Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EA, Atari Sue Over Videogame Copying Software

Posted by simoniker on from the nibble-copy dept.

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."

27 of 409 comments (clear)

  1. Just wait... by infonick · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --

    You are confusing me with someone who cares.
    1. Re:Just wait... by Synonymous+Yellowbel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

    2. Re:Just wait... by crazyray · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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".

    3. Re:Just wait... by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 5, Funny
      " 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.

  2. I want the second disc damnit! by RobPiano · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:I want the second disc damnit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:I want the second disc damnit! by finkployd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

    3. Re:I want the second disc damnit! by badasscat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  3. This is the same EA by DAldredge · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. Kids by BancBoy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!?

    --
    [UID-HeinzIntel]
    1. Re:Kids by martinX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    2. Re:Kids by Alsee · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
  5. Hypothetical Question by phaetonic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Hypothetical Question by SenatorTreason · · Score: 5, Informative

      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?".

  6. Now I know by BobPaul · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!!

  7. Fair Use by UnCivil+Liberty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

    --
    Distributed proteome folding @ WorldCommunityGrid.org
    Team Slashdot - Members:#1 Run Time:#1 Points:#1 Results:#1
  8. DMCA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  9. Re:Good on the DMCA by Dimensio · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!!!
  10. Maybe consumers should sue game makers... by meanfriend · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Maybe consumers should sue game makers... by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 5, Insightful
      " 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.

      --
      I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
  11. Re:Good on the DMCA by 0racle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
  12. Pissing off their customers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  13. DRM only harms those who actually buy the software by tmundar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  14. I think copy protection is fine, but... by TimTr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    --
    Tim T. ... Cupertino, CA
  15. Re:These guys are whacked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  16. From where I am standing by colonslashslash · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

    --
    She's built like a steak house, but she handles like a bistro....
  17. Re:On the subject... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.