people (or maybe even most people) out there might use the software to break a law and give the game to their buddy down the street.

I buy all of my software, or find a free alternative, and I actually have a legitimate use for backup software in order to protect the investment I have made in my software. It really annoys me that the software industry just assumes that all of us users are criminals.

When copyright law goes wrong

[sethstorm]

I'd not be surprised if they'd call tools such as cp, dd and friends piracy tools as well - they interact with data in manners that can be used in piracy if used for such purpose. The only worse I've seen outside of trade organizations (and other antitrust law dodgers) is Novell in the 1990's who'd sue BBS's left and right (and brag about it).

I think copy protection is fine, but...

[TimTr]

Contrary to FSF beliefs and other moral pundits, I actually think copy protection should be totally legal, protected, and respected. A company should have the right to say "you have rights to ONE instance of this software and rights to use this ONE instance for every $40 you pay". You want it on two computers, you pay for running it on two computers (or you take the CD and bring it to the other CD.)

Here's the problem and why the game companies and other media companies are full of "stuff". Their argument is that the $40 for the game is due to the effort and IP contained on the CD. Totally true, and since that thought pays my salary, I love it. The problem is, if I scratch my CD or DVD, shouldn't I be able to replace it for the price of the media (like $1)? I still have rights to the value I paid $40 to own, right? The crappy media scratched or whatever, so the company should make it POSSIBLE for me to replace that media so I can continue to get my $40 value.

Companies need this policy: "send us your scratched CD and we'll replace it for shipping costs and $1" or "bring the CD to your game store and they will replace it for you for $1." The software company I work for sells software for up to millions of dollars - the last thing we would do if a customer's CD died is tell them "tough luck". Why do game companies think "tough luck" is an ok answer for a scratched $40 CD? And when someone tries to protect that $40 investment with a backup they want to stop it? Maybe they do think the CD itself is the value?

If they had this replacement policy, then this legal argument that these backup tools serve no purpose but piracy would be legit. As it stands right now, if I am paying $40 for "rights" to the contents of the CD, I should be able to back up those contents. Some people could use those for piracy, but until the industry comes up with a way to know the difference, then backup tools DO serve a legitimate purpose.

When I had to buy a replacement copy of an XBox game a year ago I sure wish I had a LEGAL backup DVD...

~Tim

Re:I think copy protection is fine, but...

[Mycroft_VIII]

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

A bit of Apple ][ nostalgia

[Bob Cat - NYMPHS]

Anyone remember Skeleton Keys? Back around 1979 or so, we used it to copy all the Apple ][ floppies we were selling AT AN AUTHORIZED APPLE RETAILER so we could have a backup. Customers could easily wipe the media they went home with, and they expected us to replace it. G #600 (boots a floppy? something? well, you see...)

This was innadaze of badly mimeographed manuals and a couple disks in a ziploc bag. BTW, that was the first ziploc bag usage I recall. Sue Glad, eh?

I still have an s.keyed "Wizard and the Princess" floppy here somewhere. How the HELL do you get past the snake???

From where I am standing

[colonslashslash]

Preventing people from making legal backups of their games that they purchased for $50 odd is insane.

That basically boils down to the fact that when you spend your hard earned 50 bucks, all you are getting is a CD / DVD disc (and hopefully a box and a manual), as you have no rights to do anything to the data contained on it.

That's one damn expensive disc.

Don't get me wrong, its their work and they should keep ownership rights, but for the money consumers pay for the product, they should at least have some freedom to copy the data providing it is for personal use. Whatever happend to "fair usage"? I can understand their concern over piracy, but from a business point of view, is screwing over your customers in an attempt to stop a few people getting the product for free really a wise move? Seems like the path most corporations and companies are travelling recently.

Also, by preventing your customers from copying the data, you are implying guilt before innocence, ie: people are more likely to be pirating than making legimate backups, so treat them as criminals by limiting their experience.

Without backups

[dtfinch]

You're basically just renting the game until the CD is damaged beyond usability. At an inflated price nonetheless, to pay for all their extra work, lawsuits, lobbying, and lost sales due to copy protection.

I can still listen to my music, despite some of the original CD's having turned into coasters, frisbees, or messes of shattered plastic. Had my purchases died with the CD's, I'd be out of luck.

I expect the same courtesy with my games. And it's not just the backup issue. "Copy protection" doesn't always work like it should, causing other problems. But since copy protection is now so widespread, my gaming budget has gone to the open source crowd. Commercial game developers don't want my money anymore, so now I just give it away freely to those who've earned it. $70 in the past year to support open source games, of which none of them demanded anything, only $20 to buy two commercial games from the bargain rack, and no piracy ever.

Fair use implements the First Amendment

[tepples]

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:

The CTEA's extension of existing and future copyrights does not violate the First Amendment. [...] copyright law contains built-in First Amendment accommodations. [...] the "fair use" defense codified at s107 allows the public to use not only facts and ideas contained in a copyrighted work, but also expression itself for limited purposes.

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.

Re:On the subject...

[Anonymous Coward]

If all you care about in your life is have a bigger car than your neighbour, that's exactly what you'll get.

In the meantime, your wife will be open-sourcing her vagina because your penis doesn't meet her system requirements.

Re:fuck the lawyers, just use alcohol 120%

[lendude]

Amen to that! I use DiskJuggler to rip an image of my legally purchased game cds, and mount them as virtuals using Daemon Tools. Quite apart from the issue of damage to original cds, the bullshit cd checks on level loads for some games means load times are preposterous off the inserted original cd: if game developers cared two hoots about user experience then surely if I've got a valid cd licence code the friggin' game doesn't have to verify this every map load?

They got my dollars - are they seeking to guarantee further payments upon the inevitable damage to the original cd?

Re:Pissing off their customers -yup

[Hellasboy]

I keep on hearing complaints from everywhere as to why people are still playing counter-strike.

you want to know why i still play it? i don't have to have that damn CD in my hard drive. The last game I bought was battlefield 1942 and it's sitting here collecting dust. I was sick and tired of it spending all of its time seeking and searching for the CD. It already takes up some 1.4 gigs of space on my HD so it obviously doesn't need to retrieve any gameplay information.

Battlefield 1942 will be the last game I buy from EA. If you want to treat me like a criminal for paying 50$ for a game, then fine ... go ahead. You won't see a further dime from me.

Go ahead game companies. Use macrovisions latest "security" feature that end up pissing off all your paying customers (thousands and millions) so that you can delay crackers for an extra 5 minutes.

If you're going to force me to go through the troubles of using no-cd cracks, etc, why should i even bother paying for your product when i could go ahead and download a fixed (pirated) version of your broken software? It seems like I would have less problems by going the pirated route.

But we were unaware they were being taken...

[MacFury]

Most game boxes don't state that they have copy protection schemes.

You can't return software once it's been opened.

It's hard to vote with your dollar once they already have your money.

What?

[Trillan]

Delete the movie files. They won't ban you for that.

They might ban you if you modify the client, but why bother when you can just delete the file?

Ooh.

[Trillan]

Free publicity. I'd never heard of this software before...

321Studios?

[TwistedSpring]

Who the hell are these guys? I'm glad the game publishing industry is so clued up on these things that nobody uses. If they were really serious they'd go after Alcohol Software or Elaborate Bytes, both of whom offer CD/DVD copying software with options to "break" copy protection. Of course they don't "break" the copy protection at all, they simply copy the copy protection.

As Macrovision (creators of SafeDisc) have said in the past, their products are not so much copy protection as copy dissuasion: making it more of a pain in the ass to copy stuff. And it sure is. Copying a SafeDisced game takes hours in raw mode, as exactly duplicating the ECC/EDC data on the disc is a painfully slow process (probably because ECC/EDC checking has to be done in software for every block when it's disabled on the drive).

Anyway, all the above is besides the point. 321Studios have made a critical error which I see as remarkably foolish: Marketing their product as "HAY GUYS, SOFTWAREZ TO KOPY UR GAMEZ!" Who in their right mind would do this and not expect their ass to be kicked severely by some legal body? You don't get any more obvious than calling it "GameXCopy" which is a name that doesn't even make sense anyway. What the hell is the X about? Other software remains legal because it sells itself on the fact you can create exact clones of any CD for back up purposes: not just games.

It's not this kind of software they should be going after anyway. People don't copy games onto another CD anymore. People create images of a game and distribute it over the internet. It's considerably easier to create an image file, and from what I can tell GameXCopy doesn't let you do this. Furthermore, software such as Daemon Tools, Alcohol 120% and Virtual CloneDVD will let you mount ripped protected images in Windows as if they were a CD-ROM drive. Just download and mount. No burning. Surely this should be what they're worried about?

Re:Good on the DMCA

[Alsee]

Hmmm, you're other posts don't seem to be trolls, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Before you whine about getting modded down for "opposing slashdot groupthink", I'd say you were probably modded down for your rediculous and troll-looking arguments.

if you're gonna pirate a game

Who the hell it talking about pirating games? Making a copy of a game is not piracy (it is not copyright infringment either, blah blah blah).

There's being an 3733t haxxor group the takes pride in cracking stuff (whether that's good or bad - I have no comment)

Too late, I'd say your pejorative "3733t haxxor group" is already commenting.

If some dumb-ass company sells me crippled printer cartidges that actively try to prohibit refilling, or a crippled DVD designed to oxidize and self destruct after 24 hours, or a DVD player that refuses to fast forward during the commercials, or a music CD that attempts to autoinstall undesired software on my computer, or a computer game crippled to prevent me from making a perfectly legal and legitimate backup copy, then yeah, I'm gonna "take pride" in reparing that crippled and defective product.

I will melt open that ink cartidge and refill it and reseal it if I damn well please. I will spray that self destructing DVD with hairspray or other sealant to prevent it from oxidizing if I damn well please. I will enter the secret manufacture code or reflash the damn firmware on a DVD player to enable the fast-forward butting if I damn well please. As for the stupid DRM-installing music CD's I disabled autoinsert/autorun ages ago, and if I hadn't, I'll hold down the shift key any time I damn well please. And if I own a crippled game, I'll dig around in my copy with a hex editor any time I damn well please, and if I fix the problem working from the raw executable then I'll be damn proud of myself.

If that makes me an 3733t haxxor, well fine, I'm an 3733t haxxor.

a company who's hypocritical enough to say "games aren't worth paying money for

Here you REALLY sound like a troll. 321 Studios have never said any such thing.

I have a question - do you support the DMCRA? The DMCRA leaves "piracy" just as illegal as before. The DMCRA only decriminalizes NON-infringing activities, it only stops innocent non-infringing people from going to prison.

So, do you support the DMCRA? Or do you advocate imprisoning innocent non-infringing people?

You're assuming everyone who violates the DMCA is some evil pirate. When we attack the DMCA we're not talking about pirates. We're talking about the innocent non-infringing people it says are felons.

-

He's lying, and modded up Informative...

[AzrealAO]

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.

Re:Copy Protection is not worth it.

[Mitleid]

I think this is a really good point. Take DOOM, for example. Now, that game boasts sales numbering in the millions, which I guess was pretty insane for its time, but for all those millions of people buying DOOM with cash money, my friends nor myself had ever paid a dime. Yet DOOM still remains one of the most popular games ever release for the PC, not to mention several other interesting ports...

Anyway, my point is that even though DOOM raked in enough cash to buy Carmack a shiny new Ferrari, it's "ownership" wasn't based completely on legitimate paying customers. However, the game was HUGE, and it still has a pretty strong loyalist following. Source ports, internet deathmatch clients, you name it. Bottom line is, a greater majority of the 14 year old pirates of today become the 23 year olds of tomorrow with a great deal of disposable income that goes to buying videogames.

The publishers really need to stop having kittens about the fact that people can copy their games. The widespread bootleggers and pirate organizations are the ones they need to go after, not the consumer-base. Strategies like suing a CD-copying software company just displays that the publishers have no faith in the value and merit of their product, and I feel it is essentially an admittance that they are trying to shill the customer with half-assed releases. Why else would anyone get so concerned about a few individuals having the ability to copy a game disc? People spend money on the things they want, and chances are if something is getting stolen or copied it's because that person wasn't interested in buying it anyway. I'm not suggesting that it's justified to take something you weren't going to pay for, but people take things because they can, not because they "don't want to pay for it". Closing off channels people use to take things is only a means of preventing the publisher from being the victim, not a method of increasing sales like the suing companies apparently claim.

Re:Pissing off their customers -yup

[Maestro4k]

• Go ahead game companies. Use macrovisions latest "security" feature that end up pissing off all your paying customers (thousands and millions) so that you can delay crackers for an extra 5 minutes.

The latest version of Macrovision for games may have finally gone too far. It checks to see if you have certain "bad" software installed such as CloneCD. (There are others, I forget which though.) If it finds one of them installed, the installation fails, and without telling you properly why. Worse yet, if the software's not still on your computer, but the registry entries didn't get all removed it assumes the software's installed and fails.

Now aside from the fact that the copy protection software is trying to tell you what other software you can and can't own to play the game is how I found out about this. The letter from the Editor in the latest copy of Computer Games. It happened to him on a new game, and he was quite unhappy about it. While other magazines might not be quite as bold about reporting this fact, it's not going to go over well with them either. Pissing off the gaming press is a really great way to get the gaming market in general riled up.

In any case I know that thanks to Macrovision and this latest idiocy I refuse to buy any more new PC games. I'll still pick up games for my PS2, since I don't have to worry about the copy protection making them unplayable, but for the PC I'll pass. Neat how they lost my business even without it affecting me directly ehh?

CDs *need* to be backed up

[Sloppy]

If the games were on really robust media, like ROM cartridges or something, I might be able to buy into the argument that backup tools are somehow related to copyright infringement. But in this case, it just isn't true.

I don't know how anyone who has been around for a few years, can possibly believe tools that copy CDs or DVDs, are primarily intended for copyright infringement. It is just plain stupid to not back them up, and that is particularly true with games, which are often handled by children. I wonder if any of the legislators who voted for DMCA, actually own any CDs or DVDs.

Maybe this would be a sneaky way to both bribe and demonstrate the principle to legislators: Find the ones that have kids, and then give them a console game system that is based on CD-like media. Let the legislator spend their own money buying games for their kid, and then let them see what inevitably happens.