Slashdot Mirror


Valve Cracks Down on 20,000 Users

An anonymous reader writes "Valve have disabled 20,000 steam user accounts belonging to users who have been caught using a pirated version of the game, or have attempted to use a cdkey to bypass the securom protection found on the retail version of the game. The Steam Forums have been swamped with people now claiming they are unable to play, many claiming they have had their accounts disabled for no reason. A Valve spokesman says, 'The number of people who actually had bought HL2 and used the CD key cheat was VERY small. VERY small. Most people just tried to rip off the game and not bother buying it.'" People are discovering that when you buy any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really bought anything.

1,942 comments

  1. You're wrong. by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You have purchased something. A license to play the game on the terms and conditions that are told to you by the company.

    If you violate the terms and conditions, the company can suspend or revoke your license to play the game.

    They do not owe a refund to you if you decided to violate the agreement.

    --
    Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    1. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is this license agreement on the box in a place where I can view it before I purchase it? Not the last time I checked.

    2. Re:You're wrong. by stecoop · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your correct but this reminds me of the Registration backlash against TurboTax 2002. TurboTax lost market share due to having to contact the TurboTax server to get authentication for the tax product. People know that software companies fade over the years and to have something so important tied to a company that may not be there one day turned many customers off to the product. Many sought alternative ETax solutions. And as any license issue, Money talks louder than the Pen.

      Now am I expecting people to associate the longevity of a game with the required longevity of tax returns? Of course not but I was thinking about purchasing HL2 but I think I'll pass until the dust settles instead of the risk/hassle of the validation scheme.

    3. Re:You're wrong. by mordors9 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can understand people downloading warez and playing the games (not saying I agree with it, just saying I can understand why they do it). But I can not imagine the balls required to complain because the company has instituted protections that they can not get around.

    4. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      So you believe you'd have no problems buying a game and then using someone else's CD key? Hah!

      And yes, the box DOES state that you have to have a working account on their Steam network.

      Fact of the matter is, there's no excuse to pirate this game, and Valve took the logical step that they can to protect their property. Don't even try to front like you've got any ethical ground to stand on.

    5. Re:You're wrong. by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You agree to it before you download it via steam. If you purchase the box, read the EULA and still disagree with it, click "I Disagree" and call Valve saying you disagree with their EULA and would like a full refund for the game. You can send them the game and they will refund the purchase price.

      Stores will not accept returns, but the company who put out the product usually will.

      Also, check your local laws. Stores in MA cannot have a "No Refunds" policy, because that is against state laws. Also, they cannot turn down a refund within 30 days of the purchase date.. but that's again in MA.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    6. Re:You're wrong. by jarich · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Is this license agreement on the box in a place where I can view it before I purchase it? Not the last time I checked.

      So you assume that you can steal any game that doesn't have a EULA on the outside of the box?

    7. Re:You're wrong. by interiot · · Score: 1
      And if the company violates the terms and conditions, you have very little recourse unless their piracy department is willing to be cooperative.

      Certainly Valve wouldn't willfully violate their side of the bargin, it would only be by mistake, but the results are far harsher... on your side, you've lost $50. If you "screw up", they lose less, since it's merely a set of bits that you may or may not have actually been willing to pay $50 for.

    8. Re:You're wrong. by Lisandro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is this license agreement on the box in a place where I can view it before I purchase it? Not the last time I checked.

      This is where the line is drawn; you simply don't know the licence details before buying. As far as you know, as a consumer, you're buying a boxed game which you expect to own, to do whatever you want with it. Sell it, play it, sit on it, burn it with gasoline. Can you even return the game if you don't accept the licence?

      Michael put it with little subtlety, but he's right. You buy something and you have absolutely zero control on how it works, when it works and for how long. Hence, you don't really own it. This is fine if you're buying the game online via Steam, where the licence should be agreed on before the purchase. Not for a boxed game.

    9. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your correct but this reminds me of the Registration backlash against TurboTax 2002.

      Yeah! Cos in 10 years when I want to go back and do my 2002 taxes again...Oh wait, I don't think I'll be doing that for fun...

    10. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would be amazed at the demands of players who complain for what they get not only get for free, but effectively steal.

    11. Re:You're wrong. by RickHunter · · Score: 0

      So tell me, is this agreement displayed prominently and in plain language (language whose complete and entire implications can be understood without employing a lawyer) on the exterior of the packaging? Is it open to changes by both parties, and is it only considered to be valid with both parties sign it?

      Because otherwise, not only have you not bought shit, but you've got a really good case for suing the game publisher, developer, and store's asses off in court for false advertising and improper use of contracts. And any sensible court (not that there's any of THOSE left in the US under the Bush administration - heck, the new AG believes the President can order torture of American citizens at will!) would find such a one-sided contract to be utter and complete bullshit.

      Rather like your post.

    12. Re:You're wrong. by GrouchoMarx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have purchased something. A license to play the game on the terms and conditions that are told to you by the company.

      No, I purchased (gave money for) a CD that included the game on it. I was not informed of any other conditions on the usage of that piece of pressed plastic until after the sale was over, and I was no longer permitted to refuse the agreement. That makes makes EULAs dispicable. I am NOT "told the terms and conditions of usage by the company" until after the sale transaction is completed.

      Of course, the very idea of "terms and conditions of usage" violates the doctrine of First Sale. I paid for it, now go away and let me use it as a coaster if I want, dagnabbit!

      (Note: I am using "I" here for argument's sake, although I myself have not purchased or played HL2 and don't intend to, specifically because of this sort of underhanded BS on the part of Valve/Steam. I also don't use Windows XP for the same reason.)

      --

      --GrouchoMarx
      Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?

    13. Re:You're wrong. by Mandoric · · Score: 1

      No, but you'll damn well have to have access to the data if you're audited.

    14. Re:You're wrong. by Devalia · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why I'm not protected by the EU here in regards to their refund policy. (Im purchasing inside the EU) essentialy I have a 7 day cool of period on *any* internet purchase except fresh food/flowers. Have used this to extract refunds from retailers before, but not internationally.. still selling into EU cant see it being any different? Regardless, i didnt buy because of steam.

    15. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=130617&c id=10900365

    16. Re:You're wrong. by Oblio · · Score: 1

      1040-A. Sometimes, you have to amend prior year tax returns.

      --
      Pax -- Ob
    17. Re:You're wrong. by Unkle · · Score: 1

      True, but that's what hardcopies are for.

      --
      Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain.
    18. Re:You're wrong. by cjpez · · Score: 1
      You have purchased something. A license to play the game on the terms and conditions that are told to you by the company
      ... so.... nothing, then. Right. Well, "nothing," or as I like to call it, "a crippled product."
    19. Re:You're wrong. by fitten · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know about where others live, but where I live, the local software stores salespersons make you aware of any requirements the game has like having to have a valid credit card for activation, monthly fees, etc. before they ring it up. They actually say "you are aware that..." and they'll explain it to you before they ring it up. If you don't want it after knowing that, then they'll put it back on the shelf for you.

    20. Re:You're wrong. by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      This is something i thought many times before too. As far as i know, EULAs have never been challenged in court. Maybe it's time to, because they are as legaly binding as a handshake.

    21. Re:You're wrong. by learn+fast · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here's where you're wrong:

      If you violate the terms and conditions, the company can suspend or revoke your license to play the game.

      This should actually say:

      If * the company says that * you violated the terms and conditions, the company can suspend or revoke your license to play the game.

      Whether or not you violated the terms and conditions is not at all relevant.

    22. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're allowed to do whatever the fuck you want to do with the CD and the jewel case you paid for. It you want to load it into a CD-throwing contraption of your own design and shoot squirrels, have at it.

      You are not allowed to do whatever you want with the digital information stored on said disk. Then again, if you looked at the packaging, it would tell you that right on it. You can't possibly claim "I didn't know there would be an agreement" since it says so right on the box!!

    23. Re:You're wrong. by greed · · Score: 0, Redundant
      You can send them the game and they will refund the purchase price.

      Oh, that's just great. I have to trust this thing to parcel post, wait however long it takes them to process the return, and mail back a cheque. It takes 2-3 months for a mail-in rebate on something you bought and kept, why would I think a refund because you don't want it will be any faster?

      Fortunately, I know about the issues so I won't be taking it home from the store in the first place.

      On this product, anyway; something that doesn't make a big splash on the right parts of the 'web I might not.

    24. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have purchased something. A license to play the game on the terms and conditions that are told to you by the company.

      When you walk into a shop and buy something, common sense says that you own it. You don't agree to a license when you buy it, you walk into a shop, give them your money, and walk out with some new property of yours.

      If they later turn 'round and say "sorry, but you'll have to agree to these extra terms after you have already bought it, then they should be subject to trading standard laws. And, as far as I am aware, over here in the UK, they are.

    25. Re:You're wrong. by don_carnage · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I doubt the people that stole the game are complaining -- the people whose keys were hacked or stolen now have disabled accounts with little or no recourse. I mean, how do you prove that you purchased the game? The UPC? You can read that off a box at any store.

    26. Re:You're wrong. by Splab · · Score: 1

      That might be how it works in your end of the world, but around here - if sold me a license and decided to rewoke it I'm pretty sure I'm entitled to a 100% refund since that I can no longer use what I payed for.

    27. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it does NOT have an end user license agreement [EULG] on the outside of the box you did not concent to their being an EULG at time of purche. If it is required to concent to one after purchase you are being ripped off. Not only that it is questionable if such agreement is legal as it would constitute changing the terms of sale after the sale.

    28. Re:You're wrong. by monkeydo · · Score: 1

      As long as you are notified that there are additional terms inside the box, and those terms are reasonable, and you have an opportunity to return the product if you do not accept the additional terms, it's a perfectly good contract.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    29. Re:You're wrong. by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 1

      Is this license agreement on the box in a place where I can view it before I purchase it? Not the last time I checked.

      Why not read it online?

      Oh, wait, this 'try before you buy' thing only applies to full retail products, not EULAs... ;-)

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    30. Re:You're wrong. by router · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I won't even looked at HL2 because of this. I read their "policy" on that forum and it basically sounds like if you screw up, they cancel your account for a year or five. Why anyone would put up with that I don't know, paying 50$ for a game that, if their servers crash, or someone bought copied and returned to the store, or they make a mistake AT ALL, cancels your ability to play it sounds like idiocy to me. It seems like it should be a pleasant diversion not some fscked up nightmare of registration servers and copied CD keys. Maybe I don't understand the new math, but aren't we customers? Why would anyone put up with this crap?

      andy

    31. Re:You're wrong. by Derkec · · Score: 1

      How is valve keeping you from using anything in the box as a coaster?

    32. Re:You're wrong. by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      TurboTax lost market share due to having to contact the TurboTax server to get authentication for the tax product. People know that software companies fade over the years and to have something so important tied to a company that may not be there one day turned many customers off to the product.

      Exactly! To think that in a couple of years, I would no longer be able to use TurboTax 2002... why I ... ummm... oh, fuck.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    33. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Shouldn't a reasonably well-placed copyright notice be all the license we need to use computer software after purchase?

      You don't have to sign a EULA to use a book after you've purchased it.. why should it be different with software?

    34. Re:You're wrong. by Dorothy+86 · · Score: 3, Informative
      No, they won't, and they don't have to.

      Will Valve pay me for the time i spent in going out and buying their product?

      Will the grocer give you a discount because you had to go to the trouble of getting to the store?

      How about for the hassle of sending it back and getting my money?

      Yeah, a phone call and a stamp are a big hassle.... you're just lazy

      How about for the time i spent reading the whole EULA?

      Will they pay me for the legal costs incurred in having a lawyer read the whole thing and explain me the legal implications of the EULA (Since it's unlikelly that a layman can fully understand the meaning of the EULA)?

      uhm... yes... they should pay you for reading the document that tells you what the rules are for using their property... and the government should pay you to read the entire governiing document for wherever you may live

      Do i have a full lifetime guarantee that i can give it back if have never installed their product and disagree with the License Agreement?

      No, that's just idiocy on your part if you do such a thing

      No, they won't pay you for these things... but there is no reason for them too... get it, read the EULA if you wish, and then return it if you don't like it... the return process will probably take no more than 30 minutes, if you have to wait a long time and then have to go buy the necessary stamps or whatever. It's been this way for a long time... only now you actually have to play by the rules.

    35. Re:You're wrong. by EsbenMoseHansen · · Score: 1
      No, I purchased (gave money for) a CD that included the game on it. I was not informed of any other conditions on the usage of that piece of pressed plastic until after the sale was over, and I was no longer permitted to refuse the agreement.

      Unfortunately, that is not how it works --- not in the US, and not in Europe, though the laws are slightly different. You are, of course, free to do what you want to with the plasitc --- but the game itself is copyrighted. That means that it cannot be freely copied, unless you have a license to copy it. In order to run the game, you have to copy it (from disk to RAM). The law is crystal clear about this in the US, and while not so in Europe, the rulings are. Or maybe it is the other way around. And licenses, unlike contracts, can apparantly be simply displayed and you can "take it or leave it". You wonder why mr. Stallman says he despises copyrights? This is why. Join the club, if you please, but this is how all licenses work, including the GPL.

      --
      Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
    36. Re:You're wrong. by stratjakt · · Score: 0, Redundant

      But what about people who buy it in retail?

      The boxes at Best Buy that I saw had very little text on the outside.

      In fact, they didn't even make mention of the fact that you're buying a disc full of useless random bits, and that you have to create a steam account decrypt it online to play at all.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    37. Re:You're wrong. by RollingThunder · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Valve also doesn't warantee that the sun won't explode tomorrow, and that's not their job to either.

    38. Re:You're wrong. by PriceIke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True, but that's what hardcopies are for.

      True, but that is not an excuse. If you use a program, say Quickbooks, to manage your company's financial data, and then you want to get into your data, and you own a legitimately purchased copy of the software bought and paid for with your own money, you'd better damn well have access to your data whenever you damn well please, irrespective of the software company's wish for you to buy the $200 upgrade every other year.

      I did not buy the "license" to use this software until the software developer arbitrarily decides my time is up. I bought the fucking software. I should be able to use it however I want, for as long as I want, on any and however many computers of mine that will run it.

      I'm so sick of software makers restricting my freedom to use software the way I want to use it when I've paid for it. Same goes for DVDs. I'm SO SICK of sitting there waiting for the FBI, Interpol, Mossad, Secret Service, MI-6 and the Office of Navel Lint warnings that I've read time and time again. I want to skip them, dammit. Don't tell me what actions are and are not "permitted" by the disc. It's my fucking disc!

      Back to decaf for me ..

      --
      It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
    39. Re:You're wrong. by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I mean, how do you prove that you purchased the game?

      A receipt? A credit card statement? A copy of your check? A picture of you holding today's paper and the original game CDs?

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    40. Re:You're wrong. by realdpk · · Score: 5, Informative

      "And yes, the box DOES state that you have to have a working account on their Steam network."

      This is a lie. It says you have to have an Internet connection.

    41. Re:You're wrong. by harrkev · · Score: 1

      I wonder what happens if all of those people who lost their $50 (assuming that they really did buy the game) decide to file suit in all of their local small-claims courts. The article mentioned that ALL valve products are disabled. This means HL1, plus the various other packages which followed (if you purchased them all).

      $100/per law suit (cost of HL1 + HL2) * 1000 suits (assuming 1000 legitimate users who have a leg to stand on in court) = $100,000 (plus court costs).

      And they would loose each and every case unless they sent a lawyer to each one (even more expensive). All you need to do is to show a receipt for HL1 and HL2, and have fun in court!

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    42. Re:You're wrong. by eviltypeguy · · Score: 1

      Of course, the very idea of "terms and conditions of usage" violates the doctrine of First Sale.

      Ah, but you see the wonderful thing about this is the fact that thanks to recent court decisions the doctrine of First Sale soon won't apply to Software at all. Then your argument means squat. Of course, with recent decisions that appears to be the case anyway...sadly.

    43. Re:You're wrong. by NekoXP · · Score: 1


      The usual way to prove to them that you bought the game is to send them
      photographs in JPEG format of the box, manual and CD key sticker.

      Valve/Sierra already institute this procedure for original Half-life and
      Counter-strike multiplayer games and have done since the products were
      released what.. 5 or 6 years ago?

      If your CD key gets used by someone else, you send them a photo of your
      LEGITIMATE box and key, and they give you a new one that isn't going to
      get stolen etc.

      Quite simple I think, to prove your innocence.

      Neko

    44. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stores will not accept returns, but the company who put out the product usually will.

      this EXCLUDES microsoft. they refer you to return it to the store knowing that he stores will not accept returns thus making them able to LIE to their customers without actually lying.

      solution, return it as defective, get new one, do not open it, return the unopened one to store for refund.

    45. Re:You're wrong. by megarich · · Score: 1

      Should we really feel sympathy for these peoples? Chances are the people who have their machines hacked or stolen are zombie machines anyways and they deserve what they get :)

      Also, I would be a little more worried over other IMPORTANT stuff (i.e. passwords, cc numbers) than over a mere 50 dollar game if my machine was ever broken into.

    46. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EULA's are so long and writen so cryptically, that even if they attached it to the box, the gotcha's are gonna be mixed in with the other boaring stuff and you won't notice it. I don't deal with activation based software if I can avoide and I think I'll skip H2 just because of this.

    47. Re:You're wrong. by Nexus+Seven · · Score: 1

      Why did you have to go and say that?? Now I'm just worried.

    48. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget the law for a second. What matters is the following:

      When more and more stories like this come up, people are going to have less and less intention of buying software. If this goes on, the whole thing will be heading right to the lose-lose square. If there's lot of piracy the company benefits most by screwing customers, and when company screws customers they benefit most by not giving a shit about copyright.

    49. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would anyone put up with this crap?

      I'm definately not. I was going to buy HL2, but not now. When I buy a game, I expect it to work like a console game or a DVD, I don't want to read license agreements and fill out registration forms, or provide detailed personal information. I just want to open the box, put the game in my computer, and play the damn thing.

      I had the opporunity to sit down with the game for a hour or two, and frankly, HL2 looks good, but it's the most boring game I've played in awhile (except for Doom 3, which I became so bored with I uninstalled a third of the way in). Shoot, go to the next area, shoot, get some health, go to the next area. It gets old.

    50. Re:You're wrong. by SirChive · · Score: 1

      So you think the random muttering of minimum wage sales dorks constitutes acceptable legal advice concerning the EULA?

    51. Re:You're wrong. by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or contact your state's AG. Most of them have some kind of fetish for kicking the asses of large companies.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    52. Re:You're wrong. by wo1verin3 · · Score: 0

      If there is no EULA then you have no right to the work at all in the first place.. the EULA gives you those rights....

      Remember all the arguments about how if the GPL is invalid then SCO has no right at all to any GLPd software... it doesn't just become public domain.

      Stop acting like a 12 year old...

    53. Re:You're wrong. by karmatic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Bzzt. Try again.

      Title 17, Section 117 of the US Code. The relevant part is (a)(1). It is not infringement to make copies necessary to run the program. You don't need a license at all to run a program.

    54. Re:You're wrong. by don_carnage · · Score: 1

      So let me get this straight: I go down to my local SprawlMart, purchase a game and install it on my Gateway machine, connect to AOL and get registered and find out that someone already used my key. And all I have to do is simply grab a camera and send in pictures of the game I just purchased in order for it to work?

      You see, there are always flaws in the system. Those that pirate keys just build big lists and if your key ends up on the list, even if you've purchased a valid copy, it's up to you to prove your innocence. That just doesn't seem right.

    55. Re:You're wrong. by mahdi13 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Can you have Valve wipe your butt while you're at it? Can you please try to bitch a little more, I don't think you whined quite enough there.

      If you bought the game and agreed to the EULA (it's really not that difficult to understand if you actually READ it, it is in English and not as 'lawyereez' as people think) then you should know that you can't just give it to your friend and say "Hey this is a great game, here!" and use YOUR ACCOUNT to install it. With the system Valve has here, you WILL get busted. Reminds me of what MS tried to do with XP, but failed miserably at and didn't do anything about the pirated versions they KNOW about.

      Hats off to Valve for getting it right

      Try not to be surprised when you break the rules you DO get in trouble, that's life and that's how society works. Deal with it or become a hermit like all the other 'rebels' from the '60s

      --
      "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
    56. Re:You're wrong. by networkBoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Will Valve pay me for the time i spent in going out and buying their product?
      You would have spent that same time if you went to the store and decided not to buy it while you were there. This is not a valid argument.

      How about for the hassle of sending it back and getting my money?
      You, in theory, could request reimbursement for postage fees, though they likely would only want the CoA and Media back, so shipping should be nominal.

      How about for the time i spent reading the whole EULA?
      That's you're job as a consumer. If you care enough to read it that's on your time, not theirs, thus no refund.

      Will they pay me for the legal costs incurred in having a lawyer read the whole thing and explain me the legal implications of the EULA (Since it's unlikelly that a layman can fully understand the meaning of the EULA)?
      Hazard of the territory I suppose. IMHO you're being unreasonable.

      Do i have a full lifetime guarantee that i can give it back if have never installed their product and disagree with the License Agreement?
      No, because that's absurd.

      No???
      no.

      I thought so,!
      You thought what? please fill out an I.D. ten tango form on your way out the door.
      :P
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    57. Re:You're wrong. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 0, Flamebait


      Will the grocer give you a discount because you had to go to the trouble of getting to the store?

      Will they sell you a can of peaches that when you get it home turns out it contains no peaches and instead has a money-back guarantee that you can get your purchase price back if you like? Is that practice okay? I'd say no - and that is exactly like what is happening when you buy a piece of software that doesn't work unless you also sign on to a service, and don't find this out until you get it home.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    58. Re:You're wrong. by Slothy · · Score: 1

      Did you buy the game and disagree with the EULA, or are you just bitching about a hypothetical?

    59. Re:You're wrong. by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      You purchased a license. A license is something.

      I paid for a license and downloaded HL2 through steam.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    60. Re:You're wrong. by JabberWokky · · Score: 1
      Nope. Nor will the fellow allergic to peanuts get his money back for the time spent reading the menu at the local Thai restaurant. Nor can the person who bought the wrong oil filter return the filter to Pep Boys and demand $100 more back because of labor and time when you discovered it wouldn't fit.

      I just got a bunch of furnature from Ikea. One package had something missing (a whole cloth bag, not something minor). I can return it, but I have to drive an hour and a half away to do so. I can't charge them for the time, and even if I could, it is petty and contributes to the general decline of society. They have generally good QC, and I'm generally happy.

      --
      Evan "Luckily the SO's folks live near there and so Thanksgiving has me going in that direction anyway"

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    61. Re:You're wrong. by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 1

      You're putting a lot of trust in the software company. At their sole discretion, they can declare you in violation of any of the numerous terms, and cut off your access without refund. If you dispute this, you're free to take them to court at a cost that would definitely be greater than the cost of the software. Gee, where do I sign up? Also, I do believe that most license agreements say something along the lines of subject to change at anytime with or without notice. So not only do you have to agree to numerous conditions, some of which may not be legal in the first place, but you also must agree to future conditions which you aren't even aware of. Are you beginning to see now that this is not such a black and white right and wrong issue?

    62. Re:You're wrong. by Dorothy+86 · · Score: 1

      I don't own it but I seem to remember others saying that such a stipulation is printed on the box. I could be wrong, however.

    63. Re:You're wrong. by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      Without the EULA (or if it was invalid) you have no right at all to use the software, the EULA gives you your rights to use it.

    64. Re:You're wrong. by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      No, he's saying that the clerks are being nice by warning you of additional requirements to use the game beyond the box you are buying.
      (are you intentionally mis-understanding him? If so read the above slower. . .)
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    65. Re:You're wrong. by JonahDark1 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      That only works in Blue States, those of us that live in Red States have AGs that bend you over and help the big companies rape you.

      PS: Elliot Spitzer (AG, NY) Rocks.

      That is all.

    66. Re:You're wrong. by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      What can they take Valve to court over?

      "We violated a EULA that we had agreed to, and Valve cancelled our license to play this game!"

      That's just silly.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    67. Re:You're wrong. by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      Very few people who file a 1040A need to amend their tax returns.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    68. Re:You're wrong. by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      ...the terms and conditions that are told to you by the company.

      Doesn't anything about being "told" terms and conditions strike you as being a little one sided? Real contracts allow the negotiation of terms, and somehow I don't think Valve is going to accept a modified EULA. Especially since they already got paid.

    69. Re:You're wrong. by jackelfish · · Score: 1

      I think that many of you are missing the point here. It is not now, or has it ever been a big secret with software licensing in the US, that you do not own the software but are only being licensed to use it by the company that produced it. If you do not like a particular ELUA then do not purchase the software. If there is no choice, like you really need to use Photoshop (even though you have to activate it now) then bite the bullet or use GIMP. I would hardly say that Halo2 falls into the category of "I need this software in order to feed my family".

      The way I see it, if you purchase the software legally then you should have no problem with activating it online. I know that there are going to be some issues with broken servers, bankrupt companies and re-activation in 5-10 years time, but perhaps this is the risk you must take when purchasing these software titles. Hopefully some day soon a genius programmer will finally think of a way to deal with software piracy in an effective way.

      As for this "I was uninformed of the licensing requirements" argument. Remember the old adage "Buyer Beware".

      --
      "When Nature Calls We All Shall Drown" Johan Edlund
    70. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Your correct but this reminds me of the Registration backlash against TurboTax 2002. TurboTax lost market share due to having to contact the TurboTax server to get authentication for the tax product.

      Nobody cared that TurboTax had to phone home to activate itself. People got steamed (err) because the program fucked around with the boot sectors of their hard drives.

    71. Re:You're wrong. by schon · · Score: 1

      If there is no EULA then you have no right to the work at all in the first place..

      What does this mean? If there is no EULA, I have every right to use the product within the bounds of copyright law - including installing and using it.

      the EULA gives you those rights

      Show me where any EULA gives *anyone* any rights they don't already have under copyright law.

      Remember all the arguments about how if the GPL is invalid then SCO has no right at all to any GLPd software

      Please explain how this is relevant to the topic at hand - the GPL is a distribution license, not a "use" license. If SCO rejects the GPL, they have every right to *USE* GPL'ed software, they just have no right to distribute it (unless they get alternate permission from the authors.)

    72. Re:You're wrong. by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      You've got two options. Agree to the EULA, which basicly says "You get to use this until you piss us off" or disagree with the EULA. If you agree, play the game and don't piss off Valve. IF you disagree, you can get your money back by contacting them.

      You're beyond complaining about a vaild point and whining because you're too lazy to send the product back for a full refund of the purchase price.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    73. Re:You're wrong. by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      I haven't read their EULA, but all of those people probably would need to sue in the corporations home jurisdiction because they waived their rights to sue somewhere else by accepting the license. They've probably also got a lawyer on retainer to handle the appeal, which will cost the customer a lot more than the $100 judgement from the small claims court.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    74. Re:You're wrong. by wo1verin3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      [Anonymous Coward] Hi... I'm having trouble stealing some software...
      [AG] uh... huh?
      [Anonymous Coward] Well I stole it fine originally.. but they took it back!
      [AG] So you want help stealing something back that you stole in the first place?
      [Anonymous Coward] Yep, pretty much.
      [AG] You know that this is illegal?
      [Anonymous Coward] Who cares, I want to play my game and blatantly steal, it's not fair they won't let me
      [AG] What is your name?
      [Anonymous Coward] ... +++ATH0

    75. Re:You're wrong. by DMadCat · · Score: 1

      If you're really that worried about the EULA why don't you try dropping the company an Email requesting a copy?

      If email is too slow, try calling the tech support desk. I doubt they'll give you a hard time.

    76. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Fact of the matter is, there's no excuse to pirate this game, and Valve took the logical step that they can to protect their property. Don't even try to front like you've got any ethical ground to stand on.

      I got it with my ATI card and this fucking piece of shit does communicate with the STEAMING SHIT servers every time I load (like in load a savegame).

      THIS IS INACCEPTABLE!

    77. Re:You're wrong. by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's not what I said at all, try going back and reading the comments.

      I said that if you disagree with the EULA, and Valve refuses to return your purchase price, to contact the AG.

      Nowhere was I defending the people who downloaded the game without paying for it first.

      And it's not theft, it's copyright infringement.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    78. Re:You're wrong. by wo1verin3 · · Score: 0

      >>Show me where any EULA gives *anyone* any
      >>rights they don't already have under copyright law.

      You've shown yourself. Under copyright law unless someone gives you the right to use/listen/modify/etc their work, then you have no right at all. The EULA defines those rights.

    79. Re:You're wrong. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      We don't have to feel sympathy for the victims (assuming it was due to stupidity), but we should feel outraged at the laws and circumstances that allow stuff like this to happen.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    80. Re:You're wrong. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. If there is a pattern to what makes a key legit versus not legit, then someone could just "randomly" pick a legit key number using that pattern and end up with the same number as a legitimate purchaser of a product.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    81. Re:You're wrong. by stanmann · · Score: 1

      No, just like a book, or sheet music, or music(cd/cassette/album), or a board game, I have purchased a copy of an original work, I haven't purchased reproduction rights, but I have purchased use rights. They can't revoke anything, see the DMCA(just about the only thing it got right) if you purchase something, and it isn't usable, you can either get a refund, or modify it to make it usable.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    82. Re:You're wrong. by Bun · · Score: 1

      You see, there are always flaws in the system. Those that pirate keys just build big lists and if your key ends up on the list, even if you've purchased a valid copy, it's up to you to prove your innocence. That just doesn't seem right.

      Let me get this straight: you are saying it's unfair that these people who have hacked keys for the game don't take into account the fact that they will be bumping legitimate buyers from playing? How shocking! I mean, the nerve of it!

      --
      "Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
    83. Re:You're wrong. by jackelfish · · Score: 1

      Such is life, No?

      --
      "When Nature Calls We All Shall Drown" Johan Edlund
    84. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you're quite a dick aren't you?

      I'm not a minimum-wage earner, nor am I in sales, but I find your attitude elitist.

      I think I know who the dork is here.

    85. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Hats off to Valve for getting it right
      Activating it one time is one thing, but having the game connect to steam EVERY TIME I START the game, CLOSE the game or LOAD a friggin level is just SPYWARE!

      I WILL NEVER EVER BUY A GAME FROM VALVE.
      I bet it even searched your hdd for a leaked version of the HL2 source.

      God 2 weeks ago I was desperatly waiting for this game loving Valve, now I just hate them and REFUSE to buy anythign from them anymore.

    86. Re:You're wrong. by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      As far as you know, as a consumer, you're buying a boxed game which you expect to own, to do whatever you want with it. Sell it, play it, sit on it, burn it with gasoline.

      C'mon. Most consumers know better than this. But in this particular case, I don't see where the person isn't buying a boxed game which they own and can do anything they want with it (providing it's legal). By that rationale, you have no right to a user account in the first place, and should be pleasantly surprised when you get one.

    87. Re:You're wrong. by Kick+the+Donkey · · Score: 1

      What the hell to the 'rebels' from the '60s have to do with anything? Sounds like you're just sorry that they where right, all along...

      --
      /. is a bunch of nerds at a million typewriters. It's not a political conspiracy determined to undermine your beliefs.
    88. Re:You're wrong. by Devalia · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here in the UK your contract is with the seller and not the manufacturer. Its up to them to sort out

    89. Re:You're wrong. by Datasage · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, the disc is yours, but the IP on that disc is given to you under terms of their licsence.

      If they want to stop letting you use thier software, they have the right.

      But you have the right not to purchase thier software if you dont agree with the terms of thier licence.

      If you dont like the terms of quickbooks, you can purchase peachtree or use one of the GPL'ed accounting packages.

      Property and Intelectual Property is not the same thing, nor should it be looked at under the same rules. Software is kind of a place where both rules areas cross. The physical cd is property but the software stored on that cd is not.

      --
      In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
    90. Re:You're wrong. by AusG4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nope, -you're- definately wrong.

      You purchased media and data for a nominal cost (a fraction of the sticker price).

      Minus that nominal cost, the bulk of the sticker price was the fee to license, for personal use, the contained software. This isn't a mystery and isn't anything new... the whole software industry works like this.

      No, you can't read the EULA before you buy in most circumstances, and maybe that is a problem, but it doesn't change the fact that you still have a full and legal recourse to have your funds returned to you if you do not agree to the license terms.

      No, you didn't pay to own it... you paid to license it. You could argue that you own the media and yes, you could indeed use it as a coaster... and fair enough. But who cares about the media? In the case of Steam, you don't even get media. Media does not the included software product make.

      So, to say "I am NOT "told the terms and conditions of usage by the company" until after the sale transaction is completed." is actually true, because there is -no- sale transaction for the software itself. It's a licensing transaction, and in that case, you do indeed get an opportunity to read the EULA before you invoke the license.

      That said, I am constantly confused by people who get irrationally worked up over internet activation schemes. Frankly, how many people have tried to steal the game? Lots. That said, Valve has every right to protect their creations. They've been working on this game for half a decade, and if some whining /.'rs want to feel like they're part of some cool, new fangled movement for summarily dismissing any product that requires them to *gasp* prove *grasp* that they actually didn't steal it, then don't buy the game, and even better, don't complain about it. Nobody gives a fuck that you think you're too cool for activation systems.

      If you really have a problem with the activation scheme, you're either irrational or you've stolen the product. In either case, don't talk about it in public, because nobody cares.

      Sure... sometimes the activation technique can be annoying, and that's a fair argument. Valve will surely fix the Steam system so that once you've activated you're golden... but Windows XP?? You activate it once and then it's done... no hassles. If you need to re-install, it generally works. If it doesn't, call them and they'll sort you out. 99% of people don't re-install Windows every week, so 99% of people won't notice any inconvenience with the activation system... unless they've stolen their copy of Windows.

      Why do I defend Windows XP? I don't... I can't stand it. I'm writing this from my PowerMac, and I wouldn't use XP if you paid me... but I know a bullshit argument when I hear one.

      "Just watch me" ... -Pierre Trudeau.

      --
      bash-3.00$ uname -a
      SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
    91. Re: You're wrong. by Brad+Mace · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Holy Crap, do you work for valve or something? You seem to have been completely duped into accepting this notion of buying a license. Suckers like you are going to ruin it for everyone. If consumers accept this, we're going to see more and more software subject to cancellation on the whim of corporations. Perhaps more likely, when companies fold or even just get bought, we may be stuck with useless software. For me that is unacceptable, and where games are concerned it will push many people toward consoles where activation isn't an issue.

    92. Re:You're wrong. by Ashran · · Score: 1

      I second that, the game connects to STEAM every time I load a level.

      Spyware :/

      --

      Before you email me, remember: "There is no god!"
    93. Re:You're wrong. by the_mad_poster · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Wow! That would be a great analogy!

      If:

      1. Valve were selling empty boxes.
      2. Valve hadn't made it abundantly clear LONG before the game came out that you would have to activate it.

      Idiot. You are effectively whining that you haven't made even the tiniest attempt to understand what you're purchasing, because Valve let it be known quite clearly that you would have to activate the game.

      People like you are those "poor, victimized" members of society who sue fork makers because they don't print "DO NOT PUT IN EYEBALL" on every single fork they produce. Quit your bitching. If you don't like the terms, you don't play the game. Simple enough. If valve had tried to conceal the fact you'd have to activate it, you might have a point. But they didn't, and you don't, so quit crying.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    94. Re:You're wrong. by ADRA · · Score: 1

      I bought my damn TV set and I expected to watch god darned TV programs! Nobody said I'd have to 'subscribe' to a 'cable provider' to get cable! This is an outragous!

      In other words, if you don't know what you're buying before you get it, you're the only one too blame. If you don't know, you'd better ask. If there's a hidden trick in their somewhere, you'd better hope that your government is aware of it so that they can mandate that 'in-box' EULA's must be available at the point of sale, or something like that. Don't blame Valve for releasing software with a EULA, blame the the government for allowing this type of activity to occur, if in fact its violating your rights.

      --
      Bye!
    95. Re:You're wrong. by Christopheles · · Score: 0
      I doubt the people that stole the game are complaining -- the people whose keys were hacked or stolen now have disabled accounts with little or no recourse.

      The people who stole the game are probably not complaining because they did not get caught. Anyone who stole a copy of the game has a perfectly working cd set and key, since the store does not deactivate the cd keys of stolen merchandise.

      Those who downloaded a copy of the game (which is not the same as stealing a copy), don't mind so much because, hell, they didn't pay anything for it. I mean, they might complain, but only the really dumb ones.

      I mean, how do you prove that you purchased the game? The UPC? You can read that off a box at any store.

      How do people who stole/bought the game prove their validitiy? Pretty simple as explained in the other posts. On the Steam site itself, it states that you may have to mail them your original cd key.

    96. Re:You're wrong. by cjpez · · Score: 1
      A license is something.
      Only by the most liberal definition of "something." When I buy something, I want to buy more than the ability to ask the producer's permission to actually use the thing. When I buy software, I want to be able to install and use it, not be at the mercy of additional factors out on the internet that I don't have any control over.

      Obviously there's a lot of people who are okay with the online activation thing, so I'm sure I'm far in the minority here, but Valve certainly isn't going to see a cent of my money so long as they force me to ask permission to use what I would otherwise have just paid $50 for.

    97. Re:You're wrong. by dead+sun · · Score: 1
      A receipt? You could buy the game, not open it, scan the receipt, return the game for a full refund, and pirate away. Doesn't work.

      Credit card statement? It won't show what you bought, just where. Doesn't work.

      Copy of the check. Again, where and not what. Doesn't work.

      A picture of the paper and the original game CDs. Might work if the CD key was involved. I'm sure that could be altered if you really wanted to get tricky though. Best idea so far.

      So we pretend you have proof. What then, you're just going to slap a stamp on it, mail it to Valve, and wait for them to email you some sort of recourse? Scanners and digital cameras may be common, but they aren't in every house. Maybe you could go to Kinkos and pay some more money to be able to play your game sooner. Why not just break down and buy another copy hoping the new CD key works?

      Who knows how long some of these legit customers who've had their key guessed and stolen have had to wait to play a game they purchased properly. Or, how long they'll have to spend hassling with Valve to get their accounts in order now. That's the problem with all the active piracy protection I've seen so far. It hurts legitimate consumers while merely inconveniencing pirates.

      The poor people who did purchase the game and got an already used CD key should just take Valve to small claims court. I bet they could get more than just what the game cost in damages.

      --
      If not now, when?
    98. Re:You're wrong. by Invulnerable+Bede · · Score: 2, Informative

      Jesus Fricking Christ, what is wrong with (some of) you people? It is not like you have to get humped by a bullsquid every time you want to play HL2. You get it through Steam (giving Vivendi the proverbial finger), you activate it (once), then you put Steam Client into Offline Mode and then you play the goddamned game without ever having to log on to Steam again. Sheesh.

      Plus, when your HL2-playing OS of choice dies on you or something, you can just copy the Steam directory from previous installation to the next one and you're good to go. No backup, reinstall, redownload (*shudder*) required.

    99. Re:You're wrong. by pla · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The usual way to prove to them that you bought the game is to send them photographs in JPEG format of the box, manual and CD key sticker.

      Of course.

      So, I'd just need to go buy a digital camera, take a picture, email it to them, then wait for someone to get around to opening my email (someone with no motivation to rush, as they would already have my money in pocket), and maybe they'll let me play?

      Frickin' hilarious.

      I would have liked to play this, but hades will get a tad chilly before I put up with BS like that.

      Another poster had the right idea. When I buy a game, I expect it to just work, like any other game. I pop it in the CD drive, install it, and start playing. Any other steps involved and it goes back to the store.

      About which... Quick hint - Many stores refuse to accept opened software returns, but depending on your state's "warrant of merchantability" laws, they usually can't legally refuse you. Nor can they limit you to accepting a replacement of the same product. If it doesn't work, end of story, they take it back. Funny how "state law" trumps "store policy" every time.

    100. Re:You're wrong. by jackelfish · · Score: 1

      That is assuming that the courts would even hear the case and that everyone who had a legitimate copy of HL2 and was denied a new key by valve (probably not that many) would have to show up.

      --
      "When Nature Calls We All Shall Drown" Johan Edlund
    101. Re:You're wrong. by mpcooke3 · · Score: 1

      I agree he is being unreasonable but then the whole system of EULA's and particularly clickwrap EULAs is quite unreasonable.

      It appears you are buying something in the shop and then you get home and it turns out you have brought the right to an agreement to play a game as long as you agree to 1001 conditions the full meaning of which could probably only be understood by a team of lawyers and which 99% of people click straight through.

      I think there should be some law restricting the amount of crap you can put in these dodgy clickwrap licences not just for games but for spyware apps like WhenU too.

      Matt.

    102. Re:You're wrong. by SScorpio · · Score: 4, Informative
      That isn't how Steam works, there won't be stolen cd keys like what happened with the original half-life.

      Half-life 2 uses a MMO style activation where you create an account and enter your key. One account, one key. Once a key is registered to an account is cannot be used on any other accounts. The only thing that could possibly happen people getting their steam accounts hacked.

      I suspect the people complaining fall into one of two catagories. They purchased the retail game and got pissed that they had to insert the CD everytime they started it while people who bought it over Steam don't so they downloaded a nocd crack.

      Somebody bought it retail and also installed it at their friends house and had their friend login with their Steam account and used a nocd crack to allow their friend to also play.

      In the first case it sucks to be them as they got screwed over by Vivendi in needing to use authenicate with a CD, and felt screwed over that online purchases didn't need this.

      For the second case they were committing piracy, and well it really sucks to be them, but they were pirating something with activation. They took the risk and lost.

    103. Re: You're wrong. by Damvan · · Score: 1

      "consoles where activation isn't an issue"

      At least it isn't an issue FOR NOW.

      Just wait.

    104. Re:You're wrong. by mahdi13 · · Score: 1
      So you think the random muttering of minimum wage sales dorks constitutes acceptable legal advice concerning the EULA?
      No, it's called 'helpful advice'

      They may be "minimum wage sales dorks" but, believe it or not, there are people that really DO care about others.
      That and they don't want the customer coming back in later yelling and screaming at them...like many people here like to do.

      Blame others for your own ignorance, it's the American way!
      --
      "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
    105. Re:You're wrong. by davlucmac · · Score: 1

      Just one thought... I'm not up on legal terminology, but if what you have in fact purchased was a license to use the product, is it an indefinite license or is it limited? Meaning, does Valve and Steam commit on their behalf to keep their servers up indefinitely, or are they only charging for a 5 year period? What logically follows is the question for those who have wrongfully had their accounts shut off. Will they have a portion of their license fee (purchase price) refunded to them for the period of time they are unable to play? ...It seems software is in the odd quagmire between leasing and owning. At some point, either the company will have to guarantee their infrastructure that makes their products usable for a period of time, or they will have to relinquish some of this foothold of ELUA that sounds so much like a lease.

    106. Re:You're wrong. by nospmiS+remoH · · Score: 1

      Soooo...It is necessary for me to make a copy of my friends CD to run the program on my computer. Therefore I would be complying with this?

      --
      !hoD
    107. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of the problem with this system is that guilt is assumed. So the purchaser who uses a no cd crack is guilty of piracy until proven innocent.

      Personally I find this kind of practice to be extremely consumer UNfriendly.

    108. Re:You're wrong. by Scuff · · Score: 1
      Also, check your local laws. Stores in MA cannot have a "No Refunds" policy, because that is against state laws. Also, they cannot turn down a refund within 30 days of the purchase date.. but that's again in MA.

      Not entirely true. I also live in MA, and most stores in MA (of the ones that sell games/movies/music) have a policy where opened software/cds/dvds can only be exchanged for another copy of the same item. This works fine for people with a defective product, but keeps back the people copying items and returning them. Obviously, it's of no help to people who buy software and have a problem with the EULA.
    109. Re:You're wrong. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      What about the rest of my rights, the ones not related to copying? What about my right to modify the software (for my personal use only)? What about my right to use the software any time I want, internet connection or not?

      And what about my Fair Use rights? What about my right to make a backup copy? What about my right to transfer the program onto one DVD instead of five CDs? What about my right to copy the program for educational purposes (if, for example, I was teaching people how 3D graphics engines work)?

      Also:

      ...but this is how all licenses work, including the GPL.

      Bullshit. From the GPL:

      Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    110. Re:You're wrong. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      *** get it, read the EULA if you wish, and then return it if you don't like it...***

      only thing worth jack on those boxes in reality is the cd key(cd images and whatnot can be copied easily enough), that means that the software package you just opened is *worthless* if returned as nobody can ever take the package again and be relatively sure that the key is not in use yet. the resale value for an opened package thus goes very close to zero(as with this wonderful new system of theirs it needs activation and all that crap, so even the single player value can't be had without the proper key).

      this is something that has lead to many game shops over the world to not honor the consumer protection laws properly, and face it, gamers are sheep - they don't know or care enough to complain to the right authorities to get the refunds on products they should get them, refunds which are denied from them because the game publishing companies have built such systems around the software that's abusable if they give refunds(if you would be able to get a refund, you could get free cdkeys - by the time you're clicking through the eula you have already opened the cd case or wherever the cdkey is). given that the whole steam activation process is basically a quick cutting of the 2nd hand market from the game(even for singleplayer, and no, it didn't really do jack cutting warezing the game apparently, so once again legimate customers are screwed while freeloaders get it more conviniently without any stupid activation).

      if enough people complained, they would have to change their ways and the way they do business.

      though.. why would you even install steam to play illegal copy of hl2 is beyond me...

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    111. Re:You're wrong. by Danse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, you can't read the EULA before you buy in most circumstances, and maybe that is a problem, but it doesn't change the fact that you still have a full and legal recourse to have your funds returned to you if you do not agree to the license terms.

      Tell that to all the people who couldn't get their money back when they tried to return a copy of Windows. You make it seem like it's a clear-cut legal right to get a refund if you don't agree to the EULA. It is anything but clear-cut.

      So, to say "I am NOT "told the terms and conditions of usage by the company" until after the sale transaction is completed." is actually true, because there is -no- sale transaction for the software itself. It's a licensing transaction, and in that case, you do indeed get an opportunity to read the EULA before you invoke the license.

      In the case of half-life2, you are not even told that there is a license before you buy it. Nowhere on the box does it say that you are licensing rather than buying a copy of the game. It says it requires internet connectivity, but mentions nothing about activation.

      If you really have a problem with the activation scheme, you're either irrational or you've stolen the product.

      There's another option here too. You're pissed because their activation requirement, which is not mentioned anywhere on the box, took 4 hours to authorize you to play the damn game in the first place. I don't think it's irrational to be upset about having your time wasted.

      If you need to re-install, it generally works. If it doesn't, call them and they'll sort you out. 99% of people don't re-install Windows every week, so 99% of people won't notice any inconvenience with the activation system... unless they've stolen their copy of Windows.

      What about that 1% that does have problems? What's their recourse?

      In closing, I'd just like to say that any contract that you can't read prior to making a financial transaction is not a valid contract.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    112. Re:You're wrong. by dorsten · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of a receipt? You get them when you make a purchase.

    113. Re:You're wrong. by Damvan · · Score: 1

      Will you grow up and stop assuming the world revolves around you?

    114. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet it even searched your hdd for a leaked version of the HL2 source.

      Wrong -- I have the leaked HL2 source on my computer (could never get it to compile though), bought HL2 and am playing it, no problem :-)

    115. Re:You're wrong. by Danse · · Score: 1

      Then again, if you looked at the packaging, it would tell you that right on it. You can't possibly claim "I didn't know there would be an agreement" since it says so right on the box!!

      */me looks at Half-Life2 box*

      */me checks again*

      Umm... no it doesn't.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    116. Re:You're wrong. by the_mad_poster · · Score: 4, Funny

      We were discussing journalistic integrity in my junior year Journalism class in High School. One of the stories we discussed was about potentially devastating NEOs and the hunt for them. They were calculating timelines for possible impacts, but the journalist - in his infinite lack of even the simplest scientific tenets - decided to exclude the actual numbers and say "sometime in the future".

      Upon hearing this, a girl at one edge of our discussion circle perked up, her eyes got really wide, and she exclaimed "When is this supposed to happen!?"

      Without missing a beat, the class clown said in the most serious, matter-of-fact voice I've ever heard....

      "About 10 minutes"

      She never was the same after that....

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    117. Re:You're wrong. by AviLazar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, most states have that law. Most people do not realize it. The laws are also "dummy" laws - which means they cannot be waived no matter what sign is posted, or document you sign. Stores just try and "freighten" you by acting like the store knows best. In all reality - just grow a back-bone, know your rights, and stand up for yourself....within minutes the manager will refund you fully.
      Another great thing to do is - buy with your credit card - you get plenty of protection. My mom's fiancee bought a laptop through Dell - didn't use it - but was able to return it two months later for a full refund due to his AMEX card...
      Just a side note, I live in PA -A

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    118. Re:You're wrong. by QuaZar666 · · Score: 1

      you might want to read the legal case of ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg. the court found that a strinkwrap license is a binding contract.

      - Qua

    119. Re:You're wrong. by don_carnage · · Score: 1

      No, it's unfair that before you even buy a game it could contain a hacked key. It's not like you can take it back to the store for a refund.

    120. Re:You're wrong. by Yakko · · Score: 1

      And you seem to think that consumers will blindly obey (and blindly accept) every mandate of a given company just because said company put out a product.

      It's too bad for corporations in certain areas of business (like music and movies) that I, the consumer, can do whatever I wish with my property (the content isn't mine, but the ability to use it is) when it's in my home. Now I realize if I play some game online, I have to bow to the will of whoever's running the show (I'm using their content in conjunction with THEIR servers now; it's no longer in my home), but I can also choose not to be subject to those rules, and thus not play.

      We consumers do not owe any company our money just because a product comes with limitations that may be unacceptable to us. In this case, the "unacceptable limitations" are enforceable. In other cases, such as CD and DVD use, they're not (no matter what the DMCA would have you believe).

      --

      --
      Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
    121. Re:You're wrong. by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      They can always release a patch that doesn't require internet activation in the years to come or when the next major release is out.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    122. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why I'M NOT BUYING THE GAME. I'm not going to pirate it either. Maybe it is the best game of all time, but there are plenty of other games that I enjoy just fine that will get my gaming money.

    123. Re:You're wrong. by stanmann · · Score: 1

      NO, your shelling out $50 gives you the right to use it, just like me shelling out $18.99 gives me the right to "use" the latest Harry Potter Hardback. I can use it for a stepstool, or a club, or a hammer, or I can read it, If it turns out I can't read it because the page edges are glued together, I can take a razor and seperate the pages, they CAN'T sneak into my house and glue the pages back together.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    124. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For fuck's sake, please put the "theft vs. copyright infringement" argument to rest. Arguing semantics devalues anything else you have to say. Stick to defending/making your point.

    125. Re:You're wrong. by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      Will Valve directly deposit a large sum of money into my checking account monthly?

      No! Valve has got a lot of nerve trying to get the business of decadent self-absorbed lazy blobs!

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    126. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >That said, I am constantly confused by people who get
      >irrationally worked up over internet activation schemes.

      I guess you are pretty confused by the world at large then.
      I'm pretty confused by people who submit to internet activation schemes. I also think you are an idiot.

      >Frankly, how many people have tried to steal the game? Lots.

      That's not my problem.

      > That said, Valve has every right to protect their creations.

      And I have every right to not purchase their game because of said protection being annoying.

      > They've been working on this game for half a decade, and if
      > some whining /.'rs want to feel like they're part of some cool,
      > new fangled movement for summarily dismissing any product
      > that requires them to *gasp* prove *grasp* that they actually
      > didn't steal it, then don't buy the game, and even better, don't
      > complain about it.

      Yeah. I'm not buying because I have to prove I didn't "steal" it.
      I summarily dismiss such products.

      It's bad enough that I have to enter serial numbers on software like Photoshop, Starcraft and such. The minute those things start requiring internet activation... I'm gone.

      You know, at one point democracy was a "new fangled movement."

      How dare I not buy a product on principle? Yeah. That's really hard to understand.

      Principles... BAH! Idiot.

      > Nobody gives a fuck that you think you're
      > too cool for activation systems.

      Dude, you are a fucking arrogant prick.

    127. Re:You're wrong. by don_carnage · · Score: 1

      The point is that the burdon of proof is on you (the consumer) who did the right thing and purchased a valid copy of the game.

    128. Re:You're wrong. by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Agreed, but stupid, dumb-ass, half witted, unreasonable arguments are not the way to make the point.

      The point, when made, about the EULA needing a magic decoder ring/lawyer, was lost in all his other ranting (it was actually a good point though). I would suggest the problem be approached the same way I approach my software:
      Even if it's way more complicated for me to fix an issue in software, that is still better than adding any undue complexity to the User Interface (which is already evolving into it's own OS).
      I think the Lawyers should be required to make EULA's no longer than 1000 words (a word == 6 chars no whitespace), and must be readable by an individual representative of a common user. Any ambiguity will be resolved in the users favor by default. This will both keep the lawyers (and corps) on their toes, while at the same time allowing users to know what they are getting into without reading a legalized version of War and Peace.

      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    129. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Copyright does not address use, only distribution. Someone has the right to use the content if they have something that was distributed legally.

    130. Re:You're wrong. by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Maybe I don't understand the new math, but aren't we customers? Why would anyone put up with this crap?

      Because the game is fun, and because for a majority of paying customers, there have been no problems.

    131. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and while people should keep receipts (for a little while at least), not everyone does. Personally, I keep my receipts until A: the warranty run out or B: the check clears, whichever is longer. As soon as that happens, it's gone. Given that Warranties for games are nonexistent, that receipt would hit the trash within a day or two of purchase.

      I also toss out the Jewel cases and stuff in them (other than CDs) - unless they have CD keys (or Lyrics, in the case of Music CDs). I have a set of CD wallets (that can hold a total of 4-500 CDs); why should I keep the Jewel cases?

      Manuals, on the other hand, I keep forever.

    132. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, receipt?

      Visa statement?

      And I certainly believe there are idiots out ther who would steal the game and then bitch about having their account disabled.

    133. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One reason to put up with this crap, is so that you
      won't find yourself unable to play your $50 game
      becuz some cheap-ass, scumsucking punk stole your CD key,
      so he could "test the game before he bought it".

    134. Re:You're wrong. by CatOne · · Score: 1

      Had you actually BOUGHT the game, instead of using "I" to describe conjecture which would represent what YOU would have probably seen had you ACTUALLY procured said media, you might have seen that there are big stickers that you must tear to GET to the CD which say "by opening this package, you agree to read and accept the license agreement."

      Pretty much ALL shrink-wrap agreements now include this sort of thing. And they indiciate you can return them, without opening the media, for a refund if you choose not to accept.

      There have been court challenges of these "shrink wrap" licenses, claiming ignorance, and I'm not 100% sure of all the details -- some are enforceable, and some are not. But they're certainly (at least initially, unless you want to spend $$$ to hire a baller lawyer) enforceable contracts, so it's a good idea to actually READ the license agreement first, or at least READ the sticker and KNOW that you're going to be presented with a license.

      Claiming flat-out ignorance (EXPECIALLY when you've never even looked at the box)... well it's like walking in the road without looking and getting hit by a bus and suing because you weren't told to look for buses. Stupid (but then again, it happens, so it proves people are stupid).

    135. Re:You're wrong. by psyco484 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If there is no EULA then you have no right to the work at all in the first place..

      I'm sorry, short of flat out insulting you, I can't say more than that's just stupid. I'll be coming by to confiscate all your food, furniture, clothing, and all your other personal possessions which you can't produce a license agreement to. Clearly without one you have no rights to these possessions.
      Really, that's nonesense. Why would the default case be giving the consumer, you know, the person who paid for the product, no rights to the product at all? EULAs exist to restrict rights of the end user, you are (really, look it up) free to use a product that you purchase in any way you see fit unless you are explicitly forbidden to by law, or license agreement. If you do not agree to the law, you have little recourse besides not purchasing the product. If you do not agree to the license agreement you have more options: just don't buy it at all, or once bought and once you understand the terms of use, return it to the place selling it or the company producing it. This is typically protected by law in most rational states.

      Remember all the arguments about how if the GPL is invalid then SCO has no right at all to any GLPd software... it doesn't just become public domain.

      No, the argument there is that if SCO feels the GPL is not a valid license and they do not agree to it, they are not free to use it. That's pretty clear and your gross misunderstanding is, frankly, alarming.

      Look, what this comes down to is that the consumer doesn't have a right to rip Valve off, and Valve has no right to rip the consumer off, it really is that simple. If Valve choose to make steam the only method to obtain the product fine, the EULA is presented before you purchase anything. If they want to have both means of distribution then they either need to make separate rights to the product and make this clear, or they need to make the terms of the license clear and available to everyone. Otherwise they should have no option but to refund every person who does not agree to the terms.

    136. Re:You're wrong. by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Copyright law is about COPYING.

      That's why it's called copyright.

      You are a corporate sucker.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    137. Re:You're wrong. by Damvan · · Score: 1

      Not too condescending...

    138. Re:You're wrong. by Bullet-Dodger · · Score: 4, Informative
      No, you're wrong and you don't understand what the GPL is. Copyright doesn't come into it until you copy something. You don't need to agree to a license to read a book you bought, or listen to a CD. First sale doctrine.

      And for the last time you do not have to agree to the GPL to use GPLed software. The GPL is a license to distribute the software. It gives you something over and above the rights you already have with copyright, as opposed to EULAs, which take some away.

      If the GPL were invalid SCO would still have every right to use the software themselves, just not to distribute it.

    139. Re: You're wrong. by Lordrashmi · · Score: 1

      Uh, what about people who bought Halo2 getting kicked off X-Box live for having a mod chip?

    140. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey, nobody ever won one of those "DO NOT PUT IN EYEBALL" lawsuits without a jury of 12 of their (our?) peers allowing it to happen. so quit bitching because the lawyers are doing their jobs and start killing all the stupid people you meet. they're the ones who allow stuff like this to happen.

    141. Re:You're wrong. by Politburo · · Score: 1

      I did not buy the "license" to use this software until the software developer arbitrarily decides my time is up.

      Actually, you probably did. Check the licence.. I'm sure it has what I call the 'should be illegal clause' that states "We can change this whenever we want, nyah nyah!"

    142. Re:You're wrong. by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      The attitude of the poster is irrelevant as the comment is factual.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    143. Re:You're wrong. by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... and the government should pay you to read the entire governiing document for wherever you may live.

      You know, that's not a bad idea. Maybe it would give them some incentive not to pass so damn many laws. I've always heard that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Fine. Except for one teeny tiny little thing --- attaining knowledge of all the laws you are expected to obey is practically impossible for most people. One has to have (1) access to the information, (2) the time to peruse it, (3) the ability to read English (in the U.S.), and (4) the ability to understand legalese.

      Let me tell you a little story. I used to drop off/pick up my child at Kindergarten. The parking lot was usually packed, so I parked at the curb. Now, I was nowhere near an intersection, and there weren't any "No Parking" signs anywhere. As I headed back to the truck, a school janitor informed me that a cop had just told him that if I continued to park there, I would get a ticket. So, I conducted a little investigation.

      I went to the cop shop and made an inquiry. Why would I get a ticket? Exactly what ordinance was I in violation of? Well, one officer said "I think there is some rule about parking on a street adjacent to a school building (which I later learned was false). Another told me that maybe the traffic would be congested --- you could not park at a curb if there was less than 10 feet between your car and the other side of the street (that condition was not satisfied in my case.) So, in other words, none of them knew. However, I was told to consult the book of city ordinances, of which 2 copies exist in our town of about 20,000 people. I went to the library and looked it up. The book is about 1000 pages long. I asked how much they cost --- $800 per copy! Now, do the math. Most people cannot afford or will not purchase one of these books. This book is in the reference section of the library, so cannot be checked out. With 20,000 people and 2 public copies for viewing between the hours of 8am and 8pm, and a conservative estimate of about 1 month per person to digest the book, I come to a figure of about 833 years for each citizen to be familiar with its contents --- and that is just to learn the city ordinances. If we are to be held accountable to the law, our government needs to make it simple and brief and plentily available.

      Incidentally, after reading the entire corpus of ordinances pertaining to parking, I discovered that I was in the right after all, and photocopied the sections of the book for the occasion of receiving a ticket. Oops. Guess I broke some copyright laws there.

    144. Re:You're wrong. by EsbenMoseHansen · · Score: 1

      Bzz yourself. Ok, so the law was changed in the US, maybe this year --- I didn't dig, the US doesn't matter to me.. I would be surprised, though, if you were allowed to run unlicensed copies, and I think the devil is in the bit about "owner of a copy of a computer program". I couldn't see the definition what an owner of a copy is, though, so I don't know.

      Anyway, that law is simply badly made. E.g, this law seems to suggest that if I buy a computer program, I cannot install it on my computer and have my employee use it, unless I load up (!) It would seem that European lawmakers have not patented badly made laws after all :-/

      --
      Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
    145. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have purchased something. A license to be butt-f****d on the terms and conditions as told to you by the company.

      If you move out of line, the company will butt-f*** you.

      They do not owe you anything if they decide to butt-f*** you.

      In the future, please cover your ass, and do not purchase from this company.

    146. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what's the solution?

      'Cause there's always going to be a window between the packing of the game box and you installing the game when you get it home from the store for that keygen to turn up the same key.

      Assume that 'no copy protection at all' isn't a valid solution, please - the publisher would never accept it.

    147. Re:You're wrong. by AviLazar · · Score: 1, Funny

      They don't? I want my money back - I paid good money for the Sun, and I wasn't told anything about a license.

      In fact, I blame valve for world hunger too.

      And I blame all those people who write EULA's in plain - simple - English.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    148. Re:You're wrong. by demi · · Score: 1

      I'd love to have some laws like that, too.

      --
      demi
    149. Re:You're wrong. by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      Why is the URL not on the box?

    150. Re:You're wrong. by brkello · · Score: 1

      Yes, heaven forbid if you do something illegal they stop you from playing the game...give me a break. Put up with what? Please tell me. I downloaded it from Steam and started playing as soon as it was done. On top of that, it's a great game. It's only a problem for people who cracked the game. If they actually own the game and used someone else's key (wth??) I am sure they can rectify it...but why were the doing that in the first place? Only one thing you said do I really like. I am glad that you chose not to touch the game at all rather than hack it. While I think your arguments against steam are firvolous and unjustified, if you truly are against it, boycott playing the game at all.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    151. Re:You're wrong. by PriceIke · · Score: 1

      The data that I entered into QuickBooks is mine, and I should be able to use the software I paid for to get access to it, if for nothing else, to dump it into another software package like Peachtree or whathaveyou.

      I did not give QuickBooks the right to hold my business' data hostage. And nowhere in any of my materials did it say that the software could and would cease functioning at any given time because it decided it didn't like the fact that I'd installed a new OS--just the OS!!--on a different hard drive.

      "License" my ass.

      --
      It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
    152. Re:You're wrong. by lowrydr310 · · Score: 1
      I always felt the WON authentication on the original Half-Life (miltiplayer) worked just fine. I purchased a legitimage copy of the original Half-Life and had no problems (no one ever copied my key, at least not when I tried to play).

      In reality, how long will people really play the single player version of HL2? Once someone buys it and beats it in a week or two, how likely are they to play again?

      Multiplayer is where all the fun lies, and I thought the WON authentication system worked just fine keeping the hackers/crackerz away.

    153. Re:You're wrong. by AviLazar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only thing I am bitter about is I can't sell/give my old Half Life to someone. I had Diablo - when I was done with it I sold it. I had Diablo II - when I was done with it I sold it. Can't do it with half-life because it is integrated with my user account. As long as only one person is using it - then I can't see why Valve would care.
      So on a marketing stand point what they did really helps their bottom line. On a security stand point what they did really helps their bottom line. But for the LEGITIMATE people who want to transfer their product to someone else...well I want a Murcealago, but it ain't happening...

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    154. Re: You're wrong. by zecg · · Score: 1

      If consumers accept this, we're going to see more and more software subject to cancellation on the whim of corporations.

      So what? Do we need the games to live? Open source software is, still, not outlawed. As for corporate proprietary software, you either choose to accept their terms and pay them, or you choose not to. There is no God-given right in this situation.

      --
      .i lu doi ringos.star. xu do puku'aroroi dunli dopecaku leni virnu li'u
    155. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need to read the license to find out whether or not you're entitled to use a pirated key.

    156. Re:You're wrong. by Hatta · · Score: 0

      This is where the line is drawn; you simply don't know the licence details before buying.

      Sorry, I draw the line a little earlier. If I buy something, that object is mine to do with as I please. I do not recognize the right of anyone to control what I do with my property.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    157. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry - in MA, stores can have whatever return policy they want, including "All Sales Final", so long as it is posted conspicuously in view of the customer prior to the purchase.

    158. Re:You're wrong. by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      No, I purchased (gave money for) a CD that included the game on it. I was not informed of any other conditions on the usage of that piece of pressed plastic until after the sale was over, and I was no longer permitted to refuse the agreement.

      I don't understand your problem then. Did someone take away your piece of pressed plastic? You still have the CD, right? So what's stopping you from using it as a coaster? Your account was disabled, perhaps, but the piece of plastic is still yours.

    159. Re:You're wrong. by earthforce_1 · · Score: 1

      > Will the grocer give you a discount because you had to go to the trouble of getting to the store?

      No, but I would expect them to if the food I purchased turns out to be rotten or otherwise unfit for consumption.

      There are plenty of other good games out there, I wouldn't waste my time on something that takes away so much of my rights. Thanks, but I won't even be giving it a look.

      --
      My rights don't need management.
    160. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "WhatAmIDoingHere" is correct, in that the law has been set up to favor the businesses in this situation. How could it really be otherwise? That doesn't change the fact that the practice is dispicable, and a valid target for civil disobedience.

      Initially I intended to buy HL2 b/c I LOVED the first one. Then I thought I'd have to buy it to support valve AND pirate it to end-run steam. But the amount of ill-will I feel is growing

      While I agree that people's hard work should not be pirated, I (and the public at large, based on their actions) refuse to acknowledge that I have bought a license rather than ownership. This view is independant of what is stated in law, which I believe has been subverted to the detriment of the people.

      Implement a security method that does not involve outside authorization. Do not attempt to sell me a 'license'. Your technical difficulty with this matter is sad, but none of my concern. I am unwilling to yield my rights (rights I believe inherent in the concept of 'purchase', not rights which some law offers to void) to solve your problem.

      Today, of course, the answer is obvious and curt. Don't like the terms? Don't make the purchase. The market has beaten back this sort of thing before. The e-tax software mentioned elsewhere in these responses. Big business was able to demand Windows-XP-Pro-CorporateEd (no authenticate). Oh, good, big business got out of it. Say can I buy one of those?

      But I guess I don't think the will of the purchaser can hold out against the will of the seller. First of all when it comes to physical object markets I could go buy a generic or a competitor. But there is no such thing as a generic version of an Intellectual Property. Those are legislated against. And even as the public rebells against 'license' purchasing the companies continue to try to get us to take the candy. Because once we have there will be no going back. "Information is Power" in the new economy has been said more than once. So now they just want to rent us some power, so they can pull it if they don't like us. (Do musicians get to license their songs to record lables? I'll give you a hint: Jack-o outbid Paul)

      The thin edge of the knife is already past us, people. Look around, it's not hard to see. The Law - the Protect & Serve - Government of/for/by the people - it's already set up to keep ownership of information ( = power) out of our hands. Everyone knows IP laws are broken.

    161. Re:You're wrong. by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      I don't. I won't buy the game, which i liked when i tried, just because of these issues.

      But you shouldn't either. You're supposed to buy a game copy, not a licence to play it. I wonder how well PC games would sell if Best Buy made explicit that they're selling you a licence instead of a game.

    162. Re:You're wrong. by BigTunaCan · · Score: 0

      Go buy Half Life 2 at Wal-mart where 1/5th of all videogames are sold. They will ring it up and bag it for the average uninformed redneck. The EULA is not mentioned, the return policy is not mentioned. What happens next? That redneck goes home and finds out they have been screwed because they can not play thier game, but they can't return it either.

    163. Re:You're wrong. by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      I was asked "Are you aware that you need a DVD drive, and an internet connection to play this game".

      Now, what if I was one of those people, I have the required mutterings, but I still wouldn't be able to play the game.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    164. Re: You're wrong. by abscondment · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You seem to have been completely duped into accepting this notion of buying a license.

      Duped into buying a license? Have you (legally) bought any software that wasn't licensed? Companies don't sell software; they never have. They sell the license to use their software. You don't own Windows, or Half-Life, or any other copyrighted software; you're bound by the license agreement, and all you own is what that agreement gives you. Obviously, if you're playing the game then you've already bought a license for your operating system. Console games too are mere licenses; you can't simply redistribute Halo 2, becuase it would be in violation of your license.

      Activation is what you have a problem with, and that exists because people are dishonest. Activation is an attempt to make the "cost" of pirating a game higher than the cost of actually buying--if you still think the games are too expense, stop buying. No, I don't like it either; just try not to confuse it with licensing. CDs are licensed. Movies are licensed. Some software is licensed. A license does not necessitate any "activation" in the terms which you spoke about.

    165. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you assume that you can steal any game that doesn't have a EULA on the outside of the box?

      That depends on whether the place selling it has security in place or not, doesn't it? If there are a couple of security guards at the door searching people who leave, then it might be a bit difficult to steal it.

      Oh wait... are you another one of those morons who thinks that copyright infringement is theft?

    166. Re: You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um, this is all bullshit in the first place. If you buy the game, and use your key, be it retail or over STEAM, then this works. You have no problems. If they canceled your account unwarrented, you still have proof you purchased it (atleast you should, either from the steam reciept you were supposed to print when you purchased or from the store) If you pirated, you lose. If you bought it and STILL used the cd-ky crack or whatever, that is not fair use, thats just idiocy. The ONLY use for cd cracks that I see is when you crack it so you don't have to put your original CD in every time.

      The issue some morons may be having with steam is that they think they have to log in and activate all the time, but there is an offline mode. I've been using STEAM for a very long time for alot of mods, and at first I hated it, its not without bugs. But I love it now. I have access to everything they've made without the need for discs that get lost or scratched. I don't have to hunt for updates and everything whenever I reinstall. Even if it takes a while to download and install (which it doesn't on my connection), I could care less. ITS AUTOMATIC! YOU CAN WALK AWAY AND COME BACK AND IT'LL BE DONE EVENTUALLY. Hell I knew they'd have problems with the 3am business, anyone could predict that. When was the last time a game update (or a new mod) came out that there was instant access to the files? I remember with one mod, they said update would be available on a certain Friday, but then it wasn't till about 10pm on that Friday. It's a lack of patience and understand on your parts. My steam install may or may not have worked immediately, I dont know, I got up an hour after the release to an unlocked copy. So, you know, I don't CARE. I've played through HL2...even if I had waited 2 more days, I'd already be done with it. What is so fucked up with our society that everyone needs everything now. If you'd gone to sleep, waited till morning, instead of wasting hours of your life for a game that didn't unlock instantly, then you'd have been better off.

      Those of you who chose to use the cd crack when you had a valid copy, I call BS. Why in the hell would you do that, its needless, you had a key, and you can play offline.

      Its like my cellphone company. They screwed up once, removed internet service from my phone, and there was a computer error. I wasn't being charged for the service (which was a flat rate for unlimited service monthly) but I was still getting it. I'd turned it off before, and the service was supposed to say unavailable. So I figured I'd use the service, which I shouldn't be getting and wasn't paying for on my bill. Well, most people would say "oh well, their loss, free service for me" Well, when the bill came in next month for a PER MEGABYTE USAGE (which isnt supposed to be possible on a T-Mobile Sidekick), I was ripped. I fought, and lost, and basically, they were right, I was in the wrong.

      Go ahead. Take advantage of these situations if you want. Don't bitch about it when you get caught. It's like a hacker claiming he should be allowed to hack a companies server. No, he shouldn't. Even if he has good intentions, he needs permission. If he gets caught, he has no grounds to stand on. No offense to hackers, it is an important discipline and a whole other philosophy. But there is a difference between knowing whats right and wrong. The companies may be in the wrong, but two wrongs don't make a right. It's called playing with fire, you could eventually get burned. Don't curse god for making fire burn you, you knew the laws of physics (or should have) would apply.

    167. Re:You're wrong. by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      I have purchased the DVD version of this game.

      What if some hack meister uses my cd key?
      What if I am detected as having some wallhack software on my computer?

      Valve are extremely strict on these things, and very rarely appear to admit mistakes.

      There are rumblings about problems with duplicate keys, and their Cheat checker coming up with hundreds of thousands of hits (hence its not active at present).
      The game itself is about dictatorship and breaking the mould. The dictators are Valve and Steam is their weapon.

      ATTENTION PLEASE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IN PROGRESS.
      INACTION IS CONSPIRACY.


      The halflife/counter strike community are a decent mob, they were all too happy to help Gabe and the team after the unfortunate hacking incident, the least they could do now is treat those paying customers fairly.

      I paid good money for this game, something which I very rarely do. I purchased the original, and waited patiently for this one. I don't want to be treated like a criminal.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    168. Re:You're wrong. by slimak · · Score: 1

      But installing software is making a copy. In fact, executing an application makes a copy in RAM. Many EULA grant the right to make these copies.

    169. Re:You're wrong. by jrod2027 · · Score: 1

      I doubt the people that stole the game are complaining -- the people whose keys were hacked or stolen now have disabled accounts with little or no recourse.

      Except for those people that have other games on Steam and were banned. Not only can they not play their illegal copy of HL2, but they can't play the Steam games that they obtained legitimately.

    170. Re:You're wrong. by Tassach · · Score: 1
      I always felt the WON authentication on the original Half-Life (miltiplayer) worked just fine. I purchased a legitimage copy of the original Half-Life and had no problems (no one ever copied my key, at least not when I tried to play).
      And my Ford Pinto never burst into flames. What's your point?

      Just because *YOU* never got bit by a defect in a product does not mean that the product wasn't defective -- it just means that you got lucky.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    171. Re:You're wrong. by cortana · · Score: 1

      We'll put it to rest when you people stop misusing the term "theft", and extending it beyond its definition.

    172. Re: You're wrong. by Dizzle · · Score: 1

      Their games still work though...

      --
      -Dizzle
      "I most likely AM so interested in myself."
    173. Re:You're wrong. by calophi · · Score: 1

      I believe you mean "unacceptable".

    174. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Valve give you the option of sending off the games box with the little sticker displaying the CD key attached to it off to them in the post to prove you purchased it.

      So besides people having to swamp valve with game boxes (that one would assume and HOPE would be returned, but I ain't sure about that) there isn't much of a stress point if you're unlucky to have had some arsehole steal your key. ...if only there was some way to find and make those people suffer for the inconvenience maybe they wouldn't do it.

    175. Re:You're wrong. by cortana · · Score: 1

      Has any one ever done any research and/or analysis of the network protocols that Steam, and other games use for player authentication?

      What happens if your account details are sniffed? Here's what--someone else has control of your account! They can change the email address and password, even play online using cheats, getting your account banned from online play for 5 years.

      Whoopie!

    176. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Minus that nominal cost, the bulk of the sticker price was the fee to license, for personal use, the contained software.

      Says who? It doesn't say so on the box. The person selling it me didn't tell me that. If it looks like a sale, sounds like a sale, quacks like a sale... it's a sale! If a vendor tries to impose terms on me after the sale, then that's tough, it's too late, it's already my property that I can do with as I please. Copyright law prevents me from copying it for my friends... the EULA isn't necessary for this.

      If a vendor wants me to agree to license terms for a piece of software, then it had better be agreed upon before I obtain it as my property. Otherwise I already own it and I don't need to agree to any license. You can't sell somebody something and then go "oh, by the way... that still belongs to me" afterwards. If you bought a television, got it home, opened up the box, and found a piece of paper that told you that you were only renting it, that would not stand up in court at all. Why do you think it is different for software?

      This isn't a mystery and isn't anything new... the whole software industry works like this.

      No, the whole software industry doesn't work like this. A large number of software vendors include a EULA, but I haven't seen any courts uphold them as being legal (over here in the UK, dunno about the USA).

    177. Re:You're wrong. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 0, Flamebait


      People like you are those "poor, victimized" members of society who sue fork makers because

      I've decide to stop responding to fucking liars who claim to have ESP.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    178. Re:You're wrong. by novex · · Score: 2, Interesting

      no reason to pirate this game?

      lets ee, having payed for a copy of hl and used it for severaly years, upon the release of steam suddenly i couldnt use it. i contacted the people who i payed for teh game via thier support email address, no response. for 3 months i could not use a porduct i had payed for.

      eventualy i was resourcefull enough to send a private message to a vavle staff member via their forum system, and 2 weeks after that he responded letting me know it was fixed.

      i recieved no compensation for having access to a product i have purchased stolen from me.

      so that a reason to "pirate" the game right there, they took 3.5 months of use for a game i had payed them for.

      i feel perfectly entitled to 3.5 months of a game of thiers that i havnt payed for in return.

    179. Re: You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Companies don't sell software; they never have."

      You're ignoring a lot of case law. Case law states that if it looks like a sale, and acts like a sale, it is a sale. That's why you are legally allowed to ebay your game when you are through with it, regardless of what the "license" says.

      If you want to get technical, selling software is selling input for a Turing machine that will cause a specific Turing machine to be emulated (the program). So it is physical, even if it is just a collection of holes on a disk.

    180. Re:You're wrong. by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      So basically you're saying that you pay 50 dollars, and there's at least 50% chance you'll get to play the game you bought. Wow, sounds like fun to me.

    181. Re:You're wrong. by Geek+of+Tech · · Score: 1
      Just out of curiosity, but if you we're to use a hex editor to change "I Agree." to "Disagree" and Visa Versa, what would they do then? If you click the Disagree button wouldn't it go ahead and install all of the software even though you disagreed? Of course that's just a thought. A judge wouldn't find that very funny...

      --
      Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
    182. Re:You're wrong. by sneezinglion · · Score: 1

      What about those of us who have more than one machine we like to have our games installed on? I never use more then one at a time, but I do like to not have to uninstall and reinstalll every time Iwant to use a different machine.

    183. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Also, check your local laws. Stores in MA >cannot have a "No Refunds" policy, because that >is against state laws. Also, they cannot turn >down a refund within 30 days of the purchase >date.. but that's again in MA.

      Mass. Gen. Law Chapter 93A
      940 Code of Mass. Regs. 3.13
      A seller can have any type of return policy it wants ... "all sales final," "merchandise credit only," "full cash refunds within 30 days," etc.

      A seller's refund, return, or cancellation policy must be disclosed to the buyer clearly and conspicuously before the transaction is completed. Usually, this is done by means of a sign at the point of purchase. Printing the store's return policy only on a cash register sales slip does not comply.

      -From the massachusetts AG's 'retail rights' site.

    184. Re:You're wrong. by Ralph+Yarro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't own it but I seem to remember others saying that such a stipulation is printed on the box. I could be wrong, however.

      No, you are perfectly correct. Others have said that, in the messages above. They were lying (I have the box in front of me). I can't even guess at why they lie about this but they do.

      --

      The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
    185. Re:You're wrong. by sodul · · Score: 1

      IANAL but as so many poeple have mentioned, if you buy a boxed version of the game you should not have to go around all that crap. Unfortunatly M$ got the idea first (actually I would be surprised if they did), or were the first one to apply it on a large scale knowing it would not hurt their sales considering their monopoly. I'm actually wondering how many poeple got anoyed and got a last push to switch to Linux or Mac OS X.
      I really wish that the genuine customers that got screwed up will start a class action lawsuite in order to prevent this kind of licensing.

    186. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man. Somebody stole the shit I stole!!!

    187. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you take something (e.g. goods or services or software) that you have no right to, its stealing. Whether there are zero or 1 billion or infinity copies of it left over afterwords, you still stole it. You sir, are a thief.

      No one cares what you think the "legal" definition of the word is. That whole rap is always just an apologist's smokescreen anyway.

      Use your common sense dummy. Take stuff you have no right to = theft

    188. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually in MA stores can have any return policy they want.

    189. Re:You're wrong. by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      Thanks, but just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it right. I bought it, I own it, such is the way property rights work. It's a system that's been built on well over a thousand years of common law and several hundred years of written law and formal jurisprudence.

      Just because software companies want to throw that all away and play semantic games that a few judges have let them squeak by with doesn't mean I have to bend over and take it. I don't think I'm too cool for anything, I just prefer to patronize companies that aren't trying to overthrow the entire concept of fair use and property rights to get legal backing to fuck over their customers out of fear of the people who illegally copy their software.

    190. Re:You're wrong. by maximilln · · Score: 1

      You have purchased something. A license to play the game on the terms and conditions that are told to you by the company

      Will trolls give up on this "licensing" thing already? It's a fancy word for a rental. Valve is renting the game to you. The only reason why trolls want to use the fancy license jargon is so they can campaign for a federal offense rather than breach of a rental contract.

      Piss off trolls. The whole concept of licensing intellectual property is hogwash meant to feed the attorneys. Either you sell it, or you don't. There is no reality in renting an intangible object which can be easily replicated.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    191. Re: You're wrong. by Ralph+Yarro · · Score: 1

      As for corporate proprietary software, you either choose to accept their terms and pay them, or you choose not to.

      Try to stay awake. Your side of the argument is "you pay them, accept their terms". You're arguing AGAINST the theory that terms should be agreed (and therefore known) up front.

      --

      The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
    192. Re:You're wrong. by rtkluttz · · Score: 1

      You forget.. just because its in a EULA doesn't make it "right".

      If I get a game... I pay for it legally. I don't care what their friggin' EULA says, I'm going to disable their CD check which involves a hack. If they disable my game that I legally purchased, they are either going to give me a refund or be getting a letter from a lawyer.. plain and simple.

      --
      Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
    193. Re:You're wrong. by Yert · · Score: 1

      Minimum System Requirements: 1.2 GHz Processor - 256 MB RAM - DirectX 7 level graphics cards - Windows 2000/XP/Me/98 - 4.5 GB of available Hard Drive Space - Mouse - Keyboard - Internet connection required
      (emphasis mine)
      That's what it says on the bottom of my Best Buy purchased retail box of HL2.

      --
      Truck driver, plumber, Linux systems engineer.
    194. Re:You're wrong. by maximilln · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, the disc is yours, but the IP on that disc is given to you under terms of their licsence

      I wish people would get over the holier-than-thou ego trip that they get from invoking licensing.

      Face reality. A license is a fancy name for a rental concocted by lawyers to turn the breach of a rental agreement into a federal felony.

      Face reality. There is nothing real in an attempt to enforce a rental agreement of intangible material such as intellectual property. The software industry can't, in reality, license software any more than I can license to you a method to make biscuits. Either you sell it or you don't.

      Stop feeding the trolls/lawyers. Quit hiding behind licenses.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    195. Re: You're wrong. by shannara256 · · Score: 1
      Companies don't sell software; they never have. They sell the license to use their software. You don't own Windows, or Half-Life, or any other copyrighted software; you're bound by the license agreement, and all you own is what that agreement gives you. ... Activation is what you have a problem with, and that exists because people are dishonest.

      Before activation, there was not much of a difference. If you bought a game, you could use it in whatever reasonable way you want (by reasonable, I mean roughly what you could do with a physical, non-digital item - ie, not distribute it). By adding activation, companies are bringing to light the difference between buying software and buying a license to use the software, and people are starting to get angry.

    196. Re:You're wrong. by zurab · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Wow! That would be a great analogy!

      If:

      1. Valve were selling empty boxes.
      2. Valve hadn't made it abundantly clear LONG before the game came out that you would have to activate it.


      +5 insightful (at the time I started replying)? More like -1: No contract law knowledge.

      Sale of an item is a contract between a seller and a buyer. If you accept that you are buying a game software at the store, then that's the whole agreement between you, the buyer, and the seller. If the seller wants to impose additional restrictions onto the buyer which were not agreed upon during the sale (EULA wasn't agreed upon or signed during the transaction), then the seller has to provide additional consideration in return. If the seller provides no additional consideration, then there can be no lawful contract. And buyer refusing that additional consideration cannot be denied the original purchase item either.

      So, what does NOT constitute an agreement?
      - printing some website URL on the back of the box does not consitute a buyer agreeing to it if the contract is not expressly agreed upon during the actual sale;
      - some "common" knowledge or a suspicion that some kind of EULA text probably or possibly exists somewhere does not constitute to a buyer agreeing to it;
      - anything else to which you, the buyer, did not expressly agree to at the time of purchase cannot be considered as a part of the sales transaction.

      Now, to argue that the required additional consideration provided to you by the seller after the purchase is to let you actually play the game, then you have to admit that you didn't really purchase a copy of the game at the store, but rather a coaster and possibly a copy of a manual. In that case, the almost empty can of pears analogy is more appropriate, but of course not perfect.

      It would be more like - buy this can of pears from IPFruit, Inc., having a small print that you need to activate the can before you can use those pears. When you go home you find out that "activation" involves agreeing to additional restrictions in an EULA that says you can only use IPFruit approved forks for handling pears, you cannot re-sell directly or any food item that contains the pears, and you cannot share them with your friends or neighbors either by any means.

      Disclaimer: IANAL.
    197. Re:You're wrong. by maximilln · · Score: 1

      No, you didn't pay to own it... you paid to license it

      Will trolls give up on this "licensing" thing already? It's a fancy word for a rental. Valve is renting the game to you. The only reason why trolls want to use the fancy license jargon is so they can campaign for a federal offense rather than breach of a rental contract.

      Piss off trolls. The whole concept of licensing intellectual property is hogwash meant to feed the attorneys. Either you sell it, or you don't. There is no reality in renting an intangible object which can be easily replicated.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    198. Re:You're wrong. by AlphaJoe · · Score: 1

      Good job...

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
    199. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when does making a photocopy from a page of a reference book at the library constitute copyright infringement?

      If a cop want to give you a ticket for something he believes is illegal, and you don't, just let him write the ticket. It's easy to get charges dropped with zero money and about an hour or two of your time. That's assuming you ARE in the right and it's very clear.

      As for having to know every last city ordinance that's hog wash. If this was a fact then we wouldn't ever see parking signs in the city. We wouldn't see clearly marked school zones telling us to slow to a reasonable speed.

      Our legal system does account for it's own complexity in some cases. It also does allow the flexibility for judges to dismiss cases against well intentioned people. Even in the case of manslaughter, which by legal definition means accidental.

      The problem isn't the amount of laws. It's in the way they're enforced.

    200. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Why would anyone put up with this crap?

      Why would anyone vote for GWB? Because they're ultimately frightened, and bought the "sky is falling" hype that the content producers are selling.

      What Valve is doing ultimately advances us closer to the future that Stallman envisioned in his "The Right To Read" story. The fact that so many asshats here have swallowed the bull simply goes to show that geeks and computer game fanboys exhibit a herd mentality. If we were currently seeing the MPAA or the RIAA implement a similarly draconian authentication system, the screams of protest would be defening. Since it's being perpetrated by Gabe Newell, it's all good, though. "He's 31337!" Only pirates resell their used software anyways!

      The legal principles found in legislation such as the Induce Act will come, not with one sweeping act, but rather though the gradual brainwashing of stupid conservatarian fanboys.

    201. Re:You're wrong. by HiddenKrypt394 · · Score: 1

      how is it taking away your rights? last I checked, they only stopped accounts that had stolen the game.

    202. Re:You're wrong. by sffubs · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A friend of mine came up with the idea that the set of laws should be restricted, by forcing them to fit inside a book of fixed length (say 200 pages of 12pt text). That way, when a new law gets brought in, they have to get rid of an old one (or make an old one simpler), and everyone gets a better chance of understanding the law.

      I reckon that's not a bad idea.

      --
      ݼ)s$æúßðíÊ'öX'îò5^àûßQç£
    203. Re:You're wrong. by akintayo · · Score: 1

      So if someone takes a shortcut across your property they are stealing ?

      --
      Woe be on to them, all who rise against poor people, shall perish in a the end. Buju Banton
    204. Re:You're wrong. by bheerssen · · Score: 1

      Nice post.

      Incidentally, after reading the entire corpus of ordinances pertaining to parking, I discovered that I was in the right after all, and photocopied the sections of the book for the occasion of receiving a ticket. Oops. Guess I broke some copyright laws there.

      Nope, you're fine. You could copy every section, page by page. Not having read the copyright statement (how could I) I would guess that the book is in the public domain. Even if it is a copyrighted book, the laws themselves are public information and can be freely copied and distributed.

      --
      (Score: -1, Stupid)
    205. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, but should it be like this? I want to buy software not licenses and I don't want to be chained to a steampipe.

      Sure we all hate pirates, but I guess you would be pissed and demand a refund too if Valve decided to block your account because someone generated a key equal to yours and used it on a pirated version of HL2.

      Steam-activation and any other "security"-scam is not serving any other purpose than to piss honest paying customers off. The pirates release a no-key patch, a no-cd patch, a no-steam patch, a dedicated server patch and everyone else (read: honest people) risk troubles with activation and lock-out. They are in their fullest right to create these strict rules, but I think they are acting selfish and naive. Why is it ok to bother the real users with these restrictions when they only bother pirates for a few days until the pirate-patch arrives?

      I want to buy zeros and ones not sign a contract.

    206. Re:You're wrong. by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 1

      -- I can't charge them for the time, and even if I could, it is petty and contributes to the general decline of society.--

      Just an offshoot.
      I feel what contributes to the "decline of society" is when the corps. make something difficult on PURPOSE, raising the "return bar", as it were, to some point where just going and getting another product is *much* easier.

      An example :
      I had a transmission replaced by a mechanic, it took him about 3 days longer than he told me, but eventually I got it back. 2 1/2 hours after getting my car back, I was stuck on the road...the transmission that he put in (b.t.w. it *WAS* a 'used / rebuilt' transmission.) gave out. I had my car towed BACK to him and asked that he repair my car and reimburse me for the tow. He refused to reimburse me but agreed to re-fix my car. This happened 4 different times. I had to threaten to sue him, THEN magically he got it right.
      I was STILL out my tow charges because honestly, I didn't have the $$ to sue the son-of-a-bitch for it.

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
    207. Re:You're wrong. by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      It's easy to get charges dropped with zero money and about an hour or two of your time

      Just because your time is worthless doesn't mean we should have to waste our time when we're right in the first place.

      I guess law abiding citizens who expect not to be harassed are yet another group of tin-foil hatters who think the government is "out to get them" or "out of control" just because they have to take some time out of their day to clean up after the mess the government made.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    208. Re:You're wrong. by DM9290 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can send them the game and they will refund the purchase price.

      Once you have notified them that they are breeching the original sales agreement at a minimum they can refund the purchase price, pay you damages for wasting your time, and come and retrieve their product at their own expense within a reasonable period of time (probably 10 days) or else you are in your rights to simply throw the product in the garbage and still get your money back.

      Alternatively you can also file a civil suit for misleading advertising and sue for actual and punitive damages. And just once I wish someone would.

      This notion that a software developer can sell you something and retain a residual right to change the terms of the agreement merely by offering you your money back is not supported in law.

      This type of activity is generally called extortion.

      You could even take the retailer to court as they are a party to the crime. The court merely needs to find that the retailer knew (or ought to have known) that the packaging was misleading and then the retailer is liable because the retailer knowingly displayed the misleading advertising.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    209. Re:You're wrong. by farnz · · Score: 1
      In fact, MS have settled out of court to avoid testing their EULA in the UK; this suggests that their lawyers reckon that a court would rule against them.

      The case was around 8 years ago; a Cambridge professor bought Windows NT 4 as an upgrade from an earlier MS product, directly from MS, and on their recommendation. It didn't perform as MS had told him to expect, so he wrote to MS demanding a full refund, plus them paying to revert his computer to the earlier product, or a fixed copy of NT 4 that performed as expected. MS wrote back pointing to the EULA, and he filed suit. Shortly afterwards, MS paid his costs of filing, his refund, and the cost of technician time to revert NT 4 to the earlier product, plus compensation for his wasted time.

      This added up to more than industry watchers had been expecting a court decision in his favour to cost MS (including the cost of litigating); thus the only reasonable explanation for MS's behaviour is that MS believed that they would lose, and didn't want the publicity of such a loss.

    210. Re:You're wrong. by wizrd_nml · · Score: 1
      I'm completely baffled and amazed by the amount of discussion that takes place on a daily basis on slashdot about EULA's and licenses. One thing that I always find amusing is how people always say: "oh I didn't know what the license was cuz it's not printed on the box". For goodness' sake it's the same bloody license on each and every piece of software out there. We all know they copy/paste it from each other. Haven't you read it yet?

      We all get it by now that when you buy commercial software it's a license to use the software. You don't own it. What would really be helpful on the outside of the box is an explanation of how that license is controlled (e.g. activation, etc.).

      This kind of thing is exactly why the US is so litigious. Everywhere else in the world people use common sense.

    211. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't care what the legal definition is because you're incapable of understanding nuances. The world is black and white to your little pea brain and anyone who tries to go beyond a surface interpretation is way beyond your comprehension. There are reasons why it's important to understand the distinction between copyright infringement and theft. One of those reasons is that so long as dummies like you keep on insisting that we use "common sense" to define the terms, the common person doesn't understand the difference. That leads to laws like the DMCA, UTICA and the current bills that would make criminals out of half the country for "abetting" copyright infringement. Just in case you missed it, let me dumb it down a tad for you: It's stupid fucks like you who lead to stupid bills that kill our fair use rights. The assholes just keep on taking our rights and you just keep on apologizing for them. So how's it feel to be a corporate stooge and suck up? The sad thing is that you probably don't even know that you're bending over and begging for another inch.

    212. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll always need to validate hl2, or at the very least, Counter-Strike Source. You may refuse to buy it because of cd-key and validation, but many of us are BUYING hl2 because of it. If Valve wasn't blocking cheaters based on their cd-key, counter-strike would be useless. It hasn't been PERFECT so far, but it's a very good step towards eradicating cheating.

      And also, imo, if you don't want to pay for the game, tough shit. I have yet to hear any reasonable excuse for avoiding buying a game with registration. Every person i've talked to who complained freely admitted they just wanted to pirate it anyway...

    213. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry that life has to always be convenient for you. Tell yourself that same thing next time you do something that might cause someone the same inconvenience.

      Oh never mind you're more then likely perfect. So what am I talking about!

    214. Re:You're wrong. by Sven+The+Space+Monke · · Score: 1
      Illegal? What's illegal about no cd cracks (DMCA aside - not only is that provision of law unethical, I'm in Canada and do not have to abide by it)? There is nothing inherantly wrong with no cd cracks. I own the game legit - bought it release day, retail copy. Nowhere did it ever say that Half-Life 2 uses CD copy protection - quite the opposite. Every Valve release I saw (and I saw a LOT) said that there was no copy protection. I also use a legit copy of Alcohol 120 for CD emulation to get around needing all those CDs. Lately, there have been a lot of games that use the new securom copy protection that detects alcohol120, so I have to resort to no CD cracks. I own the game legit. I own the game legit. I own the game legit. I want to play the game I own legit. There. I've said that enough times that it should get through to you - I AM NOT PIRATING THE GAME. Changing CDs in every time I or someone who wants to use my computer is not an option. Let me explain why.

      I have over 90 computers. Most of them don't have CD/DVDroms.

      I work at a LAN center. Changing CDs every time someone wants to change games is not an option. We'd not only have to have full-time staff just to change out CDs, we'd have to keep a library of CDs in an easily accessable place where they could be stolen. Theft IS a problem for us - we've had people open up our computers and steal RAM. Not only that, but we'd have to worry about game discs getting scratched. Once that happens, well there's $70(CAD) gone. Half-Life 2 uses the new securom, which means that if we had bought any copies (other than one copy I got as an evaluation copy), we wouldn't have been able to play the game without a crack. Installing would have been a nightmare (it took 5 hours including activation on a single machine), and then, a week later, all of our CDkeys would have been banned. Does this sound reasonable to you? Sure we could buy through Steam - take a guess how long it would take to pre-load HL2 on 90 machines. Go ahead. Guess. Answer - WEEKS. There is no way we were going to pre-load before release, since we didn't know for sure whether we would even buy the game.

      If you're at all educated about how Valve does business, you'll know that there is a Cyber-Cafe licencing deal available. You know what they charge, and what you ACTUALLY get? They charge $15(CAD)/month/machine. That means, before taxes & such, we'd be paying $1350/month just so our customers can play counter-strike. $1350/MONTH. That's almost a third of our already-streched-thin game purchasing budget. If we did that, we wouldn't be able to afford to buy any other games. As it is, we can afford one, maybe two games a month. With that program, we could afford one new game every 2-3 months. That is NOT worth it, considering what you get in exchange.

      So what do you ACTUALLY get with Valve's Cyber-Cafe licence?

      • A free copy of every Valve game for every computer that's livenced. Goody. Before HL2, what did valve release? Counter-strike:condition zero. That's it. Those are the only games that have been released in the 2 years that Cyber Cafe program has been around. We didn't even bother with CS:CZ because it was nothing new. CS had everything CS:CZ had - bots, freely downloadable maps. At $15/machine/month, over 24 months, that means we would have payed, over 2 years, $180/copy for CS:CZ and $180/copy for HL2. $32,400 total.
      • They unban any accounts that get booted for cheating. This would be a huge plus, and we were breifly considering it. Then we realized that banned CDkeys take up about $50/month. That's it. It's not that cheaters only come in once a month, it's that so rarely are cheaters detected & banned. Our staff boots cheaters before Valve catches them.
      • ...um... I guess that's it. They also offer some management software that allows you to remotely manage each Steam install on every machine, but I've written software that does that for every game we have anyway.

      That's all Valve gives yo

      --
      A man who can't pronouce "nuclear arsenal" shouldn't have one -sig ends here.
    215. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't the same issue as Valve. Forced upgrades to allow running a product are a whole 'nother ballgame. Valve has showed no intention whatsoever to force upgrades. It does automatic upgrades (free) via steam, but even those you can disable.

      For as long as Valve is around, they're obligated to and intend to activate the software of anyone who bought it, and let them use it in the original form.

      If they ever said "we're deactivating everyone's HL2 and requiring you all to pay 50$ for HL3 if you want to keep playing", there would be class-action lawsuits galore.

    216. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because the stores say that's the policy doesn't mean the stores are acting lawfully. I am not a lawyer in MA, so I don't know what the law there actually is, but I thought it was important to point out that just because a business hangs a sign on the wall, or asks you to click "AGREE" on a dialog box that appears when installing software you alreaady paid for, doesn't mean that they can rewrite the laws of the polity in question.

      Personally I would not buy any Valve product ever if they are as spyware ridden as this one seems to be.

    217. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when does making a photocopy from a page of a reference book at the library constitute copyright infringement?

      Since forever. Copyright has always been the worst example of law in the country. Its current incarnation basically states "everything you do is infringing". It kind of meshes with contract law to allow the copyright holder to specify "permitted" infringements. Then, theres a body of legal precedent that has a wobbly gray area of "fair use".

      So, with the exception of laws which are explicitly not copyrighted since its a government work (and thanks to legal precedent indicating that publishers cannot copyright their published version of the law) you can photocopy the whole law book, specifically.

      But, in general, photocopying reference material is still infringing on copyright, whether or not you're doing it for something you'll never be sued for.

    218. Re:You're wrong. by rmohr02 · · Score: 1
      You have purchased something. A license to play the game on the terms and conditions that are told to you by the company.
      Hmm. It appears my receipt says stuff like "sale price", indicating that I bought a copy of the software. If it had said "license price" I wouldn't have any argument, but it is rather clear I did not buy a license.
    219. Re:You're wrong. by Throtex · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find that courts agree with you as far as indecipherable unconscionable terms go. John Deere Leasing Co. v. Blubaugh, 636 F. Supp. 1569 (D. Kan., 1986).

      Courts realize your relatively weak barganing power, but they do expect you to at least attempt to read the terms and conditions. You have a duty to read the contract, but in all negotiations there is always and underlying responsibility to bargain in good faith. If the EULA mentions spyware in some very vague way that wouldn't even tip off a computer professional, and the software installs a spyware program, you might very well have a case.

      Don't be so harsh on the courts or the lawyers -- they understand the situation.

      (Note: IANAL yet, but I play one in my classes after working as a software engineer in the day) :)

    220. Re:You're wrong. by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      All you people must be new to the PC gaming world. Paying $50 with a 50% chance of playing the game on the first day of purchase is a damn good scenario.

      Most people have to wait until they sort out patch problems, graphic issues. Quite frankly I have not bought one PC game since 2001, that worked immediately out-of-the-box. I always keep a medium to hi-end system too.

    221. Re:You're wrong. by xnot · · Score: 1

      A contract is negotiable.

      A license agreement is non-negotiable. In other words, the company who makes the terms and conditions has all the power. I can not disagree with a single thing they say.

      And your answer to this problem is that I simply not buy the product? Then maybe I should simply not buy ANY products. Because very few products that are offered have agreements that I would choose to accept, if I had the choice to accept the agreement or not while still managing to obtain the product.

      Or maybe I should enlist a laywer to help me determine if the licence agreement is non-toxic to my enjoyment of the product? The company certainly has no problems paying for lawers to write the licence for them. Since last I checked, I don't have the finatial resources to investigate every minute clause in the agreement.

      Does it say on the licence that Valve will refund my money if they erroneously delete my account? No, it doesn't. That basically means that Valve has free raign to in effect, STEAL MY MONEY FROM ME. Since what I bought is now rendered basically worthless. Do you think I should have to agree that Valve can steal my money at any time, as a clause in a licence agreement? Because that's effectively what's happening.

      Before you spout how "it's all fair and clearly stated in the licence agreement before you installed", use your friggin head. A licence agreement is basically a forced contract. The user has NO power over the contract what so ever. Unless you'd like everyone in the world to sit in little caves and never buy any more products, then I suggest you stop saying that the person has a choice over if they can agree to the licence agreement or not. If they want to use the product, they HAVE to agree, regardless of the terms.

    222. Re:You're wrong. by Manitcor · · Score: 1

      IIRC While your license to use the software may have expired the data is still yoursyou just cant use that software anymore. IANAL but I would think that this would fall under DMCA as an allowable reason to reverse enginner an companies IP.

      Then you can sell the data recovery tool for 1/4 the price of thier product. Have it output data in formats read by competing tax products ;-P

      Of course thats not an easy solution and it should not be so hard to get at data you own. I have no problem if the software wants to die in 2 years as long as the data made using it follows some sort of usable data standard (XML prefferabaly). This way when the product does fail I still can access the data using standard data maniupulation tools/techniques. Of course most products want to use some dumb half made up format (while others just base64 enocode a flat file).

      This is really an issue because software vendors like to screw people and most people are too dumb to realize just how they are being screwed.

      --
      "Don't mess with him, he taunts the happy fun ball."
    223. Re:You're wrong. by B'Trey · · Score: 1, Informative

      nd yes, the box DOES state that you have to have a working account on their Steam network.

      I don't know about this. I do know that they don't seem particularly concerned with making information available. I went to Steam yesterday following the Slashdot story on the Half-Life review.

      I don't know jack about Steam except that you have to have an account to play Half-Life and you can download the game via the service. I went to the site because I had some questions about how it worked:

      If I download the game and my hard drive crashes, can I reinstall it via Steam to a different hard drive? Can I install it to more than one computer if I only play one at a time (ie my desktop machine and my laptop)? Does it cost anything to have a Steam account other than the initial cost of the game? etc, etc.

      Pretty straitforward questions that are almost certainly Frequently Asked. You'd think that a company selling a product would have some information on their site about it. Not only isn't there any information on what Steam is or how it works, there's no information on how to contact the company to get answers. There is a set of forums, but there's no indication that anyone from the company reads the forums.

      If they're not concerned about having me as a customer, then I'm not concerned about it either.

      --

      "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

    224. Re:You're wrong. by Drachemorder · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "So you assume that you can steal any game that doesn't have a EULA on the outside of the box?"

      No, I assume I can buy that copy and use it however I please as long as I don't make more copies and distribute them. That is what copyright law prohibits. If I buy a copy of a game, I own that one copy, no matter what any text inside the box might say and no matter what stupid human tricks I have to perform in order to make it work. The only thing I don't own is the right to distribute it.

    225. Re:You're wrong. by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1
      Are you saying that if you buy HL2 and play it for a few weeks/months and then want to exercise your fair use rights and sell the game to me that I would not be able to play it? Would I have to purchase a new key?

      If that is the case then I won't be buying HL2. That would be a pretty ugly thing for Valve to stop you from being able to sell your copy of the game. I guess I will just stick to the good ole games on my SNES emulator!

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    226. Re:You're wrong. by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · · Score: 1

      When you take something, it disappears. Illegal copying is neither taking nor theft.

    227. Re:You're wrong. by Nilatir · · Score: 4, Funny

      Playing HL must really suck having no shift key...

      --

      "We were half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold."
      -- Hunter S. Tolkien
    228. Re:You're wrong. by JabberWokky · · Score: 1
      Corporation or individual, it makes no difference. You never said if the mechanic owned his own shop or worked for a global mega-corporation, and the key thing is: it doesn't matter.

      If they can do it (and stay in business) and reimburse you, they are a good company. If they don't, they aren't. If they can't, well, that happens.

      Being a small three man shop or being a huge billion dollar company makes no difference. They are both made up of individuals, and they do something and (hopefully) make a living doing it.

      Sounds like you dealt with incompetence or bad luck. Both are found in great quantities in the real world... I just don't see a courtroom as an answer to either. Things balance out - at some point you'll look at something someone was paying you to do and say to yourself "Oh crap - I should have done it a different way".

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    229. Re:You're wrong. by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      You're right, you're not a lawyer. And twenty years of software sales says you're wrong. In fact, if you've ever sold a car privately, you know you're wrong (don't give me crap about new cars. Most of the terms and disclosures are auto-specific issues forced by the government because the automitive sales sector was abusing people). Basically, as long as you don't misrepresent what you're selling, you're in the clear if someone tries to sue you. Oh, the car is full of rust? Well, if you sold it "as is" and didn't try to claim the car was in better shape than it was, the buyer is pretty much SOL. It's the BUYER'S job to understand what they're buying. It's the SELLER'S job to not misrepresent what they're selling. If the buyer doesn't look over the car and ask questions about it, too bad.

      Valve made it abundantly clear that you had to activate the product and made no effort to conceal that fact. If you didn't know that, it's your own fault for being so ignorant, not theirs.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    230. Re: You're wrong. by EvilAlien · · Score: 1
      What does employer have to do with the ability to reason or the acceptance of how the proprietary software industry works?

      Quit bitching and go write your own open source game that has the same level of quality. Vote with your dollar, and it is how you make your opinion relevant. Those who wish to exchange money for the right to enjoy the product developed by Valve do so as determined by the owner of the property in question. The physical items they got with their purchase, if they didn't order through Steam, is of course theirs to do with as they wish... of course, spending $50 on a pretty coaster is foolish, so they still are subject to the limitations put in place by the owners of the property stored on the media.

      In other words, if you purchase the game, you accept the notion of buying a license. If you don't purchase the game, you have no right to play it. If you don't like this, develop your own damn game.

      By the way, just because some ghetto consoles don't have network capability by default doesn't mean that will be the case for long. Expect online activity for consoles to be far more common in the near future than it will be for PC games... it will be easy for people who purchase legitimate copies of the game and will work well in places (like Asia and Canada) that have better than the pathetic broadband penetration in the USA.

      --
      perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
    231. Re:You're wrong. by freakmn · · Score: 1
      If I download the game and my hard drive crashes, can I reinstall it via Steam to a different hard drive? Yes
      Can I install it to more than one computer if I only play one at a time (ie my desktop machine and my laptop)? Yes, as long as you use the same username for the steam accounts.
      Does it cost anything to have a Steam account other than the initial cost of the game? No, not at this time.From steam subscriber agreement
      4. BILLING, PAYMENT AND OTHER SUBSCRIPTIONS You may become a Subscriber of Steam without paying Valve to access any services, software and other content Valve offers for free. However, Valve or its authorized Steam resellers will charge Subscription fees to access certain services, software and content areas of Steam. You must be a Subscriber of Steam and pay any required Subscription fees to use such services, software and other content. If you must pay a Subscription fee to access part of Steam this information will be posted in the Rules of Use. All fees are stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise specified. You may subscribe by providing us with a valid payment and billing information. Current Subscription fees and other billing information is available at http://www.steampowered.com

      The game has no subscription services at this time, AFAIK. I've not seen problems with half-life 1 or 2 or any of its mods.
      --
      warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
    232. Re:You're wrong. by Methlogin · · Score: 1

      Hmm, so by your logic, if I go out and buy a copy of Mandrake or SUSE, I now own the code and can do anything I want with it and the GPL is null and void cause I own the property the code is stored on?

    233. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I bought some peaches last week, but it turned out that I could only use them once, and then the can started prompting for a registration code whenever the can opener got within three inches of the lid.

      Will it never end? I'm going to have start looking for a GNU brand of peaches.

    234. Re:You're wrong. by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Semantically, yes that's what I said. What I meant was "Shut the fuck up, asshole."

      Seriously, it works with absolutely no problems for me, and it's fun to play. What's your fucking problem? Not all of us are afraid of using money for goods and services.

    235. Re:You're wrong. by drmancini · · Score: 2, Informative

      well ... try your luck here or see the complete FAQ here...

      --

      Never underestimate the power of idiots in large groups
    236. Re:You're wrong. by maximilln · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Valve made it abundantly clear that you had to activate the product and made no effort to conceal that fact

      They're abusing the common perception of a product and misrepresenting a rental as a sale. People buy products. 99% of the population does not buy licenses. Even in geek circles people are generally of the mindset that, if you don't want to play online, you don't need to be online.

      It's all hogwash to feed the lawyers. There is no reality in licensing an intangible product. Either you sell it or you don't. Once companies begin to face reality then society will be a much better place. Rather than wasting their time (and our money) on these useless cat-and-mouse authentication schemes maybe they'll put thought into more effective and controllable distribution.

      The reality is: If you don't want someone to know something, DON'T TELL ANYONE. Once you tell one person you must face the reality that they may tell someone else. Sure, you can waste your life and everyone's time/money trying a legal pursuit... Or you can quit being a dumbass and decide that, if the IP Is really that important, you should keep your mouth shut.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    237. Re:You're wrong. by DarkZero · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Another great thing to do is - buy with your credit card - you get plenty of protection. My mom's fiancee bought a laptop through Dell - didn't use it - but was able to return it two months later for a full refund due to his AMEX card...

      Correction: Do not buy with "your credit card". Buy with "your American Express card". American Express is notorious in retail stores because they defend you more than any other credit card company and even let you charge back a transaction to the store and keep the item (even if it's a large one) if you claim that they didn't let you return it. This includes items that are specifically marked "Open Box -- Final Sale" or "Last One -- Final Sale", because American Express apparently doesn't believe in such things.

      Unfortunately, that's also why not everyone carries American Express, as well as why many people that I know have told me that they pay a premium for American Express in comparison to their other cards.

    238. Re:You're wrong. by EsbenMoseHansen · · Score: 1
      What about the rest of my rights, the ones not related to copying? What about my right to modify the software (for my personal use only)? What about my right to use the software any time I want, internet connection or not?

      I think that would depend on the country in which you live. I wouldn't count on having any of those rights, but you might. Check your local laws.

      The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).

      And that's your license to run GPL'ed software --- at least in Europe, I don't know (anymore) about the US, as I can't say who the "owner" would be.

      PS: In case you doubt it, I totally agree that software running on my own hardware should be mine to do with as I please. The laws are just not made that way, and I am very happy that GPL'ed software makes this possible anyway for a subset of software.

      I also believe that this is only the first step. The next thing will be games run exclusively as an online service, streaming the game data directly to you, with most of the software and game data running on some server. Or something like that. It simply requires a faster internet --- about 20Mbit or so, I'd think. Not too far away... and we can thank all that to thieving pirates :-( May they burn in a hell of their own choosing for that :-(

      PPS: I actually "own" a game who validates it's key against a server when you connect to an online game. *shrug* The game company in this case is just two guys, who seem to be nice folks.

      --
      Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
    239. Re:You're wrong. by zurab · · Score: 2, Informative

      The point I was making is not about what you said here, but about the contracts involved and made during the sales transaction. If you want to make your car analogy, fine - then you cannot buy a used car and at a later point the seller tells you (via the "EULA") that you cannot use your newly purchased car unless you agree to give a ride to the seller's sister to and from work twice a day. Well, unless you expressly agreed to do so during the purchase, it cannot be imposed on you afterwards.

      Indeed if the seller wanted to impose additional restrictions or a new agreement after the sales transaction they would also have to offer new consideration in return; while the buyer would have to have an option to decline the new consideration and simply be stuck with what they agreed to purchase originally.

      i.e. if you wanted to drive the seller's sister twice a day out of goodness of your heart - you could do so but it would not be a legal contract between you and the seller. If you additionally agreed with the seller to drive the seller's sister to work for $35 a day (payable to you) - then that's a consideration from the seller that will likely constitute to a valid contract. But by no means does the seller have an authority to single-handedly impose on you that you have to drive his sister or you cannot use the car you just purchased. The contract law doesn't work that way.

      Regarding what you said - of course, Valve or anyone is free to require and include any activation or copy protection they want in their products - nobody is arguing that - it's just that it cannot be a violation of any EULA if some buyers did not follow those activation rules; simply because unless that EULA provided any additional consideration it cannot be considered a valid contract.

      Disclaimer: IANAL.

    240. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Valve don't know that. All they know is that the SecurRom sofware was cracked. Still could be legit (who wants to do a Full Install and STILL need the CD in there?).

    241. Re:You're wrong. by bnenning · · Score: 1

      But installing software is making a copy. In fact, executing an application makes a copy in RAM. Many EULA grant the right to make these copies.

      Argh. It's amazing how effectively copyright interests have perpetuated this myth. See 17 USC 117. It's not an infringement of copyright to "copy" a program for the purpose of running it, and you don't need a license to do so. Most EULAs gives you *nothing* that you didn't already have, and as such should be struck down due to lack of consideration.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    242. Re: You're wrong. by Bedouin+X · · Score: 1

      Those of you who chose to use the cd crack when you had a valid copy, I call BS. Why in the hell would you do that, its needless, you had a key, and you can play offline.

      Maybe you refer to a CD Key generator, but a no-cd crack is hugely useful for those of us who play lots of games, actually have CDs with useful information on them in our drives, and just want to get a quick game of Half Life 2 in. That is certainly my case. It annoyed me with Doom 3 as well.

      --
      Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
    243. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I have the leaked HL2 source on my computer
      Knock, knock...
    244. Re:You're wrong. by davidescott · · Score: 1

      Yes it is in the public domain. The government cannot hold copyrights (although they can make things ultra super top secret).

    245. Re:You're wrong. by zurab · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Err... one more thing - in your analogy if you paid for and bought a car from a seller, and the car was in good condition and completely operational, but next day the seller calls you and tells you that you cannot keep driving that car unless you agree to lend it to the seller's sister on weekends that would not be a valid agreement and you'd be able to say "no" and go on with your life. The idea is that additional conditions cannot be imposed to you single-handedly after the sales transaction.

      Similarly, if any seller activation scheme requires the buyer to give up something (money, rights, whatever) and doesn't give anything in return, and doesn't have an option for the buyer to reject it, then that cannot be a valid contract either.

      This all is assuming that you agree that you are actually buying a copy of the game at the store. Alternatively, you can argue that you are just buying a coaster in a box when you buy software - I don't know how realistic that argument would be, however.

    246. Re:You're wrong. by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      You can negotiate. You can agree or disagree with the EULA.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    247. Re:You're wrong. by terrymr · · Score: 1

      Stealing is taking something with the intent to permanently deprive the rightful owner of it.

    248. Re:You're wrong. by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      Trolls?

      And if there is "no reality in renting an intangible object which can be easily replicated," how the fuck is blockbuster still open?

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    249. Re:You're wrong. by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 4, Insightful
      And twenty years of software sales says you're wrong

      I am too tired to join this Valve/Steam fray, especially that I had my fight in it already, days ago, even before this 20k account fiasco hit the fan. But this particularly illogical part of your argument caught my eye. Someone on ./ here has a great sig, something to the effect of "Lets eat more shit! After all millions of flies cannot be wrong!"

      You should ponder this in light of countless times in our history when far worse stupidities were accepted as "common sense" for far longer then 20 years by millions of people. Popularity and longevity of something does not have a slightest bearing on its validity and morality.

    250. Re:You're wrong. by terrymr · · Score: 1

      Sorry that's not true.

      Selling a defective product constitutes breach of contract by the seller. Remedies for breach of contract in this case include a refund & payment of damages to the customer.

      An "all sales are final" notice just means that non-defective items can't be returned.

    251. Re:You're wrong. by dbretton · · Score: 1

      Will they pay me for the legal costs incurred in having a lawyer read the whole thing and explain me the legal implications of the EULA (Since it's unlikelly that a layman can fully understand the meaning of the EULA)?

      Hazard of the territory I suppose. IMHO you're being unreasonable.


      Actually, if the EULA is written such that the average person is unable to understand the terms of the contract, then one could (successfully, in court) argue that the EULA is unenforceable in its entirety, and only certain portions are enforceable. IANAL, but you may even be able to argue that the entire EULA is invalid for the same reason.

      Do i have a full lifetime guarantee that i can give it back if have never installed their product and disagree with the License Agreement?
      No, because that's absurd.


      This is not really absurd. Let's say I purchase some piece of software, like MS Office. However, I don't get around to installing it for whatever reason (like my Dell PC is out for repairs for 6 months due to an Asian floogenbinder shortage).
      Upon return of my PC, I install MS Office and !?whoa?! ; here's some EULA to which they want me to agree.
      If I then say, "No", what happens? Am I SOL?

      I think that this is a very interesting situation!

      As a consumer, I am protected by basic state and federal consumer protection laws (I believe MGL 93A for those of you in MA).

      In exchange for money, it is implied that I am not only acquiring the product (i.e. owner's manuals, media, etc), but the ability to utilize the product for its intended purpose. The take-away here is the implied usage, usually termed "implied fitness for a particular use".

      You are purchasing a product with an implied fitness, based upon the seller's marketing of the product. Since the presence of additional restrictions on the product was not open or notorious, you can argue that the seller or the manufacturer (or probably both) have not: 1) expressed the full terms of the contract prior to sale, and as a result, 2) are violating the implied warranty of fitness of the product in question.

      That being said, you are probably entitled to a refund from the seller. However, I would think that the manufacturer would also be willing to issue you a refund, as a court battle could possibly render a decision which definitively states that the EULA is an unenforceable contract.

    252. Re:You're wrong. by aussie_a · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You must be heaving really bad luck with having programs revoked from you. It appears you have had all of your spell checkers revoked as well. Any idea when you'll be getting those back?

    253. Re:You're wrong. by codermotor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You need to stop validating a broken so-called authentication system (read software rental system) - one pretty much unique (so far) to software.

      If I buy a box on a store shelf (I haven't and I won't) purportedly containing media with a legal and fully functioning copy of HL2, I expect to get just that. What I don't expect to find is that, after paying $50+ for that legal copy of the game, I have to ask yet again for permission to play it (use the product), even in single-player mode on a box not even connected to the Internet!

      Having been around software probably longer than most here have been alive, I am not exactly naive about how software is distributed in the context of licensing agreements. So, I expect to find some document either inside the box or displayed during the course of product installation telling me that, among other restrictions(1), I am not supposed to install the game on more than one box at a time or to distribute copies to others. Big deal, those "Terms of Use" documents have been around for years. And, generally speaking, I don't have problems with such reasonable terms.

      And forget all the arguments about "Well, it's no different than Everquestish games" or "Publishers have been doing this for n years". HL2 is not Everquest. It's more like Doom 3. I don't have to ask id for an account to play D3 and I don't see them going out of business. And just because someone's gotten away with doing something questionable doesn't mean it's right or acceptable.

      It looks to me that the Steam Scheme(tm) is not too different from renting cable. Without the monthly fee. The guy I'm renting from can turn off the service anytime he wants for any reason at all. If Valve/Vivendi decide for some arbitrary reason that I shouldn't be able to play anymore because I've somehow offended them, I'm screwed: "Sorry, the server is busted", "Sorry, we think you cheat", "Sorry, someone wrote a crack which just happened to use your key among many", or "Sorry, we don't care to support this game now, maybe you should try our New Game - lookie here, we'll rent you that too!", and "Oh, by the way, we really don't give a fuck what your side of the story is".

      If you think I'm whining, I don't really GAF. I'm whining with my wallet. I really want to try HL2, but not under the current Steam Scheme(tm). I'll wait till someone does a practical crack so I can at least play single player, and then I'll buy the game but play with the crack. In any case, it's not like there aren't other games out there. I've got thousands of dollars worth of stuff to play - all of which I bought off a store shelf. And they all still work!

      I'd also like to comment on all those aguments saying "Steam just keeps pirates from stealing the game". Bullshit. Copyright violation is not stealing. It's Copyright violation. Depriving someone of a sale is not necessarily depriving them of property. Neither is illegal copying piracy. No vehicles were hijacked, no planks walked, noone murdered or raped. You can call copying stealing and piracy all you want, but it doesn't make it so. If you get caught illegally copying, you won't get charged with either theft, or piracy, you'll get charged for illegal copying.

      (1) Just because there are all kinds of intmidating legalese in the "license" doesn't necessarily make it either legal or binding, whether or not you agree to it. On the other hand, if you don't agree, the publisher doesn't have to sell you the product. That's just like in a brick and mortar business. The problem with such software agreements is that you've already given them your money before you know the terms, and you'll usually play hell getting that money back, if at all, if you don't agree to those terms.

    254. Re:You're wrong. by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      While I haven't had the same experience as my mom's fiancee' with a two month waiting period. I do have a Citibank Visa (or mastercard, it changed and I never pay attention)....I purchased a gun with holster. The store refused to take the holser back. After I spoke to Citibank they took it back. I have had a number of situations in the past and each time they forced the company to take it back. Maybe different credit card companies offer different protection services - but at least I can vouch for Citibank, MBNA and AMEX - so I presume many other companies offer this (to stay competative).

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    255. Re:You're wrong. by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      It's not a matter of "common sense". It's a matter of "until someone challenges it, that's the way it is - deal".

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    256. Re:You're wrong. by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Copying a videocasette is slightly more involved than copying computer software (or mp3s, what have you)

      Videocassettes and DVDs are tangible, and it would cost me a ton of money to make 10,000 duplications of them.
      Software on the other hand only costs me as much as the hard drive space it takes up, and hard drive space is mighty cheap these days.

    257. Re:You're wrong. by dr.badass · · Score: 1

      there's at least 50% chance you'll get to play the game you bought.

      No. If you bought the game, the chance you'll get to play it is like 99%. If you stole the game, the chance you'll get to play it is significantly lower.

      --
      Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
    258. Re:You're wrong. by JesusPGT · · Score: 1

      I dunno how it works for retail, prolly similar, but I bought mine off of steam.

      A steam account is free.

      If you download it and your hd dies, then yes you can just re-download it again using your steam account. As far as the "more than one computer" thing, don't really know. My guess is that whichever computer you Activated the game on last is the only one that can play HL at a time. Thing is, you can play offline mode through steam with hl2, so I don't know if you can somehow rig it to where one's activated but playing offline while another uses it normally or something.

      But for me, the bottom line is that I bought the game the friday before it came out, preloaded all of it by sunday, and was playing it when I got home from work on tuesday. Oh yea, and it's mad fun. I guess I place more emphasis on enjoyment than nitpicking about every possible way they could screw me.

      It's worked well so far, so all the people who have been screwed, all I can say is that it sucks to be you, and I'm glad that I'm not you.

    259. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem you describe is not unique to Steam, or even games. What if someone sniffs your Slashdot account? How is that different?

      Account hijackings are quite rare. Steam is not significantly less secure than any other system.

    260. Re:You're wrong. by xgamer04 · · Score: 1

      Well said. People who believe this need to start organizing and make thier voices heard.

      --
      When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
    261. Re:You're wrong. by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1
      It's not a matter of "common sense". It's a matter of "until someone challenges it, that's the way it is - deal".

      Myself and many others have been "challenging" this "Intellectual Property" BS for a long time now. It is not a matter of challenge but a matter of brute force. The people who managed to usurp control over the legal processes in most industrialized countries, that is the corporations, are making laws that benefit them primarilly. It will take a serious political power shift before this will come to an end, and that will only occur if the public becomes less ignorant and willing to accept the corporate propaganda as fact. The way things are at the moment, with corporations running news and education, it will be a long time in coming.

      It is frightening how many people here are willing to take side of a company whose "product" amounts to inconsequential enterntainment fluff and yet who deems itself important enough to take away people's rights for the dubious priviledge of playing their "game". This Valve/Steam thing is in my opinion but a taste of far worse excesses to come culminating in total removal of any rights consumers have and granting all rights to the corporations as the only "citizens" of consequence. Perheaps then a sccessful "challenge" will be made if it is not too late.

    262. Re:You're wrong. by xgamer04 · · Score: 1

      ...and photocopied the sections of the book for the occasion of receiving a ticket. Oops. Guess I broke some copyright laws there.

      That sounds awfully catch-22ish. On a side note, I think all laws should be legally required to be available on an electronic medium (say CD-ROM) for public use. This way, we aren't wasting money on $800 hard copies and anyone with access to a computer can read up on whatever law they need to know about.

      --
      When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
    263. Re:You're wrong. by dr.badass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would anyone put up with this crap?

      People put up with it because the likelyhood that there will be an authentication problem is very small. Less than the chance of having some kind of hardware incompatability or glitch; something PC gamers already deal with all of the time, and gladly.

      Remember, the people that Valve is cracking down on are people who are too cheap to buy the game. They aren't customers, and Valve has little incentive to treat them as though they were.

      --
      Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
    264. Re:You're wrong. by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 0, Troll

      They shut down the WON servers about 2 months after they got steam working properly. Get a steam installer and use your cd key from your original HL disk to play. Valve doesnt owe you for your own stupidity and ignorance.

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
    265. Re: You're wrong. by dbretton · · Score: 1

      Companies don't sell software; they never have. They sell the license to use their software. You don't own Windows, or Half-Life, or any other copyrighted software; you're bound by the license agreement, and all you own is what that agreement gives you.

      Q: Sir, did you exchange something of consideration for your copy of Half-Life 2?
      A: Yes.

      Q: What was it?
      A: Money. $49.99

      Q: Where and when did it occur?
      A: Nov 20, 2004 at Wal-Mart.

      Q: What were you under the impression that you were purchasing?
      A: A video game that I could play.

      Q: Did Wal-Mart advertise this game as something that you could play upon purchase?
      A: Yes.

      Q: Did Wal-Mart make you aware of any additional restrictions or conditions contingent upon the purchase?
      A: No.

      Q: Did Wal-Mart tell you that the game was not playable unless you agreed to additional terms specified on the game's media?
      A: No.

      Q: At any time after this purchase, was there any consideration exchanged?
      A: No.

      Q: When you attempted to play your game, what happened?
      A: The game said I had to agree to an EULA before I could be allowed to install and play the game.

      Q: Could you use the game at all without agreeing to the EULA?
      A: No.

      To paraphrase Hitler, the EULA is just a scrap of bits.

      You've already purchased the game, and with it the implied ability to play it. In exchange, you gave consideration to the amount of $49.99. The manufacturer/publisher then is attempting to change your existing contract without exchange of consideration.

      Even if you disagree, the manufacturer/publisher cannot restrict your rights, and you are entitled to compensation (specific performance does not apply here).

    266. Re:You're wrong. by woozlewuzzle · · Score: 1

      Ah yes,

      Two wrongs *do* make a right. Guess I forgot that part from ethics class.

    267. Re:You're wrong. by ShawnMcCool42 · · Score: 0

      Hallelujah

    268. Re:You're wrong. by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 1

      Oh, if only it were legal and ethical to do so. Then again, I might just get a really good lawyer.

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
    269. Re:You're wrong. by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 1

      You lied about not replying.
      Bad monkey!

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
    270. Re:You're wrong. by cortana · · Score: 1

      If I lose my slashdot account, well I don't give a crap.

      If I lose my Steam account, I have lost access to all the games on it, forever. If I want to play them again, I have to buy them again.

    271. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you have the same experience before you were your mom's fiancee?

      Hmm - must live in a red state ;-)

    272. Re:You're wrong. by cortana · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, other systems are designed to help prevent account hijacking. For example, no one can steal my mail account details because the authentication takes place over SSL. Does Steam protect my account details in a similar manner?

    273. Re:You're wrong. by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      I bought a phone, and it didn't work.

      Turns out I need some special "phone company" to turn on my service.

      Bastards.

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    274. Re:You're wrong. by starm_ · · Score: 1

      ha ha thats like using liquid paper on a contract

    275. Re:You're wrong. by LS · · Score: 1

      I agree with you - you should be able to do anything you want with a physical object in YOUR posession. Of course, most would disagree with me, since I take this to it's logical conclusion - the hard drive in my computer is MINE, so I can arrange the magnetic polarities any damn way I choose, even if the polarities are in an order than happens to be the same as a commercial piece of software.

      LS

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    276. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oooh, yeah! And this is my car... I'm going to go get drunk and run over some people, because its my property and my right to do with it as I please!

      Common... there are laws and restrictions everywhere, thats just the way it is. Man naturally tries to get ahead and beat the system any way he can, the easier the better. People are indeed trying to steal HL2, and if they are allowed to do so what incentive is there for producers to create games?

    277. Re:You're wrong. by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Picking only on the lifetime return policy (the rest seems pretty solid):

      It *is* absurd. A term like a year may be fine, but lifetime in not a reasonable assumption. How would a company possibly be expected to forcast things like this. At some point they need to be able to say "we will never see this product returned en masse".

      An interesting hybrid approach may be: returnable for teh usable life of the product or 6 months, which ever is greater, with usable life being defined as "untill the next version comes out".
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    278. Re:You're wrong. by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

      I bought Doom3 and the third CD was bad. I couldn't install it. I spent two hours trying every CD-ROM drive I have to see if I can get the cheaply produced disk to work. Eventually, I give up and download the third ISO from a warez site and use Daemon tools to mount it to finish the install.

      Anyway, when I finally go to run the game, it notices that I have CD Emulation software enabled and refuses to run. I disable Daemon tools, but the game still refuses to load. Eventually, I give up and install the no-CD patched .exe (which even works fine with Daemon tools loaded).

      Anyway, this is just one example of where the overall experience would be better for the warez user than it is for the legitimate consumer. Also note that if I stole a boxed copy of the game from a store, I would have the same lame experience as the purchaser. The only way to get the good experience is to download the game from a warez group.

      --
      My other first post is car post.
    279. Re:You're wrong. by freakmn · · Score: 1

      Lying, in which way? I am unclear about whether they were lying about it being there, or about it not. I see people responding in both ways. Thanks.

      --
      warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
    280. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why wouldn't it? Do you think that if it was sent in plaintext or using a weak encryption, that we wouldn't have heard holy hell raised about people whos' accounts were stolen?

      Please, can we just ASSUME for the moment that valve did something requiring baseline intelligence and incorporated strong encryption into their package?

    281. Re:You're wrong. by youBastrd · · Score: 1
      ... Valve were selling empty boxes....

      Sometime's there's ammo inside the boxes. :)

      (ba dum-dum tish!)

      --
      No one has ever fired for blaming Microsoft.
    282. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The courts and lawyers of Valve don't care that you don't care what the EULA says. The EULA says ______, and you clicked "I Agree". That's all that matters.

      Let me guess ... you use Linux -- right, you hippie?

    283. Re:You're wrong. by Barbarian · · Score: 1

      If you bought the game, and someone else had already opened it and stole the cd-key, you can mail it to Valve and they'll issue you a new one (and deactivate the other guy).

    284. Re:You're wrong. by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      Who cares about ethics? Valve certainly doesn't. Making their customers jump through hoops to play the single player part of the game, and all, while pirates happily download it and play it without activation.

      Yeah, ethics... I've heard it's only for private individuals, and not for corporations these days.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    285. Re:You're wrong. by sekicho · · Score: 1

      Actually, this should say: "If you violate our unilaterally-imposed terms, we keep your money and you lose the game." This is clearly in violation of contract law and common sense, and Valve would lose if anyone cared to bring it to court.

    286. Re:You're wrong. by ryanmfw · · Score: 2, Funny

      More like buying a can of peaches, finding out that you don't really know what peaches are, and trying to blame it all on the grocer.

      Look, even most of /. disagrees with you, and this is about a game we all want to play freely, without this activation junk. But still, most people here see that Valve is acting within it's rights. That's a pretty strong indicator.

      Cheers,
      Ryan

      --
      Hurricane Ivan: A 17th century prison collapsed. All of the inmates escaped.
    287. Re: You're wrong. by ryanmfw · · Score: 1

      Uh, considering that you do in fact know the terms before you are bound to the agreement, your argument is fallacious. Essentially, your argument is that a grocery store must define what peaches are to you, before you buy them. Doesn't reall work man, although I do understand your point of view. :-) Cheers, Ryan

      --
      Hurricane Ivan: A 17th century prison collapsed. All of the inmates escaped.
    288. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clicking an "I Agree" button does not make it so in a court of law, you fucking dumbshit.

      Please remove yourself from the gene pool, people as stupid as you should not be allowed to live.

    289. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The copyright laws are still in place, no matter what. You have the right to do what you want with it except if it violates the laws.

    290. Re:You're wrong. by TyfStar · · Score: 1

      So have they made any sort of provision for people to sell their account when they beat the game? Just out of curiosity.. would love to know.

      --

      "There is a reason Linux is free"

      ~me~

    291. Re:You're wrong. by cortana · · Score: 1

      When it comes to security, assume nothing. Especially when you are dealing with either Microsoft, or a games programmer. :)

    292. Re:You're wrong. by AusG4 · · Score: 1

      There's another option here too. You're pissed because their activation requirement, which is not mentioned anywhere on the box, took 4 hours to authorize you to play the damn game in the first place. I don't think it's irrational to be upset about having your time wasted.

      Agreed, and if you read through the posting instead of just reacting, you'd notice that I grant that if an activation scheme is clearly inconvenient (such as Steam's current crap-shoot reliability), then clearly there is an issue.

      The problem is, the average /. reader has been told by so-called visionaries like LT that an activation scheme is evil, no matter it's form. If an activation scheme is convenient, assures the developer is paid for their work and allows you to play your game when you want, then what's the problem?

      The problem, is that all to often, one license per machine turns into "meh, I'll just install it on every machine I own... oh, and my friend wants to play too.". Suddenly, the vendor is saying "Hey, our activation system isn't going to let you copy that single purchase to all your friends and every machine you own." and next thing you know, someone is up on their horse on /. crying bloody murder that evil corporations should be punished for, you know, making great products and expecting to be compensated fairly for their work.

      If my employer decided to pay me for an hour a day and then just sort of expected me to put in the other 7, I'd be pretty pissed... wouldn't you? Would you be confused if your employer couldn't understand your problem? Would be you even more pissed if they then called up all their friends and bitched about their evil employee who demands compensation for his time?

      If you poke a dog with a stick, it'll eventually bite you, no matter how good natured it is. People can't swap CD's with their friends willy-nilly and not eventually expect the people who make the content on those CD's to try to prevent you. I'm not at all suggesting that you (either the reader or the parent) do this, but enough people do that clearly, the industry has felt the need to retaliate. Then suddenly it's the evil Valve and evil Microsoft and evil "insert-other-whipping-boy-of-the-month" for daring to make a product and have the nerve to try to charge for it.

      --
      bash-3.00$ uname -a
      SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
    293. Re:You're wrong. by SCVirus · · Score: 1

      "Will the grocer give you a discount because you had to go to the trouble of getting to the store?"
      In most cases it is cheaper then delivery from the same store. If your gonna troll troll right man. *braces for trolling*

    294. Re:You're wrong. by AusG4 · · Score: 1

      "caveat emptor".

      Is it MS's fault that NT4 pre-SP3 was a little flakey. Of course.

      Is it this guys fault for not having an exit strategy in case a whole-sale OS upgrade didn't work as expected? You bet your ass, it is.

      Sounds like he got away with a doozy.

      That said, the fact that MS settled only proves that they determined it would be cheaper to fix his machine and give him a refund then pay their lawyers. Lawyers are probably just as expensive in London as they are here in Toronto.

      I wouldn't read into this too much.

      --
      bash-3.00$ uname -a
      SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
    295. Re: You're wrong. by Frobnicator · · Score: 4, Informative
      Have you (legally) bought any software that wasn't licensed? Companies don't sell software; they never have. They sell the license to use their software. You don't own Windows, or Half-Life, or any other copyrighted software; you're bound by the license agreement, and all you own is what that agreement gives you.
      No. You own a copy of the software, exactly the same as if you own a copy of a book. You don't have to believe me or anyone else on the matter. Check out for yourself how the appeals court for Valve's area has ruled that software purchase it is a sale, not a licence, even with the EULA.

      Specifically, from their court ruling,

      Because we look to the economic realities of the agreement, the fact that the agreement labels itself a "license" and calls the payments "royalties," both terms that arguably imply periodic payment for the use rather than sale of technology, does not control our analysis. .... Other courts have reached the same conclusion: software is sold and not licensed. .... In particular, the following factors require a finding that distributing software under licenses transfers individual copy ownership: temporally unlimited possession, absence of time limits on copy possession, pricing and payment schemes that are unitary not serial, licenses under which subsequent transfer is neither prohibited nor conditioned on obtaining the licensor's prior approval (only subject to a prohibition against rental and a requirement that any transfer be of the entity), and licenses under which the use restrictions principal purpose is to protect intangible copyrightable subject matter, and not to preserve property interests in individual program copies.

      So unless Valve lawyers are going to try to challenge the district appeals court, The individual own that copy. I can smell the lawsuits in the works.

      frob

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    296. Re:You're wrong. by AusG4 · · Score: 1

      I'd also like to comment on all those aguments saying "Steam just keeps pirates from stealing the game". Bullshit. Copyright violation is not stealing. It's Copyright violation. Depriving someone of a sale is not necessarily depriving them of property. Neither is illegal copying piracy. No vehicles were hijacked, no planks walked, noone murdered or raped. You can call copying stealing and piracy all you want, but it doesn't make it so. If you get caught illegally copying, you won't get charged with either theft, or piracy, you'll get charged for illegal copying.

      And this is the very logic that lead to the origin of the activation system. You can't advocate for the problem, then bitch about someone elses solution.

      Valve/MS/Sun/Whoever don't care how you try to justify NOT paying them for what you should morally be obligated to pay them for. All they know is that they sold one copy of a product, and suddenly, 3 copies are in use.

      Since you seem so thoughtful, why not spend time devising a system that allows everyone in the process to be fairly involved, be it vendor, distributor or consumer? The violator of copy law really shouldn't have a place in the transaction, should (s)he?

      It's always easier to complain.

      Or, you could just be a crackpot advocating that nobody make software for money. It's not like there aren't a few of those around.

      --
      bash-3.00$ uname -a
      SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
    297. Re:You're wrong. by lowrydr310 · · Score: 1
      My point is that I wasn't aware of any widespread problem with people being unable to play because their key was already in use (illegally).

      I was under the impression that the WON authentication server worked fine keeping most of the hackers/crackerz away. In my experience (prior to buying a copy) all the generated keys I tried got rejected by the WON server.

      I don't remember offhand how many digits the CD key to HalfLife is (16? 20? 24?) but with 36 possible characters for each digit, there are a lot of key combinations.

      Now my next task is to get my burner settings correct to defeat SafeDisc and create a legitimate backup of another game!

    298. Re:You're wrong. by Alan · · Score: 1

      Well, if you bought HL several years ago you'd have gotten it on CD (ie: before steam), and indicating that steam was the cause meant to me you plugged the key into steam and got the HL installed via steam, right?

      If this is correct, nothing should have prevented you from re-installing the game via the original CD. You weren't prevented from playing the game you bought, you were prevented from playing the game you bought USING THEIR NETWORK, which was obviously down for some reason. This sucks, but definately shouldn't have prevented you from playing completely. Of course I don't know the details but based on your post this is what I'm guessing.

      However, with HL2 this is actually a problem, because now you HAVE to authenticate with steam to play the game (though I think I've seen posts saying it's ok to play in offline mode). If this is the case then suddenly you can be prevented from playing something you bought because the steam servers are DOSsed or rebooted or whatever.

    299. Re:You're wrong. by dcam · · Score: 1

      I reckon it is a pretty poor idea.

      Laws are complicated for a reason. They do complex things. They try (imperfectly) to provide justice in a huge variety of circumstances. Cut down the number of laws, and all you succeed in doing is making the law even less just.

      I am all for simplifying the law where appropriate, but to set an abitrary limit (and such a small one at that) is just silly. I can't imagine you'd fit even 10% of the laws regarding personal tax (let alone corporations tax) in 200 pages @ 12pt.

      I may be biased as both my father and sister are lawyers.

      --
      meh
    300. Re:You're wrong. by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      there is nothing wrong with modifying a contract prior to signing it.

      I was executor for an estate and signed a life insurance benefits claim by crossing out virtually the entire thing before signing it and mailing it back. The only things I left on it were my name, address, the fact that the deceased person did not smoke and that I was telling the truth and gave the insurance company permission to keep whatever information they had. (which would be their right to do anyway, but it was necessary to leave the paragraph gramatically correct after I crossed out most of the rest of it). The insurance company first sent a letter saying they were directing the claim to their legal department. 3 days letter they sent the cheque without comment. It was for 6 figures.

      The original agreement they wanted me to sign gave them permission to do obtain medical information as well as any other information on the deceased person from any institution or any person, and required me to provide the names of every doctor the deceased had ever visited in 10 years prior to death, as well as every hospital they were ever treated at.

      I felt that if they wanted to do background checks they should get permission from the buyer of the life insurance at the time of purchase and not retroactively.

      Unfortunately the buyer of the life insurance policy is now deceased. They should have thought about that before agreeing to insure that persons life.

      It was the "any other information" clause which really pissed me off and convinced me not to cooperate in any way beyond what is minimally required to allow them to make payment.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    301. Re:You're wrong. by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      Blah blah blah. More of the "corporation run the country" bullshit.

      No kidding. Then fight. If you're already fighting, keep fighting.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    302. Re:You're wrong. by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1

      They shut down the WON servers about 2 months after they got steam working properly.

      What do you mean? Steam STILL doesn't work properly. If it did, a friend of mine wouldn't have had to wait two freakin' hours to activate the game.

    303. Re:You're wrong. by nial-in-a-box · · Score: 1
      Totally right. That comment by Michael was not helpful at all, as it is essentially paranoia. I agree that we have to be very skeptical of who we trust, especially as the individual can easily be ripped off or otherwise abused. Besides potential abuses, the Steam system is about as close to ideal as possible for any user with a fast internet connection. It's really nice to hop on a computer in a lab at school or at work when you have downtime and be up and playing a game with no CD in a few minutes. As far as I know, Valve is OK with that because even if I leave the game installed on many computers, I can only use one copy at a time.

      I could have griped to Valve earlier when Steam first came out and I couldn't get on with the CD key that I legally owned, but then I reminded myself that I had given that key out in the past and it was probably because of that lapse in judgment that I could no longer take advantage of it.

      The bottom line is Valve is not out to screw people. They have a good system, one that I hope will go well beyond games. If they make a mistake, they'll fix it for you. I watched my roommate coax a CD key out of a Valve customer service rep last year for absolutely nothing. All he had to say was that he had a legit copy of the game and still couldn't get on. Maybe they're tougher now, but who cares? And who bought Half-Life 2 in a store anyway?

      --
      I am feeling fat and sassy
    304. Re:You're wrong. by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1

      Wrong wrong wrong. Absolutely brimming over with wrongability.

      Despite what sheep like you believe, to be "theft" you have to DEPRIVE THE OWNER OF THE ITEM and be in SOLE POSESSION OF IT, which clearly is not the case with software.

      Just because you say something is theft, doesn't make it so.

    305. Re:You're wrong. by necrotic · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry we ran out of ID ten tango forms long ago. Quite a demand it seems.

    306. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in the UK. A retailer has the duty to ensure that goods be of "merchantable quality".

      If I find that the product does not meet the claims on the packaging, or just does not work as could be reasonably expected (again, based on information from advertising and packaging, not hidden somewhere on www.steampowered.com, or even inside the shrinkwrap), I am entitled to a full refund without question. It is then up to the retailer to harass Vivendi Universal on their own behalf, for having sold defective products, since the purchased box comes from VU. Deciding this would lie with the courts.

      Of course, if the court found in favour of the retailer here, it becomes VU's problem. Since the non-functionality of the product in this case is down to Valve's actions through the Steam network, it would then be up to VU to pursue Valve over the issue.
      I should stress that it would take a hell of a lot of retail returns for this scenario to develop, but, given all the fun they're having in U.S. court at the moment they might take care to limit the ammunition they give Vivendi..

    307. Re:You're wrong. by drew · · Score: 1

      actually i would have figured turbo tax 2002 to be useless after april 15th, 2003. Hopefully Half-Life 2 will have a longer lifespan than that....

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    308. Re:You're wrong. by horza · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So you believe you'd have no problems buying a game and then using someone else's CD key? Hah!

      Uh? I do this with friends all the time with Half Life 1. We've bought more copies than we have people that play it. What's the problem?

      Fact of the matter is, there's no excuse to pirate this game, and Valve took the logical step that they can to protect their property. Don't even try to front like you've got any ethical ground to stand on.

      How is using someone else's CD key pirating the game if you've bought an original copy?

      The fact is that Valve have messed up big time. I don't know how they could throw away so much goodwill that they bought with HL1. Everyone who has bought HL2 will want to go online at some point, at which point they will need a valid key. What morons are still left in the software industry that haven't learned:
      * don't require the CD in the drive - much as your precious software is *your* baby, we have several hundred other bits of software just as important to us stacked all over the house
      * no hardware dongles - again, your software isn't the only one we use. Can you imagine trying to plug a dozen dongles into one parallel port, ignoring the usual screwing up of the printer
      * no online activation - we don't all have Internet, and those of us that do don't trust being able to connect to servers. Steam sucks, I've lost count of the number of times I couldn't access CS for days at a time.

      I'm going to hold off buying HL2 for a few months, and if they don't change their tune then I'm sure a new title will come out I can purchase instead.

      Phillip.

    309. Re:You're wrong. by Trauma_Hound1 · · Score: 0

      Whomever modded this insightful is a dumbass.

      --
      Don't Vote for Norm Dicks! http://www.nodicks2008.com Another nutless dirtbag that voted for the FISA bill!
    310. Re:You're wrong. by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      Amen to that. I'm not going to play HL2 as long as this "activation" thing exists.

      As soon as I can buy the game, install it, and play it without ever needing to activate it or have an internet connection, they'll get my business. Not before.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    311. Re:You're wrong. by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      $800???

      It would have been cheaper to just use a $500 cheap laptop and copy the files on there to 'rent' or 'read'.

      Why are 90% of people no smarter than any 5 year old

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    312. Re: You're wrong. by rpdillon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, his point is the same point I made in an article I wrote concerning adhesion contracts:

      It is not reasonable to expect someone to pay money for something whose use is restricted by a contract whose terms are not known at the point of sale. That's essentially saying:

      "I'll sell you this software, but you can only use it in ways that are specifically outlined in this contract that's in the drawer over there. That contract may also say things about certain information you have to give me about yourself before you can use the software. In fact, I'm not even selling you the software, I'm licensing the software to you. And no, you can't see the contract or terms of said license until you pay me for the software."

      Combined this with the fact that you often cannot return the software to the guy who sold it to you, and instead have to call the manufacturer, get an RMA, and then pay for packaging and postage to to send it back, I'd say that is a pretty unreasonable deal for the customer.

      The point here is that with software, you are basically coerced into pressing "I Agree" because of the non-trivial amount of time necessary to read and agree to the EULA, as well as the time and money required to return it to a publisher, all occuring after your money is in someone else's hands. You must remember, as long as you hold the money, you have a certain measure of bargaining power. After you let go of the money, you are basically at the mercy of a company's good will. This is why companies are eager to get you to part with your money as quickly as possible, and as early in the process, with the least amount of information as possible.

      I argue that any software company MUST make the terms of any contract readily accessible as the point of sale, BEFORE and money changes hands. There will still be unfair bargaining power in favor of the publisher (as was cited by a judge on 30 Sept in the bnetd case - mainly because that particular publisher is the only source of legal licenses for that software), but at least it will be more balanced than it is now.

      Your peaches analogy is not appropriate in this context, because peaches are a consumable that has no license, and whose condition is apparent at the point of sale. Neither of these conditions hold for software.

    313. Re: You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I own all the software I've bought. I don't care what the company selling it thinks it's done. I bought it. I own it. The end.

    314. Re: You're wrong. by Poseidon88 · · Score: 1
      No. You own a copy of the software, exactly the same as if you own a copy of a book. You don't have to believe me or anyone else on the matter. Check out for yourself how the appeals court for Valve's area has ruled that software purchase it is a sale, not a licence, even with the EULA.

      Excellent point, except your example is from a California circuit court. Valve is in Washington. Here's a case that is slightly more relevant: M. A. Mortenson Company, Inc. v. Timberline Software Corp. & Softworks Data Systems

      To summarize, a software license agreement, in which the developer set out liability limits, was held as a binding contract and the plaintiff's case was dismissed. The decision was further upheld in both the Superior and Supreme courts of Washington State.

    315. Re:You're wrong. by Danse · · Score: 1

      The problem, is that all to often, one license per machine turns into "meh, I'll just install it on every machine I own... oh, and my friend wants to play too.".

      I agree that that's a problem, but it's not the only one, and the problems are not limited to copyright violations of the would-be customers. Perhaps if software vendors would create realistic licenses they would be enforceable. Right now they try to do everything but take your first born, don't let you read them before purchase, make it all but impossible to get your money back in many cases, and cause you headaches whenever something goes wrong with their authorization systems. As far as I'm concerned, the vendors are as badly behaved as the customers. Maybe things can get worked out, but both sides will have to be at the table. Otherwise we just end up with both sides pursuing vigilante justice, as we've been seeing.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    316. Re:You're wrong. by kayen_telva · · Score: 1

      http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.h tml

    317. Re:You're wrong. by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      You were SOLD a LICENSE.

      That's not something that you can argue, because that's how it legally works.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    318. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you don't have to uninstall it on one machine before installing it on another machine (unless you have some fetish or neurosis that requires you to do so.)

      Just install it on both of them duh.

      You just can't log into the same Steam account from both machines at the same time.

    319. Re:You're wrong. by JW+Troll · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the Steam network dies, does that mean I get a refund? Asking as more a point of intellectual curiosity, since the Steam network has been down for some time now.. and the poor suckers who paid good money for HL2 are now unable even to play single-player mode without "authentication" that they won't get until Valve fixes their entire system. Which won't happen anytime soon.

      So basically, you think everybody should be fucked. How intriguing.

      --
      just like the humble blood clot... turboporsche@telus.net
    320. Re:You're wrong. by Ralph+Yarro · · Score: 1

      The box says nothing about Steam, nothing about having to agree to some set of conditions, nothing about having to sign on to some service.

      It does, in the system requirements which are on the back of the box on the lower left hand side, say that you need to have an internet connection.

      --

      The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
    321. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill Gates, is that you?

    322. Re:You're wrong. by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Well, that's how the comany claims it works.

      Personally, my interpretation of the deal is that I was sold a copy. Any attempt to withold my reasonable use of the product is not a legal right they have.

    323. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what the US law is, but in Australia when you purchase a product, it has to be of merchantable quality. So if it has been disabled, then its not a working product, which means it is not of merchantable quality and you entitled to a refund (Trade Practices Act and corresponding state legislation). These consumer rights are implied in every sale and can not be overuled contractually, so the contents of the agreement is irrelevent.

    324. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure we could buy through Steam - take a guess how long it would take to pre-load HL2 on 90 machines. Go ahead. Guess. Answer - WEEKS.

      Sure, if you're an idiot and letting it preload onto all 90 machines directly from Steam.

      If you've got the slightest clue you could just preload it on one machine and then just transfer those files to the remaining machines on your network.

      In fact I'll bet that the management software Valve provides to remotely manage Steam installs provides an automated way of doing just that. After all they'd probably prefer that just one of your 90 systems downloads the necessary files from Steam servers instead of having all of your systems eat up their bandwidth and yours.

    325. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " So you believe you'd have no problems buying a game and then using someone else's CD key... Fact of the matter is, there's no excuse to pirate this game"

      This is the kind of logic I would expect from the SCO legal team.

      If you have paid for the game then you are not pirating the game. The fact that you are using a different CD key does not make you a pirate. Its copying and using the game without paying for it that makes one a pirate.

    326. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah and that's what is going to fuck Valve over in the medium term. They have no right disabling people's legitimate access to a game they paid for just because they tried to make a copy for someone else. It's called vigilantism and it's illegal. All we need is a laywer clever enough to make it stick.

    327. Re:You're wrong. by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      Many stores accept returns, actually. It's a well-known way to get access to extra CD keys.

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    328. Re:You're wrong. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      PS: In case you doubt it, I totally agree that software running on my own hardware should be mine to do with as I please. The laws are just not made that way, and I am very happy that GPL'ed software makes this possible anyway for a subset of software.
      That's good, but I'm still uncertain of something. The GPL can't make that possible, since it explicitly says that it doesn't: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope." (Incidentally, it's the sentence right before the part you quoted.) So if the GPL doesn't do it, what does? It's gotta be copyright law itself, since there's nothing else involved.

      Doesn't that mean that "do with as I please [short of giving modified or unmodified copies to someone else]" applies to non-GPL software too? Or does it mean we don't have those rights even with the GPL?

      As far as infringers of copyright* causing games to move to online-only services goes, I don't quite buy it. After all, iD seems to be able to make a living without becoming totalitarian...

      *"Pirates" are people who sail around stealing cargo and kidnapping people off ocean-going ships and boats, not kids who want to play Half-Life for free.
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    329. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fully agree. This licence BS has been over abused. You buy something, you should be able to use without BS restrictions.

      Its interesting that when you purchase software, music or a movie - they claim that they are selling you a licence, not the actual product, because that way they can infairly restrict you of the use of something you bought with your own hard earned cash.But when you lose the disk or it gets damaged, they charge you full price for a replacement. Since you have purchased a licence and not the disc, you should be able to get a replacement (except for postage&handling + cost of disk) for free or you should be able to copy it for free (you have already paid for it). If you own the LP disk, why do you have to pay a CD? You own the licence, the medium is irrelevant, right?

      It seems that these companies like to view what they sell sometimes as a product and sometimes as a licence, depending on what suits them best at the time. This is hypocrasy. You can't have both pieces of the cake!

    330. Re:You're wrong. by Archon-X · · Score: 1

      This is interesting. I read Valve's punishment for pirates and cheaters, and first thought, hmm that's tough.

      But if you think about it some more.. laws for shop lifting are tough. Laws for murder are tough. I'd hate to see myself in a prison cell, so I won't commit crimes.

      You'll only get banned from HL if you cheat. What they are donig by handing down extreme measures is maknig things better for you.

    331. Re: You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not convinced that this is true - there is no sales law that magically turns a sale in a shop into somehow just a licensing agreement and not a sale. The shop remains a retail outlet subject to all the usual consumer trading laws. The product remains a product. Shops do indeed sell games in just the same way as board games, books, any other item in the shops. (I'm not allowed to sell thousands of home-made copies of the Monopoly board game either... can't spot any differences with the CD game there...) And click-through "license agreements" remain pretty much untested 10 or 15 years on.

      That they remain untested is largely because so far software companies have not tried to enforce them in ways that breach sales law sufficiently for Trading Standards organisations to kick up a fuss.

      The "it's not really a sale" line is a fudge that our industry (software) would dearly like society to believe so they can duck the usual legal responsibilities around sales (such as under common law ownership includes the right to sell the item on - ie sell the game second hand - which means Valve needs a mechanism to allow people to sell their activation).

      If you bought it in a shop, and took it home in a box, yup, it was a sale.

    332. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank god Slashdot finally has a spellchecker: calophi 1.0. Now how do it disable it?

    333. Re: You're wrong. by BobSutan · · Score: 1

      Thank god someone else realizes the absurdity of licensing after the fact. Once money exchanges hands, that's it.

      --
      "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
    334. Re: You're wrong. by BobSutan · · Score: 1

      Someone mod up this guy's comment!!!

      --
      "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
    335. Re:You're wrong. by Danathar · · Score: 1

      Actually I was wondering how many people had there computers "compromised" by trojan or virus which the hacker could then collect their key/userid.

      That could happen as well I suppose.

      Note: Transgaming will be supporting HL 2 soon. I wonder if it will run better (and be more secure) under LINUX and Cedega?

      That WOULD be irony

    336. Re:You're wrong. by Stopher2475 · · Score: 1

      So now for every video game I buy I have to have some company's annoying program running constanlty in my system tray and sucking up resources. It's as bad as every program that decides it's going to put a giant icon at the top of your start menu. There needs to be some common version of a steam system else we're gonna have to have dozens of these things installed on our computers.

    337. Re:You're wrong. by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      If they say you violated the license agreement, it is their legal right.

      You agreed to their terms when you clicked "I agree."

      If you violate their terms, your license will be revoked and you will not be able to use their product.

      And how you see things and how the law sees things.. are totally different and the law wins vs you.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    338. Re:You're wrong. by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >Also, check your local laws. Stores in MA cannot
      >have a "No Refunds" policy, because that is
      >against state laws. Also, they cannot turn down a
      >refund within 30 days of the purchase date.. but
      >that's again in MA.

      Actually, many countries has laws dealing with sales telling that one can't change the sale contract after the sale is complete or that you can't force someone to a contract just because he or she wants to use something allready bought. In addition, most countries won't make text printed on something you buy into a contract. And so on, typically to protect consumers from bad practices from sellers.

      In addition, when you buy something, the full deal is with the store (or whoever you buy from), not the original manufacturer, if there is to be such additional contract, it should be done prior or at the same time as the purchase, like when you buy a cell phone and sometimes make a deal with a phone company.

    339. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is what Jury's are for. To interpret the changing times and the variable circumstances, and apply the spirit of the law as they see fit. The law was written for the people. The law was written to govern our interactions with people. Now the law is something that is separate from people.

      "Forget what you feel is right or wrong, go by the letter of the law."

      This is just backwards to me.

    340. Re:You're wrong. by starm_ · · Score: 1

      Yes but you had to send it back for them to accept. If you change the EULA of a game you have to get the companie to accept it before you play the game. And also I think you took a risk by not having the contract re-typed. If you would go in court with this contract how can you prove that the crossing out was made before the contract was signed by both parties? You can't legaly modify it once it is signed!

    341. Re: You're wrong. by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >Duped into buying a license? Have you (legally)
      >bought any software that wasn't licensed?

      Yes, I have gone to various computer stores (or from online stores) and bought software, including windows and games (but not Half-Life) just I have bought books, food, shoes and even the computer to run the software on.

      In one specific case I was informed in the shop when I wanted to buy a software program (Student Edition of Visiual Studio) that I could not buy it, instead I was handed a contract I had to send to Microsoft first and then get the software, that was the ONLY time it was not a stright forward sale covered by sale laws (consumer sale laws by the way).

      > Companies don't sell software; they never have.

      So yes, in my experience they DO sell as is evident from entering ANY store selling software (and actually it is the store that sells you the software and not the original creator of the software.

      >You don't own Windows, or Half-Life, or any other
      >copyrighted software;

      Just as with anything you buy, you own it, so yes, I happen to own a copy of windows for example. There is nothing inherant with copyright that says you can never own it.

      >Console games too are mere licenses; you can't
      >simply redistribute Halo 2, becuase it would be
      >in violation of your license.

      You have the right to sell anything you have bought unless you have made a contract PRIOR to buying it saying you can't, usually such a demand would most likely not be valid anyway though.

      For the sake of argument, lets say it IS ok to change everything of a purchase through a contract after the sale, would you say it is ok to "redistribute" Halo 2 after the purchase but before you agree to the additional contract? If not, why? Would you say it would be OK for someone selling you a refrigirator and when you get home and want to turn it on, you find a big paper covering the power on switch claiming that if you turn it on, you agree to a whole bunch of things, including that you don't own it at all really, it is just a license to use it and that you can only put food in it that is sold by specific manufacturers. If this is not OK, why?

    342. Re: You're wrong. by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1

      > Thank god someone else realizes the absurdity of licensing after the fact. Once money exchanges hands, that's it.

      So what? You can try the game out in most stores, you can see screenshots and reviews all over the Net. It's not like you're buying a $300K house that hasn't been built yet. It's a cheap game; info you can get prior to purchase is sufficient for making a qualified decision. Or would you like to be able to return the game if you're a lame player (in it) you keep getting killed all the time?

      In any case, they kicked those pirates' ass and they have the full right to do so. No pay no play. Nothing unreasonable.

    343. Re: You're wrong. by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >As for corporate proprietary software, you either
      >choose to accept their terms and pay them, or you
      >choose not to. There is no God-given right in
      >this situation.

      As for corporates making software, if they want to sell it, they have to accept normal laws regulating sales. If they don't like the concept, don't sell or don't create software to start with.

    344. Re:You're wrong. by rmohr02 · · Score: 1

      The license agreement is not on solid legal ground. When I buy software, I gain an implicit right to use that software. There would be outcry, if, say, after closing a deal on a new car, people got in the driver's seat and found that their key didn't work and they had to sign another agreement with the dealer to get keys that did work, considering that they already own the car, and, with it, the right to use the car.

      Personally, I don't see why I should have to agree to more limitations to use something I already own. Also, having something available as retail implies that the item itself is for sale, not a license to use the item. If the manufacturer wants the item available only as a license, the box should clearly state so.

      Of course, this is why I don't use commercial software anymore.

    345. Re:You're wrong. by starm_ · · Score: 1

      oh and IANAL and I know its a little more complicated than that. consideration, acceptance, verbal contracts etc....

    346. Re:You're wrong. by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >But installing software is making a copy. In
      >fact, executing an application makes a copy in
      >RAM. Many EULA grant the right to make these
      >copies.

      Most countries has provisions in their copyright laws specifically making excpetions for such "copies" needed for using software, thus you don't need any such permision at all.

      By the way, if you needed it, how would you be able to run the installer in the first place? Were did you get the permision to run it, you would not have agreed to any permision yet at that moment?

    347. Re:You're wrong. by Tenareth · · Score: 1

      You better start reading more... Console games have a lot of the same restrictions (no activiation because consoles suck at networking), and consoles have been cracking down on pirates too.

      And a DVD? That thing has a million and one rules, no copies, no showing it to a bunch of people, private only, etc.

      You think HL2 is different because you are ignorant of what you agree to everytime you buy anything.

      --
      This sig is the express property of someone.
    348. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No matter how much I explain it, you won't stop being a dumbass and listen.

    349. Re:You're wrong. by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      If they say you violated the license agreement, it is their legal right.

      If they say I violated their licence agreement, it's a legal disagreement.

      You agreed to their terms when you clicked "I agree."

      The witheld the use of a piece of equipment (their software) that I had legally purchased unless I agreed to their terms. I was clearly under duress.

      If you violate their terms, your license will be revoked and you will not be able to use their product.

      I do not need their licence to use their product. I purchased their product (i.e. the copy of the software) and therefore have the legal right to use it as I see fit within the bounds of copyright.

      And how you see things and how the law sees things.. are totally different and the law wins vs you.

      How does the law see things? Can you cite legal precedent where it has been shown that somebody who purchased a boxed copy of software is not legally allowed to use it?

    350. Re: You're wrong. by ryanmfw · · Score: 1

      Well, actually peaches do apply here. What if the peaches had a license? The peaches were used as an analogy, an incomplete one, but sometimes people take them too far. Really, I do agree that the ToS should be known before hand, but many people here are arguing that the ToS's mean nothing and are unenforcable. If you believe differently, great. Maybe I misread the grandparent. Still, the ToS is enforceable if you agree to it. It doesn't matter how hard your life would have been if you didn't agree to it, because my life would be easier too if I had an agreement to get $5000000 for stealing the world's largest diamond for some guy from New York.

      Cheers,
      Ryan

      --
      Hurricane Ivan: A 17th century prison collapsed. All of the inmates escaped.
    351. Re:You're wrong. by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, after reading the entire corpus of ordinances pertaining to parking, I discovered that I was in the right after all, and photocopied the sections of the book for the occasion of receiving a ticket. Oops. Guess I broke some copyright laws there.

      Actually, you didn't.

      Laws are automatically "public domain" as are gov't-produced documents. Low-budget film compaines routinely take advantage of this to get cheap footage.

      Although the gov't charges $800 per copy, it should be legal for you to just photocopy the entire book and start selling copies for as much (or as little) as you want.

      Here is an example court judgement which backs up my opinion.
      In this case the judges decided that even if some body of text was already copyrighted, by becoming a law it automatically enters the public domain.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    352. Re:You're wrong. by pteaxwa · · Score: 1

      By opening the box you agree to the license agreement, even if it is in the box. I remember reading a case in business law about this a few years ago. Seems pretty unfair but it's the truth.

    353. Re:You're wrong. by SScorpio · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about it running better, but it would be funny if the stuttering is gone under Linux and Cedega.

    354. Re:You're wrong. by Pofy · · Score: 1

      He didn't say he bought the copyright, he said he bought the cpecific copy of the work. Ownership of the copyright is completely separate from ownership of individual copies of the work. So no, by buying a copy of Mandrake or SUSE, you won't own the copyright to the code. You can still do anything you want with your copy that is not prohibited by copyright (which is basically creation of new copies, distribution of them and public performance and such) or by other laws.

    355. Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "two hour activation" has nothing to do with Steam and download speeds. It's a decryption of the preloaded HL2 files, as far as I know. Valve says that the speed of the activation varies from machine to machine, not from connection to connection. Aren't you a smart cookie.

    356. Re:You're wrong. by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >You can negotiate. You can agree or disagree with
      >the EULA.

      Cool, since people claim it is the EULA that says you did not buy the software, only licenced it, does that mean that if I actually disagree to it, it turns out I actually DID buy the software to start with? Amazing, buying by disagreeing to something.

    357. Re:You're wrong. by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1
      "corporation run the country" bullshit.

      It is clearly bullshit to you. Very well then, I wish you a rather rude awakening when it is too late.

    358. Re:You're wrong. by Snaller · · Score: 1

      You have purchased something. A license to
      play the game on the terms and conditions that are told to you by the company.


      Which is amoral crap on the lines of slavery.

      If you violate the terms and conditions, the company can suspend or revoke your license to play the game.

      They may have a legal right, but they sure as hell has no moral right.

      They do not owe a refund to you if you decided to violate the agreement.

      As they(and you) should well know, nobody ever entered into any agreement with them - and they thought so, more the fool them.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    359. Re:You're wrong. by Snaller · · Score: 1

      You agree to it before you download it via steam. If you purchase the box, read the EULA and still disagree with it

      Why should we? Its not legally valid.

      click "I Disagree" and call Valve saying you disagree with their EULA and would like a full refund for the game. You can send them the game and they will refund the purchase price.


      And they'll pay for postage, packing and fare?

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    360. Re:You're wrong. by Snaller · · Score: 1

      uhm... yes... they should pay you for reading the document that tells you what the rules are for using their property...

      Property is something you can touch (and only sell once) - the current perversion of the law is just a proof that money can buy other things than property.

      No, they won't pay you for these things... but there is no reason for them too... get it, read the EULA if you wish, and then return it if you don't like it... the return process will probably take no more than 30 minutes, if you have to wait a long time and then have to go buy the necessary stamps or whatever. It's been this way for a long time... only now you actually have to play by the rules.

      No, the EULA has always been amoral and not legally valid - now may be the time to really test this in countries around the world. Or more likely people will just find cracks and avoid those of bad morals.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    361. Re: You're wrong. by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Activation is what you have a problem with, and that exists because people are dishonest. Activation is an attempt to make the "cost" of pirating a game higher than the cost of actually buying--if you still think the games are too expense, stop buying.

      Yeah, that's like say "If you think owning slaves is wrong, then don't own any slaves!" - doesn't work that way.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    362. Re: You're wrong. by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Duped into buying a license? Have you (legally) bought any software that wasn't licensed? Companies don't sell software; they never have. They sell the license to use their software. You don't own Windows, or Half-Life, or any other copyrighted software; you're bound by the license agreement, and all you own is what that agreement gives you.

      Except 99.99% of the buyers of the world do NOT agree with that. They bought it - its theirs. And if push comes to shove, they sure as hell will push down the immoral craps who inforce this travesty.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    363. Re:You're wrong. by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Look, even most of /. disagrees with you,

      Actually, no they dont.

      this is about a game we all want to play freely, without this activation junk

      Well, you may want to do that (and there is a cracked version out there you can go find if that is what you) but most of us wanto BUY a game as OUR property, not all this imoral nonsense about intellectual propery and activation crap.

      But still, most people here see that Valve is acting within it's rights.

      They are acting within the law, but they have no right.

      That's a pretty strong indicator

      That the law is corrupt and dictated by the rich - yeah, it sure is.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    364. Re:You're wrong. by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Fact of the matter is, there's no excuse to pirate this game,

      No excuse no - but a very good moral reason: They use steam.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    365. Re: You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may be right, but you're buying the physical copy. Because their software uses their servers, it doesn't give you the right to use their servers. You may keep your physical copy, try loading it, but it doesn't require for it to be actually usuable or "fully functional." --trevor

    366. Re:You're wrong. by Dorothy+86 · · Score: 1
      I honestly know next to nothing about contract law, so I'm genuinely asking this question.

      How is the EULA not the same as a written contract, that once you agree to it, it doesn't matter what rights you have by law? (i.e.: the law says you may make a copy for back up, but the EULA says you can't, but you accept the agreement, don't you waive that right?)

      This may not be perfectly worded, but I hope I got the point of my question across.

    367. Re:You're wrong. by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      This is probably because of the authentication problems they were having, as is posted on their news section in steampowered.com

    368. Re:You're wrong. by SoulSkorpion · · Score: 1
      Stores just try and "freighten" you by acting like the store knows best.
      ...subsequently loading you with coal and sending you off to a steel mill?
    369. Re: You're wrong. by SoulSkorpion · · Score: 1

      "You seem to have been completely duped into accepting this notion of buying a license"

      Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Cut the sophistry and actually make a point. Nothing you've said is in any way insightful; merely demagogic.

    370. Re:You're wrong. by Geek+of+Tech · · Score: 1
      Ah, but that's the thing. The click through contract would be completely void. It shouldn't be held against you.

      And on packages that say something like "Breaking this seal indicates whatever..." I tend to like to pull the front off the case and remove the cd that way, thus leaving the tape intact and in place.

      --
      Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
    371. Re:You're wrong. by SoulSkorpion · · Score: 1

      Is your friend a (lazy?) law student, by any chance?

    372. Re:You're wrong. by dcam · · Score: 1

      I hate AC posts. Stand behind the comments you make. That aside...

      Juries don't come into a awful lot of decisions that are made. Besides laws ensure confirmity in judgements. You don't want to get convicted of something because it is a beef with a couple of jurors or the judge.

      "Forget what you feel is right or wrong, go by the letter of the law."

      Feeling is stupid reason to judge somthing right or wrong. Better to prove something right or wrong, than to 'feel' that it is right or wrong. But I digress. What you are missing is that the law is largely a description of what is right an wrong. An imperfect description, but a good description none the less.

      --
      meh
    373. Re:You're wrong. by SoulSkorpion · · Score: 1

      You buy something and you have absolutely zero control on how it works, when it works and for how long. Hence, you don't really own it.

      *sigh*

      No, you don't. Here it is again, as you seem to have missed it: you are not buying the software - you are buying the media it is delivered on and a license to use it. It's unfortunate that customers don't realise this is the case but that's entirely beside the point.

    374. Re: You're wrong. by rpdillon · · Score: 1

      I really don't want to get into an extended argument here, but I will say this:

      It absolutly matters how hard your life is if you don't agree to a contract when determining if it is an adhesion contract. In the extreme case, a contract would not be binding if I said I would kill you (or sell you into slavery, whatever) if you did not agree.

      The current situation with software lies somewhere between a perfectly reasonable situation and the slavery/death example. I assert that it lies too far towards the slavery/death scenario, and that we need to balance things a bit. I also therefore assert that the current clickwrap agreements attached to software are adhesion contracts, and are not binding. The current trend in court judgements does not agree with me, however.

      This does not mean I endorse piracy.

    375. Re:You're wrong. by SoulSkorpion · · Score: 1

      I did not buy the "license" to use this software until the software developer arbitrarily decides my time is up. I bought the fucking software. I should be able to use it however I want, for as long as I want, on any and however many computers of mine that will run it.

      Sorry, but you didn't.

      If you don't like the fact that you didn't buy the software but in fact bought a license to use it on the terms of the developer, that's fine. If you think that state of affairs is wrong, that's fine too. If you don't think the degree of freedom allowed by he developers to use their software is sufficient, you're entirely entitled to your opinion.

      I'm so sick of software makers restricting my freedom to use software the way I want to use it when I've paid for it

      That's the problem, right there. "restricting your freedom". No, my friend, you've got it backwards; whether you like it or not, you do NOT have the innate right to do what you like. You're being granted more freedom than you initially had - NOT having some of your existing rights denied.

      If you don't like the terms on which additional freedom is granted, don't accept them. If the license doesn't grant you as much freedom as you think you deserve but you agree to the deal, you are still bound by it. If you decide later on that you don't like this, tough shit.

      Don't sign contracts on terms you are not prepared to accept! It's as fucking simple as that! If you do not agree to the terms of the agreement, do not agree to it! Find an alternative that suits you.

    376. Re:You're wrong. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well, basically there is no way for the secondhand buyer to know that he'll be able to play, because of the needed steam activation.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    377. Re:You're wrong. by farnz · · Score: 1

      This is London; had MS won, the plaintiff would be paying for their lawyers. If you understood UK law, you'd know that such a large settlement (everything he'd asked for before filing suit, plus his costs in filing, plus a chunk of money to compensate him, plus their costs so far) is unusual; a judgement of that size would only be likely if the courts felt that MS was taking the mickey by fighting it (and that's assuming that MS lawyers cost ten times what your average lawyer costs).

    378. Re:You're wrong. by Pofy · · Score: 1

      > If you change the EULA of a game you have to
      >get the companie to accept it before you play
      >the game.

      Why? There is no law that requires you to get permision before playing a computer game or use software in general.

    379. Re:You're wrong. by EsbenMoseHansen · · Score: 1

      I always believed it was the sentence I quoted, and that the other part was just to separate that right from the distribution. So anybody may run it, but if you want to distribute, read on sort-of-thing.

      Otherwise, I can't see how it is legal to run GNU software in most parts of the world --- I believe the law text typically say something like "only the copyright holder may produce any copy, temporary or otherwise". As running an application means copying into RAM... but hey, I'm no expert in this.

      It even makes sort of sense... copyright doesn't restrict usage (anyone may view a copyrighted painting...), and I doubt that distributing the warez as running programs on RAM chips would make it legal...

      --
      Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
    380. Re:You're wrong. by Pofy · · Score: 1

      There can be several different cases. Some countries have for example consumer sale laws that dictate certain minimum rights for the consumer or requirements of a sale and also says that those can NOT be taken away by additional contracts, hence such contracts might be invalid (or at least those parts of it). Same for backup and copyright, it is in some countries (not sure about all) a right to make backup that can NOT be taken away by additional contracts.

      Apart from that we have contract laws that tells how a contract is made and what circumstances make a contract invalid. Typically for a contract to be formed there has to be an offer and then an acceptance. In addition the acceptance has to reach the one making the offer, that is, it is not enough for you to just think that you will accept. You can even sign a contract but instead of sending it back, you later destroy it instead. In no case have there been a contract.

      For an example of a circumstance that invalidate a contract, imagine someone forcing (for example threatening you to do it) a contract to be signed. The it is not valid either. Usually a contract can also not be entered by someone NOT doing something. That is, I can't send you a suggestion for an offer stating that if you don't reply and decline it, I would assume you agree. Other cases in regard to sale and consumer sale cases (or indeed contracts in general) handle "unfair" conditions. Exactly what is and what is not unfair is of course open for question and is either covered by the law, or through court cases. Examples would be selling you something and making demands about totally irrelevant and unconnected things. For example a store only selling you food if you agree to pay the owner for any costs in regard to his health.

      One typical argument against EULA are that it is not part of the sale of the software. It is an additional contract "forced" (since you can't use what you bought and presumably thus own without agreeing to it) on to you after the sale is concluded. In addition by someone else than whoever sold you to it to start with which is the store and usually, sale is a deal between you as a consumer and the store. There are many other objections and reasons to it and of course also similar ones to why it should be perfectly OK.

      As always, it may vary quite a bit between countries, and what applies to some does not to others.

    381. Re: You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have been proven wrong elsewhere.

    382. Re:You're wrong. by rmohr02 · · Score: 1

      Ahh yes--your "Anonymous Coward" title certainly implies that you are a lawyer and know what you're talking about. What the hell was I thinking?

    383. Re:You're wrong. by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      I like when stupid people like yourself quote half of my statements and then apply the meaning only in that little part to the entire post. It always amuses me how the part you ignore - which completely changes the meaning of the statement to whatever the opposite is that the moron is trying to pin me with - always seems to be the very first part of the statement they DON'T quote.

      Tell me, does being so woefully incapable of defending your point without making things up and applying them to me actually physically HURT, or is just a deep, emotional emptiness caused by your general ignorance?

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    384. Re:You're wrong. by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Oh right, because citizens who park in legal parking spots and expect not to be ticketed are so perfect. Man, the nerve of them to expect the police to know how to do their jobs, and to do them correctly.

      Whatever, coward.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    385. Re:You're wrong. by NekoXP · · Score: 1


      Suggest a better solution for validating that a user actually has
      legitimately purchased a copy.

      If people are pirating lists of keys en-masse and yours is unlucky
      to get on there, they will get HUNDREDS of people who are naive
      enough to whine and complain that their "key" doesn't work on their
      "Walmart" copy of HL2.

      The photographs and/or scans of the receipt are the clincher, and
      therefore only legitimate buyers get a replacement key.

      When you have to pick between 1000 turds and a slab of gold, do you
      want to do a blindfold test and just shove your hand in?

      It sounds to me like you HAVE a pirate key and are using some
      lame socio-political excuse for Valve and Sierra to hand out free
      keys.

    386. Re:You're wrong. by NekoXP · · Score: 1

      Well the river chase is a pretty darn good level in itself :)

      There should be some great mods upcoming if the original Half-Life
      is anything to go by. I can't wait for something like Todesangst:Source :)

    387. Re: You're wrong. by gebbeth · · Score: 0
      "I'll sell you this software, but you can only use it in ways that are specifically outlined in this contract that's in the drawer over there.


      "But the CONTRACT was on display ..."

      "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find it."

      "That's the display department."

      "With a flashlight."

      "Ah, well the lights had probably gone."

      "So had the stairs."

      "But look, you found the notice didn't you?"

      "Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."


      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    388. Re:You're wrong. by Samael_666 · · Score: 1

      Sigh ... even pple on Slashdot are getting brainwashed ...

    389. Re:You're wrong. by Dorothy+86 · · Score: 1

      Ahh, thanks! That sheds light on that subject.

    390. Re:You're wrong. by rwven · · Score: 1

      you're full of crap. if you were having trouble playing it when you DID own it, you're going to have just as much trouble playing it when you've stolen it. it all operates over steam... That's how they caught you ya moron.

    391. Re: You're wrong. by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      Consoles where activation isn't an issue? Looked at the Xbox lately? Specifically Halo 2, and how it's been used to deactivate Xboxes dual-booting to Linux?

    392. Re:You're wrong. by PriceIke · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but "tough shit" don't make it so. When I buy a piece of software, and there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that this is a rental, a lease, a temporary situation of any kind .. I expect the software to work. I expect it to work on a computer that it is designed to work on. There was nothing (if I'm wrong, show me) in any marketing materials or in the manual to indicate that the software would spontaneously stop working, forcing me to buy an upgrade in two years time in order to continue to use all the data I'd input in that time. THAT IS BULLSHIT. I don't care how you slice it, that is bullshit.

      "You bought a license." "You don't want to sign a contract, don't sign it." Again, bullshit. You don't have any kind of "contract" when you buy furniture. No furniture maker forces you to agree to terms along the lines of, "this item of furniture may not be used to store medical supplies, Care Bears, Fluffy Puff marshmallows or sexual toys. At any time your usage of the furniture may be audited by the manufacturer and said usage may be revoked at the manufacturer's discretion." No. Bullshit. You buy the furniture, it's yours until you decide to dispose of it. It's out of the manufacturer's hands.

      The fact that we let software manufacturers get away with this "contract" "license" nonsense is really sad.

      Oh, and "You're bring granted more freedom than you initially had" .. bullshit. I already have the freedom to use my computer for legal purposes. I already have the freedom to buy a legal piece of software to install on my legally owned computer to legally manage all my data for my legal business. When the software stops working for no good reason (and there was NO good reason for it to stop working, that is my point) then THE SOFTWARE IS DEFECTIVE and the software developer owes ME a replacement .. it should not have been me giving THEM another two hundred bucks .. no, my friend, that's extortion. It's as fucking simple as that.

      --
      It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
    393. Re:You're wrong. by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1
      Oh yes, dont you hate all those stupid people who dare to highlight a particularly cretinous parts of your post to reply to. How dare they!?

      Tell me, does being so woefully incapable of defending your point without making things up and applying them to me actually physically HURT, or is just a deep, emotional emptiness caused by your general ignorance?

      Since it requires spelling out for you: you believe that corporate takover of our society is "bullshit", ergo I wish that you wake up one day a corporate slave. It is rather simple no?

      Oh yes, I did fail to reply to the "blah blah blah" part. Ok. Here goes:

      Blah Blah Blah

      An excellent and well reasoned point, this one. Not to mention very articulate. Bravo.

    394. Re: You're wrong. by ryanmfw · · Score: 1

      Well, I'll trust the courts then. Unfortunately, their the last word on this argument(and they agree with me, woohoo!). :-)

      Cheers,
      Ryan

      --
      Hurricane Ivan: A 17th century prison collapsed. All of the inmates escaped.
    395. Re:You're wrong. by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      I see. You must be a Bush voter, so I'll need to teach some 3rd grade reading and comprehension skills here. Sorry - I didn't realize you were a red stater.

      More of the "corporation run the country" bullshit.
      No kidding.

      This means that I am not particularly interested in your excuses - I'm already well aware of the problem of corporate influence and control of the United States government. However, when you only quote a portion of it:

      More of the "corporation run the country" bullshit.

      You lose the statement in which I expressed agreement. That changes the entire meaning to "you're full of shit".

      Please do try to keep the importance of context in mind, it's not that hard. If you try applying a little bit of brain power and maybe reading a few books instead of vegging in front of "Wife Swap" every night, you may even the hang of it.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    396. Re:You're wrong. by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1
      You must be a Bush voter.

      If I were, I would probably cheer for the corporations instead of fighting them. You are making dangerous assumptions.

      This means that I am not particularly interested in your excuses - I'm already well aware of the problem of corporate influence and control of the United States government

      The way you expressed yourself was only clear to you. You probably do not realise this so let me explain:

      More of the "corporation run the country" bullshit.

      indicates that you are equating "corporations run the country" to "bullshit"

      No kidding.

      implies that you strongly believe the above to be very true and you are sarcastic about it.

      Your chosen method of expressing yourself is ambiguous and rather obnoxious. If it is true of many anti-Bush people, it is no wonder that religious nuts are able to out-reason you.

    397. Re:You're wrong. by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      Uh... no. The sarcasm point would only be valid had I stated it as "No Kidding?", which I did not.

      Again: it's called reading comprehension. Try it sometime. Perhaps after you graduate from grammar school.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    398. Re:You're wrong. by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1
      Uh... no. The sarcasm point would only be valid had I stated it as "No Kidding?", which I did not.

      That would indicate that you are sarcastically expressing your deep doubt about something. As in: "The sky is green? No Kidding?"

      Again: it's called reading comprehension.

      No it is called "an inability to express oneself clearly".

    399. Re:You're wrong. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      "This CD Key is already in use". Really helpful.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    400. Re:You're wrong. by ryanmfw · · Score: 1
      Sorry, but looking at what everyone is saying, and what gets modded up in general, most people agree that Valve is in the right.

      When I said I wanted to play it freely, I did not mean without paying for it. I would like to play it without activation too. Read my post again. By the way, I didn't know patent and copyright law was immoral. Is it? No.

      Also, you are not buying the game. Do you need that explained again, because it has been said before by plenty of others on Slashdot. If you had *actually* bought the game, you would be able to copy it and sell it to whomever you'd like. Certainly not something that should be allowed. Granted, you think protecting one's property is immoral, so, what can I say?

      Again, who are you to determine what rights Valve has? I'd say the people who you elected are a better judge of their rights than you.

      Cheers,
      Ryan

      P.S. and stop with all of twisting my words junk, or I'll continue to twist yours. OK? No hard feelings man.

      --
      Hurricane Ivan: A 17th century prison collapsed. All of the inmates escaped.
    401. Re:You're wrong. by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 1

      Did you ever let anyone borrow your cd to play HL?
      If so, odds are someone had it on their computer when they got steam before you did, using your cd key.
      If not, there was a cd key generator that worked with WON, but only one person using any one key could be online at a time. Whoever got the steam account first using it is probably pretty proud of himself. Thems the breaks.
      Get the hl2 silver package from steam and you'll get all the old hl stuff
      (back catalog offered with steam gold and steam silver packages),
      and all the new source stuff. Sure its 60 bucks for silver, but its worth the investment. HL1 came out how long ago? and people are still using it to play mods like DoD and NS.
      I paid 40 bucks for it in 1998 after playing the demo that came with my Aureal Monster Sound Card, and have been playing it and its mods ever since.
      DoD is going to be ported over to steam, and there is talk that the makers of NS will port it over as well (its a third party mod).

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
    402. Re:You're wrong. by SoulSkorpion · · Score: 1

      You seem to be confusing "the way things should be" with "the way things are".

      When you buy software, you are buying a license only; that is irrefutable fact. That's the status quo. That's how things are. We can argue until the cows come home about the way things should be, but until then we're stuck with how they actually are!

    403. Re:You're wrong. by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but looking at what everyone is saying, and what gets modded up in general, most people agree that Valve is in the right.

      I don't agree.

      When I said I wanted to play it freely, I did not mean without paying for it.

      I know, but when you make stupid sweeping generalisation, it deserves a verbal wrist slap.

      By the way, I didn't know patent and copyright law was immoral. Is it?

      Yes. Or at least the way it has been twisted over the last few centuries.

      Also, you are not buying the game.

      And *THAT* is why its wildly immoral.

      Granted, you think protecting one's property is immoral

      Not with real property no.

      Again, who are you to determine what rights Valve has?

      Who are you to limit my rights to have an opinion?

      I'd say the people who you elected are a better judge of their rights than you.


      Then i'd say you are a dangerous individual who shouldn't have the right to vote.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    404. Re:You're wrong. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      You have purchased something. A license to play the game on the terms and conditions that are told to you by the company. If you violate the terms and conditions, the company can suspend or revoke your license to play the game.
      It depends upon the country. In some countries, no matter what they write in the EULA, they cannot deprive you of some basic customer rights. E.g. in Russia, it is: a right to make backup copies, a right to disassemble and/or reverse-engineer your copy, and a right to make any modifications to it (yes, this includes removing any "protection" and "online authentication" - as long as your copy is legal, it's okay).
    405. Re:You're wrong. by Lurkey+Turkey · · Score: 1

      If it isn't in Braille, many of my friends must be using their purchased software illegally! ------ Dave

    406. Re:You're wrong. by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >No, you don't. Here it is again, as you seem to
      >have missed it: you are not buying the software -
      > you are buying the media it is delivered on and
      >a license to use it.

      No idea were you get your software, but everywere in the world were I have been and seen, software has actually been sold, just like basically most everything else ranging from toasters, books and food to dishwashers, computers and furnitures. I actually have seen a shop in Sweden that rent you computer console games though long ago, no idea if it exists still. It worked the same way as those places were you rent movies. Other than that, I see software sold all over.

    407. Re:You're wrong. by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >Without the EULA (or if it was invalid) you have
      >no right at all to use the software, the EULA
      >gives you your rights to use it

      Why have you come to that strange conclusion? Do you base it on for example and laws stating so? Do note that use is NOT an exclusive right to the copyright holder. Just as I can use my chair with no EULA I can use my book or computer game with no EULA.

    408. Re:You're wrong. by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >Doesn't anything about being "told" terms and
      >conditions strike you as being a little one
      >sided? Real contracts allow the negotiation of
      >terms, and somehow I don't think Valve is going
      >to accept a modified EULA.

      Not trying do defend EULAs, but contracts does not really have to be open for negotiation. Contracts work by having someone make an offer and someone else accepting that offer. Instead of accepting, one can always decline it or make a counter offer. A counter offer (that is changing something or "negotiating") is actually the same as declining the original offer and making a completely new offer that the other can accept or decline. No one is ever forced to accept anything. Actually, if someone is forced into a contract, I would say most countries' laws would say that such a contract is void.

    409. Re:You're wrong. by SoulSkorpion · · Score: 1

      Read the EULAs, kthx.

    410. Re:You're wrong. by Pofy · · Score: 1

      What does that have to do with anything? When I enter a shop and buy something, sale laws apply and I walk out of the store with a copy of the software I own.

    411. Re:You're wrong. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Thanks but why would I pay more for something I already own? I already have HL and only play DMC and Canned Tuna on it (offline even), no need to buy it again.

      Besides, I found a working key, apparently Steam cannot tell Gunman Chronicles from HL1 just with the key so if I hadn't already bought HL1 I'd have gotten it for free now.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    412. Re:You're wrong. by SoulSkorpion · · Score: 1

      I'm getting *really* sick of this...

      You own nothing more than the physical media the software is packaged in and a license to use it. You do NOT own the software.

      This is not a subject of debate! That's fact! Go find out for yourself, because I'm tired of arguing mindlessly. Next we'll be arguing about whether computers use electricity!

    413. Re:You're wrong. by Pofy · · Score: 1

      Why would you NOT own a copy of the software if you buy it? You own it just as much as you own the chair or dishwasher you buy. It is sold the exact same way.

      If I walk into a store and pick up a toaster, a computer game and some apples, when I walk out of the store, why would I own some of those and not the others? And what do you base that "fact" on stating which you own or not? Certainly not any laws.

    414. Re:You're wrong. by Oblio · · Score: 1

      Haha! That deserves a Funny mod. :)

      Sorry - 1040X. Sometimes my brain is not all it was promised to be.

      --
      Pax -- Ob
  2. CD hack? by Izago909 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Is there a way to disable the "feature" that forces me to load the CD every time I want to play the game? And will doing so get me banned? Why can't steam disable this annoying problem after we activate our game and prove to them that we bought it? At least there is a hack for Doom 3 and other newer games that disable the CD check without getting you banned from the network.

    1. Re:CD hack? by RomSteady · · Score: 5, Informative

      From what I understand, if you uninstall Half-Life 2 after activating it on Steam, then install off of Steam, you won't have to use your media anymore.

      Admittedly, you'll have to download quite a bit of data and it's a pain in the rump and it might not work after their next patch, but that's what's been going around the message boards.

      --
      RomSteady - I came, I saw, I tested. GamerTag: RomSteady / http://www.romsteady.net
    2. Re:CD hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Welcome to the world of tommorow!

    3. Re:CD hack? by tritium6 · · Score: 1

      If you have a steam account, just download the games through steam. No CD needed ever. Which is good for me, I have no idea what happened to the Half Life CD I bought 5 years ago...

    4. Re:CD hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a small program available from Microsoft that lets you mount a CD image as a virtual drive. (search for virtual CD) If you can create an image of the disk in question and set it to auto-mount on startup, you won't have to insert the actual disk.

      Disclaimer: I don't have HL2, but this has worked for several other games that I do own. YMMV.

    5. Re:CD hack? by Mr.+Cancelled · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think that's the only real issue here.

      The problem's not that people are pirating the game -It's a problem, don't misunderstand, but the issue of legitimate purchasers being locked out of the game because they chose to circumvent the game's CD requirements.

      IMHO, it's perfectly alright to bypass such protection on a legally purchased copy of the game. For instance, I downloaded such a hack to circumvent the protection on Civ III for the PC, which required that a CD be inserted to play, and which I had purchased at Best Buy. BTW, the hack works great!

      And Valve has a right to 'lock out' customers stealing the game, but they enter a grey area of legality when they lock out legitimate purchasers who simply want to avoid the annoying CD checks on their legal copy of the game.

      I think this is going to be a growing problem as game programmers get wise to the hacks and cracks that are put online almost simultaneously with the game releases. The ideal solution would be one in which the purchaser controls where and how they use the product for which they've paid money, while preventing unauthorized users from doing the same. Valve seems to have nailed a lot of actual piracy with the method they've chosen to use, but they've also impacted some legitimate users as well.

      Interestingly enough, gamers on the Mac (Yes, there are a few!) don't have as many problems with this kinda protection since they can have store and mount CD images directly off their hard drive. When I play Civ on the Mac, I simply have to click the CD image of the game, mount it as a disk image, and bang!, the game thinks I've inserted the CD. Too bad PC users don't also have this option. It's also too bad that more games are not released for the Mac. The G5's ready, but the gaming company's still don't see it as a viable game platform. 8(

    6. Re:CD hack? by Antony.S · · Score: 1

      They do not enter a grey area, you have entered it when you broke the license agreement you made with them by illegally using a crack.

      You may be morally correct in the right from the customer point of view, but from theirs you have broken the agreed terms in the license and are in full right to revoke your license and block you playing.

    7. Re:CD hack? by fireduck · · Score: 1

      as i recall, original HL required the CD. At some point, a Valve patch eliminated that requirement. I think the need for a CD in the drive is a publisher demand rather than something Valve really wants (given they prefer the electronic distribution method). I imagine in the future a patch will correct this.

    8. Re:CD hack? by dr.fishopolis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Is there a way to disable the "feature" that forces me to load the CD every time I want to play the game?" Yes, you buy it on Steam. CD keys are a byproduct of a retail/in-box game. Valve came up with an entire system so you never need a CD again...
      And of course, here we are bitching about it b/c we can't pirate it.

    9. Re:CD hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      Too bad PC users don't also have this [disc images]option


      Actually, PC people do have this option using software such as Alcohol or Daemon Tools (which is free for private use). This is why the newer CD checks refuse to allow you to run if you have these programs installed. In fact, I've heard of cases where the game refuses to run if you have Nero, a very popular CD/DVD burning package and rumors of games which won't work if you have a burner attached. If the Mac ever takes off, you can kiss your disc images goodbye or find a www.MacGameCopyWorld.com.

    10. Re:CD hack? by aslate · · Score: 1

      Yes, because there's nothing i like better then a HDD full of CD and DVD images, often over several gigs of images per game. Sure, Hard-Drive space isn't expensive, but it's a waste when you've got a HDD full of images.

      And PC users can image stuff too, but often games don't like the fact they've been imaged and so just refuse to accept that what is imaged is the game.

    11. Re:CD hack? by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      I knew I couldn't have been the only one that does that! Since I like to play Starcraft on the couch or in bed with my iBook, using the CD image saves me precious battery power since I don't need to put the disk in the drive all the time.

      There are similar solutions for Windows users, btw. I think one of the more popular (because it's free) options is Daemon Tools (too lazy to create href):

      http://www.cd-rw.org/software/cdr_software/cdr_t oo ls/daemon_tools.cfm

    12. Re:CD hack? by Sky+Captain · · Score: 2, Funny
      Welcome to the world of tommorow!

      Been There, done that!

    13. Re:CD hack? by harrkev · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The ideal solution would be one in which the purchaser controls where and how they use the product for which they've paid money, while preventing unauthorized users from doing the same. Valve seems to have nailed a lot of actual piracy with the method they've chosen to use, but they've also impacted some legitimate users as well.

      Actually, the ideal solution would be for everybody to be honest and buy the games that they play! But instead, people have the attitude that they have the RIGHT to have something that they have not paid for. This leads to a few possible outcomes.

      1) The company does nothing. They loose sales. Bad for them.

      2) The company builds in DRM. This causes consumers to complain. Bad for us.

      3) In addition to the DRM, the company lobbies for laws cracking down on "copy technology." Of course, these are a "BFG-900" which, in addition to having some affect on the pirates, has the side-effect of causing a lot of collateral damage do the honest consumer. Bad for us.

      4) The company does what Valve did and disables cracks. The is another "BFG-9000" which hurts the pirates, but also causes some collateral damage to a few honest users. Users complain, bad for us. They also get a black eye in their reputation. Bad for them.

      In short, if they do nothing, they are screwed. If they do something, everybody complains and they may be screwed (depends on how much people complain).

      To those who pirate games: If you don't like DRM and the DMCA, look in the mirror for the reason that we are stuck with those. If you want to change the world, start with the only person that you CAN control: yourself.
      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    14. Re:CD hack? by fireduck · · Score: 1

      This should work regardless of whatever patches Valve puts out, unless vivendi gets their pants in a bunch. One of the ideas behind steam was that you could access your account from anywhere. Just sit down at any computer and play whatever games you have registered (after the requisite 5GB download, or course). requiring the cd at that point defeats the purpose, so I'd assume Valve won't be forcing that on you, unless Vivendi is forcing their hand.

    15. Re:CD hack? by cyxxon · · Score: 3, Informative

      I had read that as well, but at least here in Germany with a German retail version and a Steam download, it did not work.

      I bought the silver package via Steam, and a friend of mine bought the regular retail edition here in a store. When he found out about the DVD check he was quite pissed, since he had already contemplated buying via my credit card off Steam. We just have had to wait till Valve unbanned my card (they ban it for further purchases from Steam after a successful purchase for security reasons, and you have to use a web form to re-enable it). He was impatient, did not care for the goodies as much or whatever, he decided to go retail.

      Just today we tried it all. He uninstalled and redownloaded CS:S (we are on a T1 in our office and the admins), he ftp'ed all the files from my machine, same thing - still a cd check. He manually searched for registry keys, all clear, no luck.

      So, we really wanted to know now, and he logged in on my machine. Remember: my machine had never seen a HL1 or HL2 CD/DVD in its life, only Steam and downloads and my account. He entered his account information, waited a second, double-clicked CS:S in the games list, and was asked to instert a disc.

      So they actually do have some way of tracking if you have to have a disc in the drive, I am still urging him to contact Valve about it, maybe they have something to say. They always said if you redownloaded it would be no problem.

    16. Re:CD hack? by aldoman · · Score: 1

      Most games nowadays (including HL2) detect this sort of virtual CD and disable it/make the game not run.

    17. Re:CD hack? by DroopyStonx · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yes, it's called alt.binaries.cd.image.games.

      Enjoy.

      --
      We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
    18. Re:CD hack? by hyphz · · Score: 4, Informative

      > But instead, people have the attitude that
      > they have the RIGHT to have something that
      > they have not paid for.

      Let me clarify something here.

      I bought HL2 via Steam. I now have a copy of activated, legal HL2 on my machine. It doesn't need a CD to run (which is good, because since I bought via Steam, I don't have one)

      Now those people who went and bought the CD had to do the Steam activation *and* put the CD in the drive.

      Arguing that they're "stealing" and "ripping off Valve" by CD-cracking the retail version ignores the fact that Valve are quite happy for people to play with the online activation only, since Steam purchasers are doing just that.

    19. Re:CD hack? by bs_02_06_02 · · Score: 1

      Because that would allow you to share that CD with others, especially at a LAN party. Other people could "borrow" your CD to install, and then use the NOCD hack to pass this CD to someone else.

      Valve's idea is one CD = one version of the game running. They don't tell you that, but that's what they want.
      I don't go to LAN parties, I don't know anyone else that plays FPS, but it's still f*cking annoying to have to dig out the CD, put it in just to play the game. I quit playing most games because they're just not worth it. $50? $40 on sale if you're lucky? Nope.

      --
      -- No sig for you!
    20. Re:CD hack? by harrkev · · Score: 1

      You misunderstood me. If they paid their money, they are not ripping off anybody! They are caught by #4, above. Honest people taking collateral damage from a move made to stop real pirates.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    21. Re:CD hack? by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Haven't had any luck with that, either, in a very similar situation. I bought HL2 in the stores since it's easier on my mind than borrowing a CC (don't have one), and also because the game was actually cheaper that way - the mind boggles.

      I'm also in Germany, but as far as I have heard, it doesn't work anywhere. Using a retail CD key to download the files from Steam downloads an additional package (source shared securom.gcf). Bah. Extremely annoying, since a) the fucking game already has a working copy protection b) you can't use a no-cd crack and c) I don't actually have a DVD drive on my own. I borrowed one and can keep it pretty much as long as I want, but it's still a pain.
      And the only situation where their real copy protection (ie Steam) doesn't work perfectly - when you prevent the game/platform from accessing the net - is the one situation when you can actually use a no-cd crack after all. Bah. Really pisses me off.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    22. Re:CD hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't true. I bought a retail box of HL2. I tried entering the key in my steam account (I had already downloaded HL1 with my HL1 key). Steam told me I had to install off of the CDs first.

    23. Re:CD hack? by adamjone · · Score: 1

      From what I understand, if you uninstall Half-Life 2 after activating it on Steam, then install off of Steam, you won't have to use your media anymore.
      Unfortunately, not true. I know because I tried it. Needing the DVD is a nuissance, but not one that I wasn't already accustomed to with my other games. Diablo II, Diablo, Half-Life, Doom, Quake, etc....with any of these games you need the disc to play. Sure, you can download a crack for most that gets around the issue, but it is just that, a crack.

      I'm disappointed that I need the DVD to play, and I'm really hoping that Valve releases a patch that will eliminate it. Still, I enjoy the game, and I've had to use media in the past, so I'm not ready to fire bomb anybody. If you are considering purchasing HL2, and you have the bandwidth, take my advice and buy it on Steam rather than from retail. You'll get a much better deal for your money.
    24. Re:CD hack? by timts · · Score: 0

      I only have the activation code from my radeon 9600 bundle purchase, then I installed steam and have it downloaded, input the activation code to get those games "unlocked" for me. well, no CD/DVD is either involved at this process.

      I wonder if those who purchased the CD/DVD can do the same, that's to install it online then input the code, instead of installing it from disc... and I dont think you really need the disc..

      on the other hand, if some one created a keygen and it happens to be the activation code I am using, I am screwed and I dont know what happens if I upgrade my PC, will I be allowed to activate the game on the new machine?

    25. Re:CD hack? by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      Those CD checks are law and circumventing them violates the DMCA.

      End of story. Doesn't matter if you like it or not.

      Anyone who supports Valve and Steam is an idiot, IMO.

      The game isn't even all that great.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    26. Re:CD hack? by T-Ranger · · Score: 1

      *Bzzz* wrong. If you are in Europe you are not on a T1.

    27. Re:CD hack? by lythander · · Score: 1

      If you just bought the game off of steam in the first place, you have no CD to insert, therefore no problem.

    28. Re:CD hack? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1, Informative


      Too bad PC users don't also have this option.

      I think you should have said WINDOWS users. Lots of PC users have this option and they read slashdot. What you are seeing on your Mac is just a happy user interface on top of the good old fashioned Unix concept of mounting a raw image as a filesystem. Not all PC users are Windows users.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    29. Re:CD hack? by moonbender · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The real question here is: are your options 1 and 2 correct?

      1) The company does nothing. They loose sales. Bad for them.

      Does a lack of invasive copy protection lead to decrease sales? Or, the other way round: do invasive copy protection schemes increase sales? And in a related issue:

      2) The company builds in DRM. This causes consumers to complain. Bad for us.

      Could the consumer aggravation lead to decreased sales? Does it have any other side effects for the company that could eventually lead to decreased sales?

      Of course, the answers might well be that invasive schemes do actually increase sales by some margin and the consumer aggravation isn't something to worry about. There are few people who won't buy a game because of the current and previous "sins" of a developer or publisher.

      On the other hand, many people quite correctly argue that many invasive schemes annoy the paying customer, but don't do much more than inconvenience the typical pirate. Publishers often claim that copy protection serves to prevent casual pirates from copying the game. I don't think that works anymore: cd cracks are incredibly easy to find on both the web and in filesharing networks.
      Then you get only the bad aspects, and even if you don't care about your customers hating you, you don't get out of anything.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    30. Re:CD hack? by lidocaineus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, you can use daemon tools to achieve a similar mode of operation on a PC. While it's not integrated into the system, the creators of the program made if *exactly* for this situation, and it makes things easier even if companies integrate obnoxious anti-cd duplication protection schemes (RPMS, etc). I like the mac's simplicity, but since I hardly play games on my powerbook, I'm not quite sure how well it works with games/without the CD (apparently quite well). Anyway, I recommend d-tools if you like to horde huge libraries of CDs on a file server on your network (including games).

    31. Re:CD hack? by ADRA · · Score: 1

      Isn't it possible that by the contract with Vivendi, they're forced to do this? I mean they really couldn't care less for the steam downloads, so either they really want to hurt Vivendi, or else its Vivendi mandating the CD check requirement..

      --
      Bye!
    32. Re:CD hack? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      3) In addition to the DRM, the company lobbies for laws cracking down on "copy technology." Of course, these are a "BFG-900" which, in addition to having some affect on the pirates, has the side-effect of causing a lot of collateral damage do the honest consumer. Bad for us.

      It's far worse than that. It doesn't stop BOTH the honest consumer and the pirates. It stops JUST the honest consumer and NOT the pirates.

      Oh, and it is perfectly reasonable to moderate based on a sig. Content is content. You don't get to absolve yourself of responsibility for what you say based on where you say it.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    33. Re:CD hack? by SiliconEntity · · Score: 2

      The problem's not that people are pirating the game -It's a problem, don't misunderstand, but the issue of legitimate purchasers being locked out of the game because they chose to circumvent the game's CD requirements.

      The CD-checking requirement is itself an anti-piracy move. The idea is that pirated versions of the software would not have access to the original CDs. Forcing the software to check for the presence of an original CD discourages piracy.

      When you, with a legitimate copy of the game, disable this check, you look just like a pirate who has disabled the check because he doesn't have a legitimate copy. It's perfectly reasonable for Valve to view you in the same light as the pirate, because your actions are the same as the pirate's.

      Imagine for example a game that was sold with a "dongle", a device that plugged into one of your computer's ports and whose presence was checked by the game. This anti-piracy technique used to be common for high end software. Now, you might choose to hack your software to disable the dongle check. But again, this is exactly the action taken to enable piracy. From the manufacturer's perspective, you now look just like a pirate.

      In general, disabling an anti-piracy measure is going to make you look like a pirate, even if you are in fact a legitimate purchaser. You don't have a 'right' to make such changes.

      If an anti-piracy measure is too onerous, the correct answer is to vote with your pocketbook. Don't buy the product. And sure, go ahead and complain to the manufacturer so that he knows why he is losing business. This will give him incentive to design less obtrusive anti-piracy techniques.

    34. Re:CD hack? by InsaneGeek · · Score: 1

      Actually you are incorrect. Circumventing them does NOT violate the DMCA, distributing a program to circumvent them does violate it.

      If it's your original copy of the CD and you aren't putting the program you use to copy it up on the web anywhere; you can copy the media to your hearts content under fair use and legally nobody will be able to do anything about it. You could walk into the FBI's office tell them that you are copying it, but not distributing the media or how to copy it and they wouldn't be able to do anything about it (you would of course get a very exhaustive look over, but nothing would be illegal).

      Just wanted to clear up a rampant myth about the DMCA as to how it actually affects people.

    35. Re:CD hack? by npsimons · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough, gamers on the Mac (Yes, there are a few!) don't have as many problems with this kinda protection since they can have store and mount CD images directly off their hard drive.

      This isn't mac specific; it's the same for Linux. I've run into very few games under Linux that require the CD in the drive to run, and even those could be circumvented by mounting a disk image off the hard drive. One notable example is NeverWinter Nights. Whenever my friends and I get together for a LAN party, they have to do all sorts of CD exchanging and copying just to get NWN to work under Windows, while I just fire it up on dual screen and level up while waiting for them. BTW, NWN is sweet at 2048x768 ;)
    36. Re:CD hack? by Silverlancer · · Score: 1

      You can also do this on the PC--DaemonTools is a free CD mounter and it *can* circumvent SecureROM.

    37. Re:CD hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -illegally

      It is not illegal.

    38. Re:CD hack? by Dav3K · · Score: 1

      It's a bigger issue when you are playing on a laptop and you want to make the most of battery life. You get more playing time in without the CD drive spinning.

    39. Re:CD hack? by Wescotte · · Score: 1

      Isn't it possible that by the contract with Vivendi, they're forced to do this? I mean they really couldn't care less for the steam downloads, so either they really want to hurt Vivendi, or else its Vivendi mandating the CD check requirement.. I would assume Vivendi would NOT want the check on the disc because it's an annoyance and when people learn of it would be that much more likely to purchase it via steam. I would want to believe valve is not evil and they didn't purposely force the cd check to get more sales via steam. I dunno the entire issue about Vivendi and Valve fighting over steam. Steam in itself is a great great idea with lots of benefits to the users but I think valve didn't quite hit the mark with it. I do believe the next game they do will be a steam only release.

    40. Re:CD hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually we had the same capability way before the Mac OS moved to it's bsd core. Back in OS 8 and 9 I was mounting CD images for games. :)

    41. Re:CD hack? by cyxxon · · Score: 1

      Well, true. We are connected via the Gigabitnetz of the DFN (check dfn.de), but I cannot find any info on the excct config of our net access. I would ghave to go to some part where I know they have a chart about that hanging on the wall. For me, it is sufficient to know that transfers from and to the internet can go as high as my NIC allows (well, that and the switch and cables...)

    42. Re:CD hack? by Twanfox · · Score: 2

      Well, it's led to one decreased sale at the moment while I weigh the issues of:

      1) Do I want to put up with this crap?

      Being connected to the internet just to play my game bothers me in no small order, especially when I play a single player game installed on my computer. Why should I be using resources outside the scope of the game just to play? This interferes with use of a laptop to play while offline, playing a single player game should my internet connection (broadband) take a dive, or doing lan parties where the hosting individual doesn't have a good or any internet connection. Will I find myself in these situations often enough to be significantly agrivated (though, to me, any agrivation decreases the value of the game to me).

      2) Is there any value added to this for me?

      Is HL2 sufficiently advanced for me to even forget the fact that I'm going to be gangraped by copy protection every time I play?

      I have absolutely no problem paying for the game, and would love to do just that, but if I find myself getting agrivated more than enjoying the game, I have just paid $$'s to be pissed off, and... hell, if that's what I want to do, I can just go drive around in traffic for free.

      So, for now, I wait, and see if it's worth it. I may even wait until the point at which it's a gift, or until my interests turn to something else. I cannot imagine I am the only one leery of this kind of crap.

    43. Re:CD hack? by jandrese · · Score: 1

      I call BS on games refusing to run if Nero or a CD burner is installed. Both of those are installed in far too many systems (a great many OEM systems come with burners these days) to be practical. Your helpdesk would be absolutely flooded with people who bought legitimate copies of the game.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    44. Re:CD hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      often over several gigs of images per game

      You don't have to burn all the CDs to the hard drive d00d! Just the Play CD, usually CD 1 of most games.

    45. Re:CD hack? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      actually distributing the cd crack for HL2 may not even be illegal on the basis that the steam activation remains in tact and that the system is still protected without the CD check.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    46. Re:CD hack? by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1
      Your helpdesk would be absolutely flooded with people who bought legitimate copies of the game.

      And this would bother publishers how? They put technical help-lines on premium rate phone lines after all. The more bugs in their code, the more money they make from people ringing up for help.

    47. Re:CD hack? by delus10n0 · · Score: 1

      I have about 40 of my game CD's/DVD's loaded up in Alcohol 120%, and they all play flawlessly via image, cd-checks and all. I've never had an installer complain about Alcohol 120% (nor should it.)

      --
      Not All Who Wander Are Lost
    48. Re:CD hack? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      actually i have the right to modify anything on my system as i see fit, i do not have the right to use such modificaitons to infringe on someone else's rights, such as illegally copying a game.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    49. Re:CD hack? by AirP · · Score: 1

      Buying HL2 via steam you never have the chance to put in a fake CD Key. If you buy the game, someone could lend his or her cd around and let people try to guess cdkeys till they work... and not everyone has good enough cd copying software to make multiple copies of the software.

    50. Re:CD hack? by jandrese · · Score: 1

      There's another reason that some people (like me) go for the CD-crack. It turns out that Safedisc (or whatever the popular one is that 1/2 of the publisher seem to use) doesn't work on my DVD/CDRW combo laptop drive (stupid Dell OEM part). Any game that uses that will refuse to start on my machine (some will pop up abusive dialog boxes telling me that piracy is ruining the country). This is very frustrating when you've actually bought the game.

      Thus far, only Blizzard's tech support was willing to work with me. They issued a patched version that seems to work on my machine. Everyone else just stuck me in the "pirate" category and forced me to either find a no-cd crack or return the game.

      It's a shame that I spent all of that time getting Warcraft 3 to work, only to discover that it wasn't much fun to play.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    51. Re:CD hack? by GryMor · · Score: 1

      Err, except the CD really is irrelevent, you can't play the game without associating a particular CDkey with a particular steam account and updating/activating the installed copy.
      One account can't play with itself (and trying to do so is a good way to get the account disabled).

      --
      Realities just a bunch of bits.
    52. Re:CD hack? by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      I believe the grandparent was talking about the fact that the T1 standard is used in the US. The european counterpart would be the E1, regardless of what your specific connection happens to be.

    53. Re:CD hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This specific case was reported earlier on slashdot. Their helpdesk was indeed flooded with people who bought legit copies.
      I forgot which game it was tho, just search it.

    54. Re:CD hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is dumb since the various warez versions of HL2 come with a working hack and "Steam simulator" to avoid this problem.

    55. Re:CD hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While their next game might be Steam only, Half-life 3 is currently under contract with VU.

    56. Re:CD hack? by aslate · · Score: 1

      Well, with a DVD [only] game such as Half-Life 2, there is 1 DVD that my PC says is 2.96GB...

    57. Re:CD hack? by Voxxel · · Score: 1

      I tried this, but no dice. Uninstalled HL2, then re-installed via Steam. The logical thing would be to assume that your CD-Key identifies you to steam as requiring a disc. There really is no way around it right now at least, if you have a retail copy you will need the CD or an image mounted.

      --

      If a million monkeys randomly pounded on keyboards, they would all log into AOL.
    58. Re:CD hack? by Farmer+Jimbo · · Score: 2

      Doom 3 wouldn't run if you had Nero installed, and yes it created an uproar:

      Installation/Loading Problems: Many users report that they have difficulty installing or launching Doom 3. It is important to understand that Doom 3 uses a copy protection system which objects to the presence of CloneCD, Alcohol, Daemon Tools and even Nero Burning Rom (in rare cases). So if you are experiencing these problems make sure you disable and even uninstall any such software if you want Doom 3 to run. Don't tell me this isn't cool, I agree with you.

      from Doom 3 article.

      Oh, and apparently some new EA games like Sims 2:

      Sims 2 blocked by CD copying software.

    59. Re:CD hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a few years back i bought a game off the discount shelf. I think it was "gangsters gold"

      well, when they re-released the game for the discount market, they changed the disc around a little, adding in the patches that had been made.

      For some reason, however, the game itself decided that the disc i had wasnt the original (i guess they forgot to include the "bad clusters" or whatever is used to identify the cd)

      anyway, long story short, there was literally no way to play the game as it came. Going out & finding a crack was a requirement.

      Many other posters have also pointed out that a lot of these copy-protection schemes wont work at all if youve got CDROM drive X, or DVD drive Y. I have also seen many that just assume your CDROM drive is drive D: and wont work if (heaven forbid) you have 2 hard disks.

      Anywho, its gotten to the point where if im thinking about buying a game, i first go out to megagames and gamecopyworld & look for a no-cd crack. If one is not available, i dont buy the game.

    60. Re:CD hack? by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      Quake never needed the disc in the CD-ROM drive to play the game. I bet the same is true for Doom, considering that it was originally released on floppy disks! Id Software started requiring the CD with Quake 2, and at least with Quake 2, after several patches for the game and about a year after its release, they released an official patch that removed the requirement of the CD.

      So you are wrong, you need to remove those two games from your list.

    61. Re:CD hack? by ChrisPee · · Score: 1
      And Valve has a right to 'lock out' customers stealing the game, but they enter a grey area of legality when they lock out legitimate purchasers who simply want to avoid the annoying CD checks on their legal copy of the game.
      Ethical gray area? Maybe. Legal gray area? Absolutely not. Their obligations to the customer are clearly delineated in the license agreement, and support of modded games is not one of those obligations.
    62. Re:CD hack? by elmegil · · Score: 1

      So you should have bought it through Steam, which requires no CD. This was well known, so if you weren't paying attention, shame on you, not Valve.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    63. Re:CD hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      windows users used to be able to do this also. The game software now scans your computer for cdrom emulation software. So we can not have these programs installed to install or play current game that implement this. doom3 did it. it did have daemon tool installed. I used it for mounting iso and bin images as drives in windows. Not anymore! I just use linux now. Screw these game companys!

    64. Re:CD hack? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      Hang on, I don't live in America, I don't follow your "laws".

      I just want to play the game I paid good money for without risking damaging my original DVD.

      With any other game, I would feel quite comfortable getting a nocd patch for it, but with the ever present Valve overlords watching my every move, I'm not going to... yet.

      I may still decide to flick the bird @ valve and run in offline mode with no dvd in my drive.

      Doing so makes me feel like a criminal though.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    65. Re:CD hack? by mobets · · Score: 1

      I have nero and Deamon Tools installed... I've been playing Doom 3 since the day it was reliesed...

      --

      It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese
    66. Re:CD hack? by ballwall · · Score: 1

      There's a file called clientregistry.blob (or something similar) in your steam directory. I was trying to install it to a network share to decrease load times (gigabit link with a speedy raid array) and the installer wouldn't let me. Wouldn't even recognize when I copied the steam dir by hand. Did a search of files in the steam dir and found the blob file contained the install path. Deleted that and was able to move the dir and play. Could be the same thing for the CD auth.

    67. Re:CD hack? by Wescotte · · Score: 1

      While their next game might be Steam only, Half-life 3 is currently under contract with VU.

      Heh, poor Valve. They get to go thru this whole pile of crap again and so do the gamers.

    68. Re:CD hack? by T-Ranger · · Score: 1

      Indeed I was. But now he is doubly wrong, saying that he can pull down whatever his NIC can get.

    69. Re:CD hack? by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      Hey you never know... maybe he is jacked in directly to an Internet backbone router via 10G ethernet and his PCI bus is really the limiting factor :)

    70. Re:CD hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because...

      You buy the disk.
      It doesn't work (because you have a burner but it doesn't tell you that).
      You return the "defective disk" and exchange it.
      Repeat x3.
      Store gets fed up and insists on testing the next one.
      Lo and behold, the whole stock is bad.

      Consequences:
      - 80% of packages opened in store and returned as defective.
      of the remaining 20%:
      - 80% of copies actually sold are returned.
      - Both consumer and retailer vow never to touch that brand again.

      I don't see how the publisher stands to profit in this circumstance.

    71. Re:CD hack? by biafra · · Score: 1
      From what I understand, if you uninstall Half-Life 2 after activating it on Steam, then install off of Steam, you won't have to use your media anymore.

      Nope, not that I've seen. I bought the game on CD and then at work though, "hey how cool I'll download via steam and try playing during downtime". After the 3+GB of downloads were done, and I tried to launch the game, it still asked me to insert the game disc. I think I'll just make a image with alcohol 120% on my laptop then transfer it over to the work machine.

      --
      :wq
    72. Re:CD hack? by T-Ranger · · Score: 1

      I suppose that could be true. And there is some internanl consistancy to a situation where the network admin confuses a T1 with a 10GigE internet connection and where the network admin allows downloading games, and in fact downloads them himself! Man, if I had a OC-192 in my office.....

    73. Re:CD hack? by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I installed the no-CD patch for Doom3 too.

      --
      My other first post is car post.
    74. Re:CD hack? by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      If you buy the game via Steam, you could give your CD key to other people and let them log in via your account to download the game on their own machines.

      The SecuROM protection did absolutely nothing to stop piracy.

    75. Re:CD hack? by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      Could you point to the piece of knowledge published prior to the release of the game that stated outright that the retail box version of Half-Life 2 would include SecuROM protection?

    76. Re:CD hack? by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      I'm using a noCD crack found from www.gamecopyworld.com (which still requires that the game be authenticated and unlocked via Steam), and I've not been banned.

      No one on the forum where the crack first surfaced has reported a banning for using it either. I suspect that Valve is not actually going after those who are just using the noCD crack, and instead are going after those using bogus CD keys, though I have to wonder exactly how Steam didn't catch legitimate CD keys beforehand. I'm not entirely certain what criteria they are using for banning, because the forums are down now.

      If my account gets banned because I used a tool to bypass an intrusive and unnecessary restriction on a game that I legally obtained, I will personally track down Gabe and drive a crowbar into his skull.

    77. Re:CD hack? by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      I also have Nero and DOOM 3. It worked just fine. Perhaps they check a specific version of Nero? I have 5.x as that's what came with my burner.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    78. Re:CD hack? by elmegil · · Score: 1

      Who cares what the specific technology is? Let's see....I buy a CD based game....every CD based game for the last N years has required the CD in it to play (like, say, Unreal Tournament 2004 as only the most recent example). What are the ODDS that another CD based game is going to require same? No, none of the others require Steam, but for all the morons bitching about the "privacy invasion" that it poses, you'd think people would consider what's going on and use some sense.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    79. Re:CD hack? by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      Except that Valve already set a prescedent by NOT having CD checks on Steam-based titles in the past.

      That's why this one caught quite a few people off-guard.

    80. Re:CD hack? by Izago909 · · Score: 1

      Screw that. I'm way too old and far too busy to sit around and follow the news of development. When you buy something, you expect it to work and do so while giving you a minimal ammount of crap. This ranks in the same category of purchased DVDs that force people watch their commercials before the video. Despite all the bitching taking place on the nerdier side of the internet, this stuff is becoming part of the law and not a dman thing is going to change it; or at least until after the mass public gets a taste of it.

    81. Re:CD hack? by elmegil · · Score: 1

      So return it and quit whining to the rest of us.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    82. Re:CD hack? by Snaller · · Score: 1

      4) The company does what Valve did and disables cracks.


      Actually according to newsgroups post there is a crack out which works fine.


      To those who pirate games: If you don't like DRM and the DMCA, look in the mirror for the reason that we are stuck with those.


      Yep, greedy lawers and incompetent politicians.


      If you want to change the world, start with the only person that you CAN control: yourself.


      And then go AND VOTE!

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    83. Re:CD hack? by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps he's running a 100 node cluster on the same unswitched 10Base-T network ;)

      Hey, you never know.

    84. Re:CD hack? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      And some of us are on dialups where we pay by the minute, also other people are on connections where they pay for bandwidth usage.. We should be able to send valve a bill for this.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    85. Re:CD hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't really matter if it's a E1, a T1 or 10GbE if he's got a windows box on it. The virus traffic is going to saturate the link anyways.

    86. Re:CD hack? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Actually we had the same capability way before

      True. And what I said is also true - the Mac OSX way is now the same as the old unix way. The Mac OS9 way of accomplishing this isn't used anymore.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  3. Securom protection by Cloud+K · · Score: 4, Funny

    For some reason I thought that said 'scrotum protection'. I always did say anti-piracy measures were a load of bollocks.

    1. Re:Securom protection by digitalgiblet · · Score: 1
      I for one am perfectly happy to trade away a few of my rights for "scrotum protection".

      As a matter of fact, I think it should be one of the PRIMARY tasks of the Bush Administration's second term to guarantee "scrotum protection". I would go so far as to suggest that had John Kerry focused more on the issue of "scrotum protection", then HE would be our new president elect.

      I think it was the poet Ballsack who said "scrotal protection is one of the inalienable rights of man." And he meant MAN not PEOPLE. He probably said it French or something too.

    2. Re:Securom protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some reason I thought that said 'scrotum protection'.

      Does this mean you can't run it on Eunuchs?

    3. Re:Securom protection by BW_Nuprin · · Score: 4, Funny
      For some reason I thought that said 'scrotum protection'. I always did say anti-piracy measures were a load of bollocks.

      I too read it like that. Although, wouldn't scrotum protection rather be a load of ball-locks?

    4. Re:Securom protection by fitten · · Score: 1

      Those who are willing to give up rights for scrotum protection deserve neither the rights nor the scrotum.... or something like that...

    5. Re:Securom protection by digitalgiblet · · Score: 1

      They can take my scrotum when they pry it from my cold dead hands!!!

    6. Re:Securom protection by fitten · · Score: 1

      A scrotum in the hand is worth two in the bush?

    7. Re:Securom protection by DeadSea · · Score: 1
      No. It shouldn't be ball-locks.

      I read that as(s):
      For some reason I thought that said 'scrotum protection'. I always did say anti-piracy measures were a load of buttocks.

    8. Re:Securom protection by ibentmywookie · · Score: 1

      It's an English/UK term referring to somebodies balls/ballsack. As is my understand (I'm Australian, but some people use that term here too).

      --
      -- The doctor said I wouldn't get so many nose bleeds if I just kept my finger out of there!
  4. No problem... by z84976 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I bought the game, used my key, and it works great. Don't bitch if you didn't buy the game. Simple as that.

    1. Re:No problem... by sboss · · Score: 1

      same for me. I activated a steam account, paid for and downloaded HL2 (among other Valve games) via steam. Have played it over and over and over again since last friday. not a problem.

      Scott

      --
      Scott
      janitor
      sdn website family
      email: scott at sboss dot net
    2. Re:No problem... by DarkMantle · · Score: 1

      What about those of us who want to try the game before we buy. I've boughten any game I've played for more then an hour. Including Doom3, UT, UT2k4, Theif (& 2) just to name a few.

      Some of us like to try games to see if it's worth me sinking 6 hours of pay into it.

      Since Valve did not release a demo either, I guess I'll never play it unless someone else buys it and I try it on their system. And since me and my friends didn't really like HL/CS none of us wanna buy it untill we've tried it out. So Valve will probably never see my $60 (CAD)

      --
      DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
    3. Re:No problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Boughten' is not a word.

    4. Re:No problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And since me and my friends didn't really like HL/CS none of us wanna buy it untill we've tried it out.
      You really should spend less time downloading and testing games (in all probability illegitimate copies) and more time on your grammar. It's atrocious!

      Since my friends and I didn't really like HL/CS none of us wish to buy it until we've tried it out.

    5. Re:No problem... by Sporkinum · · Score: 1

      I payed $10 to play Tribes: Vengeance at the local lan gaming center. I did that as a try before you buy, even though I was in the beta for Tribes: Vengeance before release. After playing it for 4 hours there I decided it wasn't better enough over Tribes 1 and 2 to be worth purchase.

      Obviously not an option for everyone, but it is something I do if I have a doubt about a game.

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    6. Re:No problem... by Kazymyr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So what are you going to do when, in a day or a week or a month or a year, the steam database has a glitch and marks your account as using a stolen key? Or when steam is cracked (because it WILL be sooner or later - the temptation is just too great) and Valve will start locking down legitimate accounts? What recourse will you have then?

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    7. Re:No problem... by DarkMantle · · Score: 1

      Actually, if a demo is available, I use that to decide if I like the game. I realize I only see one level, and sometimes just certain facets of the game. However, it gives me a feel for it to decide if it's worth my hard earned money.

      --
      DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
    8. Re:No problem... by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      set my steam to offline mode, and fire up hl2...

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    9. Re:No problem... by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

      Except that after they've banned your account, it won't work in offline mode.

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    10. Re:No problem... by brkello · · Score: 1

      Umm, I'd call them up and explain what happened and they would fix it...

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    11. Re:No problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call whom? Explain what? If the Steam protocol gets cracked, Valve will have a lot on their hands - shutting down accounts left and right. What makes you think they'll listen to you, the lowly user? They already show they have nothing but contempt for the nuisance called "customers". Why else would they not even deign reply to the many open support tickets users complain about being ignored on Valve's own forums?

  5. It's still fair by bigman2003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know that a lot of people will have huge problems with this.

    I still don't see why though- most people knew about Steam going in (everyone who tried to use the crack knew about Steam).

    Someday, circumventing copy protection won't be seen as a white-hat activity. But it will be seen as people trying to cheat others out of compensation for their work.

    --
    No reason to lie.
    1. Re:It's still fair by Kenja · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "Someday, circumventing copy protection won't be seen as a white-hat activity. But it will be seen as people trying to cheat others out of compensation for their work."

      How is trying to bypass a broekn and buggy overzellous copy protection system AFTER I've payed money for the prodyct cheating anyone out of compensation for their work? Downloading the game witout paying for it would qualify, but getting their spyware off my computer seems like a good thing to me.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:It's still fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is a CD check spyware? Please, remove the foil hat.

    3. Re:It's still fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Let's see a show of hands of people who have actually purchased the game and who have problems playing online? I doubt you'd see more hands than what you'd get from statistical noise.

      Now let's see a show of hands of people who didn't purchase the game, are using some kind of crack to get in, and who have problems playing online? You wouldn't see a whole lot of hands, because these people won't own up to it, but if you could read their minds, I'd guess you'd count quite a few, and they're the ones making noise about this whole locking out problem.

      If you don't like the terms and conditions a game -- a completely voluntary activity -- sets forth in order to participate, then don't participate. Simple as that. You want to play, but you don't want to pay? Write your own game.

    4. Re:It's still fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative


      Steam is the spyware.

    5. Re:It's still fair by Kenja · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      "Let's see a show of hands of people who have actually purchased the game and who have problems playing online?"

      Me for one. It took two hours to register and steam NEVER connects on the first try. In addiont steam takes a while to load and the game wont launch until steam is up. Add in the fact that I dont WANT spyware on my system and I have to realise that steam adds nothing that I want or need, so why should I put up with it?

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    6. Re:It's still fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      As long as you can learn how the copy protection works before buying, you cant complain. And they are doing the right thing in protecting their product.

      And I think, in a year or so, theyll probably release a patch for the CD and online checks to make life easier for the modders.

      Its just that the first 3-4 months after a game is released is when they make something like 90% of the sales, and they have to fight very hard these first months or the profilation of cracked versions may deflate the sales.
      HL2 will probably sell pretty well in any case, but generally speaking, gamecompanies must fight piracy hard as hell during the first months.

    7. Re:It's still fair by Telastyn · · Score: 1

      And hopefully one day copy protection will be seen as companies stealing the lawful right of customers to do what they damned well please with what they buy.

      If Valve [oops, Vivendi] wants to recoup their losses due to copyright infringement, then they should use the recourse available to them, small claims court. Some guy pirated your game, sue him for $50.

    8. Re:It's still fair by DoctorMO · · Score: 1

      To confuise the rights of the customer with the rights or non rights of the pirate is utter tiffle. statistical nois... wha are you on? if more than 10 people complain there are a further 100 sitting in silience putting up with it.

      I think this is a major issue about over zelous copy protection which dos't do alot.

    9. Re:It's still fair by Antony.S · · Score: 1

      PH33R VALVE WATCHING YOU!

    10. Re:It's still fair by Ubergrendle · · Score: 1

      How is trying to bypass a broekn and buggy overzellous copy protection system AFTER I've payed money for the prodyct cheating anyone out of compensation for their work? Downloading the game witout paying for it would qualify, but getting their spyware off my computer seems like a good thing to me.

      Its simple. You shouldn't have bought the game. Valve has been 100% forthcoming with the details on what Steam is, and how it will work... they even gave you a preview with the end-generation HL1/CS product.

      You have to consider the fact that the copy protection is intended to PROTECT the online experience. Generic keys/unsecured installs = hacks. Hacks = bad. I'm not saying there won't be hacks without illegitimate accounts, but it certainly provides Valve with more tools to police the environment.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    11. Re:It's still fair by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How is this flamebait? If we had an appropriate moderation option it would be (-1, Poor grasp on English) but this is clearly not flamebait. Why is it wrong to bypass a copy protection mechanism if you're not violating copyright law? Hint: It isn't. If I want a no-CD-check patch, it should be my right to use it. There's still a key that you need for online play.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:It's still fair by Unkle · · Score: 1
      Call me ignorant if you want, but I don't see what's broken or buggy about the copy protection system. Me, I'm using the ATI freebie version (which is equivalent to downloading from Steam), and haven't had a single problem. Yes, the game takes a little bit to start, but it's really not that bad. The only complaint I have about this is that they don't do a very good job during loading screens letting you know that the program is loading and hasn't crashed, or giving an indication of how long is left. This is well done for loading saved games, but for loading during a level, it isn't so good.

      Yes, I have the concern that, if Valve ever goes belly up, I might not be able to play my games from Steam anymore. But I would hope that they will address this concern before they start to get in trouble as a company.

      --
      Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain.
    13. Re:It's still fair by aldoman · · Score: 1

      Starforce 3 protection installs an incredibly hard to remove driver, that's right.. kernel level driver onto your computer. Obviously it's not 'spyware' per-se but it's bloody close to it.

    14. Re:It's still fair by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 1

      Steam is the spyware.

      Except it's not very good spyware - it asks if you wish to participate in the purely voluntary hardware survey, and I think (although I could be wrong) it even shows you precisely what it'll send to Valve if you do agree.

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    15. Re:It's still fair by tolan-b · · Score: 1

      It's certainly not wrong. However in the States it is illegal under the DMCA to bypass copy protection, even on something you bought.

      Personally I think this whole Windows activation style thing is appalling. EULAs are almost certainly not binding, but what are you going to do about it? HL2 is still likely to be the best selling game of the year.

      Personally I'm sorely tempted to pirate the game so I don't have to put up with this Steam BS, and send Valve a cheque ;)

    16. Re:It's still fair by janoc · · Score: 2, Interesting
      What a load of bull ... Sorry folks, but many people here either do not know what they are talking about (standard Slashdot) or are just simply wrong.

      Steam as spyware - you can refuse participation in the survey and no data are collected. Everything is disclosed to you in cca three lines legible to everybody (unless you are illiterate). How this qualifies as spyware is a mystery to me. Why was the parent modded as "interesting" ??

      Expiration, disabling the game and such - actually, if you want to just play the single player game (there is no multiplayer, BTW, just CounterStrike: Source bundled), you need to activate the game once and then do not need to connect to Steam. You can play in "offline" mode without problem. So, even if Valve goes under, you can still play.

      For CounterStrike that's another matter, the strict checks are necessary evil to help stem the rampant cheating known from the older version.

      No-CD cracks - well, that would be interesting. I have a DVD edition of the game and to have to insert it each time is annoying (especially since it installed cca 4GB os stuff on disk already). I guess a No-CD update will be released later.

      So stop screaming "rip-off", nobody forced you to buy the game. The Steam requirements were known for a long time and I am really not sorry at all for the freeloaders. I really do not get why many people seems to think that they are entitled to play the game without paying for it.

    17. Re:It's still fair by Kenja · · Score: 3, Funny
      "If we had an appropriate moderation option it would be (-1, Poor grasp on English)"

      Hye, I resemble that remark. How about we call it (-1 no coffee yet)?

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    18. Re:It's still fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And some day the (continuous) harrasment of companies that demand to have full control over their products, to a point that they can-and-will rob a buyer of (the use of) his/her (legally bought) product, will bee seen as a criminal offence : selling something without the intent of delivering a fully functional (stand alone) product and/or honoring the rights of the buyer.

    19. Re:It's still fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hopefully one day copy protection will be seen as companies stealing the lawful right of customers to do what they damned well please with what they buy.

      Except you DON'T have a lawful right to do what you damned well please with what you buy.

      Even if copyright law were abolished, you still wouldn't have that right. (For example, you sure wouldn't have the lawful right to shoot innocent passers-by dead, even if you bought the bullets yourself.)

      Some guy pirated your game, sue him for $50.

      Some guy released your game on a P2P network, sue him for... what? You don't know how many people downloaded from him. So you assume the worst and get HIM to prove he only uploaded a couple of copies. This leads to massive claim inflation and RIAA-style lawsuits. Are you sure you prefer the RIAA's tactics to Valve's tactics? Are you sure you think it's better for a handful of kids to spend the rest of their lives paying off record-industry fatcats, as opposed to a handful of customers being unable to play a game they legitimately purchased? Oh, sure, in an ideal world you'd have neither, but we live in the real world - and you pretty much have a choice of one or the other. Which evil do YOU think is the lesser?

    20. Re:It's still fair by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      In which way is their copy protection system "broken and buggy"?
      And overzellaous is a subjective opinion, not a fact.

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    21. Re:It's still fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you DO know for a fact that when you click "no" it doesn't send the data anyway. Or that the data it displays is the ONLY data it sends. How?

    22. Re:It's still fair by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      Um, have you had your legitimately bought copy of HL2 banned? IE have they banned your key?
      That is what was asked, not whether you were having issues in general, and not whether you thought steam was spywear or anything like that (which there is absolutely ZERO proof that it is anyways).

      As the guy you replied to meant, STFU unless you have something _objective_ to say.

      --
      No Comment.
    23. Re:It's still fair by xnot · · Score: 1

      I've come to an interesting conclusion regarding piracy. It comes down to basic beliefs about who people are and their involvement in the economy.

      You basically have two types of people:

      1) Users - people who typically have one job and limited finantial resources. Often called "consumers" because their role is simply to gobble things up without contributing anything back. (Mainly because they don't believe they have anything of value to offer.)
      2) Producers - people who are actively involved in the economy by selling a product/service of their own and making money from it. These people give as well as take.

      Most people THINK they are a #1, when in reality they are a #2. Even if you work for someone else, you ARE selling something: what you are selling is your time and experience. Time and experience are just as valuable as money, because they BRING you money. (Simple mathematics.)

      I used to be pretty firmly in the #1 mindset. But I realized, the reason I didn't place all that much value in the product I was pirating was because I don't sell anything of value myself. If I sold something myself, I bet I would realize that my contribution is just as valuable as someone else's. The economy is a ballance, after all. You always give and receive SOMETHING. Even if you offered a product for free, your reward is the happiness of your users, rather then money. Piraters gain the satisfaction of beating the system by going to the trouble of cracking a program. The reality is, nobody does something without getting something out of it that they can keep for themselves, whether it be money, happiness, etc.

      I don't think people fundamentally want to cheat other people. Where the economy gets screwed up is when we lose sight of the basic idea of just contribution and just compensation. Companies have moved towards hording money, and in reaction, users have moved towards screwing the hording companies. But being "screwed" by not being paid well for your valuable time (no raise, etc.) is just as "screwed" as stealing a valuable product worth money from someone else. People who rip off "greedy" companies, in reality, are just as bad as the greedy company who is ripping off them.

      So what is the solution? Stealing products as a way of "leveling the playing field", isn't going ever produce that ballence. The only thing that happens is you get an arms race between the businesses and the users (anti-piracy vs piracy). What IS going to produce a ballance is getting out there and either starting or affilating with a business, so you can get to a point where you make enough money to be able to pay for others' contributions. That's a much better way to beat the system then to pirate everything. Instead of bringing rich people down to your level, why do you go up to theirs?

      Anyone in business going to back up what I'm saying here?

    24. Re:It's still fair by Pecisk · · Score: 1

      Answer is very simple - Game is owned by publisher and it can do ANYTHING what it owns. So...answer is VERY simple - just don't use it, period.

      Ohh, you bought it? No, you bought a right to play. Ohh, there is no license? I guess no, when you install it, you have to agree with it. If you don't agree, call Valve that you don't and get a refund.

      Very deadly simple.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    25. Re:It's still fair by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      Intention 1: skip the cd check. Action: pay for the software, and defeat cd check.

      Intention 2: steal the software. Action: don't pay for the software, and defeat cd check.

      So, when the developers figure out that you've defeated the cd check, it will be seen as you trying to cheat them out of compensation for their work, because (drum roll) they can't know for sure that you have payed money for the product.

      Their actions are reasonable. Get over it.

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    26. Re:It's still fair by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Deadly simple? Hitting your head when you get up from the toilet is deadly simple. This would just be simple, except it's actually a complicated legal question, and therefore it's quite complex. Stop being so dramatic and actually think about this issue.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re:It's still fair by bigman2003 · · Score: 1

      As someone who sells 'Intellectual Property' of a few different types- yes I agree with what you are saying.

      It's easy to say "Screw the big companies!" until the day you realize that the big company is who writes your check.

      I've sold software- and I've had it ripped off. Going to a different site, and seeing your software given away for free is not a heart-warming experience. I attempted to sell software two different times- once without any copy protection at all, and another time it required a 'phone home' registration.

      The 'completely open' version was just shamelessly stolen- I have no idea how many times, because there was no way to track it.

      The 'phone home' version was also 'cracked' (I have no idea how to really secure it, so I'm sure it wasn't much of a chore) and also given away freely. I can count how many people who didn't like the copy protection, because they made sure to send me e-mail to tell me what a fucking dick I was for trying to encrypt my software.

      Because of these experiences, I make sure to voice my opinion every time this subject comes up on Slashdot. I spent hundreds and hundreds of hours in development time, and only sold a few copies- yet I know more people were out there using it at one time because I could see the results on their websites.

      Now I am married to an artist who also has her 'product' out on the web. Once again, people shamelessly steal it. She's in a bind, because if she wants to sell her work, she needs to let people see it. But in some cases, the crummy samples she provides on the web are good enough for people to use.

      But back to your original point- yes, I agree that it is usually the schmucking 'consumers' who have little to offer, who feel that it is their 'right' to steal from others.

      --
      No reason to lie.
    28. Re:It's still fair by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      Answer is very simple - Game is owned by publisher and it can do ANYTHING what it owns. So...answer is VERY simple - just don't use it, period.
      Both state and federal law, not to mention numerous court decisions, disagree with you. Copyright law does not allow the copyright holder to dictate how you may use the copyrighted work, only whether and how you may distribute copies of it.

      If you enter into a contract limiting how you may use the work, that's one thing, but buying the software from a store is not such a contract, and EULAs that appear after purchase are similarly not binding contracts.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    29. Re:It's still fair by Mechcommander · · Score: 1

      I don't give a rat's ass about the online experience, as I usually only play the single-player campaign in my games. I wouldn't mind having steam on my computer to play multiplayer, but when I need to have it on my PC just to play the single player campaign, it's a whole different fucking ball game.
      Let me play the single-player game that *I* purchased legitimately without an internet connection. Is that so damn hard for Valve to grasp?

    30. Re:It's still fair by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      Except that the only CD crack out there doesn't make pirating the game any easier. The warez release was out BEFORE the working noCD crack, extracted from the gcf files in the Steam directory. The noCD crack just drops in the Steam-download version of hl2.exe (which has no CD check) when a user attempts to launch the game via Steam. The user still has to obtain the game and unlock the content via Steam registration.

      The CD crack, in this case, is utterly worthless and whoever made the call to use it should be shot.

    31. Re:It's still fair by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      That should be that the CD check is worthless, not the crack.

    32. Re:It's still fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about this? By agreeing to the EULA you have agreed to use the software as it is constructed, not as you see fit. This means that by using a no CD crack you are altering the program and therefore have broken the EULA thus forfeiting your right to use the software according to the contract.

      Also if you sell the software agreeing to the EULA you're in violation for another reason. You have become not the "end user" and the contract is not yours. This is the same reason that you could resell HL2 before agreeing to the END USER Lisence Agreement because presumably whoever you sell it to will be the END USER.

      And as was mentioned, Steam was a long publicised mechanism, as was the activation process. Stop whining about it. If you want the software then buy it. But if you don't want the software, then don't buy it, and don't complain about a consumer-vendor relationships that don't apply to you.

    33. Re:It's still fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Their actions are reasonable. Get over it"

      Ah yes, the internet hand wave "get over it".

      We are getting over it. We use the no-CD crack. We're over it.

      You seem to be the one with your panties in a twist. The rest of us are enjoying the game with the no-CD crack.

      And steam isn't smart enough to figure it all out. I laugh a little at them. I laugh a lot at you.

    34. Re:It's still fair by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Someday, circumventing copy protection won't be seen as a white-hat activity.

      No, it will be a right under the law.

      But it will be seen as people trying to cheat others out of compensation for their work.

      Except the greedy bastards except to get paid over and over and over and over and over for a job done once.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    35. Re:It's still fair by SirWinston · · Score: 1

      > Expiration, disabling the game and such - actually, if
      > you want to just play the single player game (there is no
      > multiplayer, BTW, just CounterStrike: Source bundled), you
      > need to activate the game once and then do not need to connect
      > to Steam. You can play in "offline" mode without problem. So,
      > even if Valve goes under, you can still play.

      Until you upgrade your PC or OS and need to reinstall the game. No activation server, no more game. Now, I'm sure Valve would release a no-activation patch before that happens--but hey, maybe not. Tried playing DiVX (not the codec, the early DVD competitor) discs lately? As soon as the activation servers went down, millions of discs became useless coasters. But hey, that could never happen to a big company like Valve's products, right? DiVX was only being supported by little companies like Circuit City and Disney, after all. ;-)

      --
      "It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word."--Andrew Jackson
    36. Re:It's still fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I havent purchased the game, I havent played the game. And i WONT purchase OR play the game because of their *%&$ copy protection.

      I should note that i *was* very interested in getting this game until i heard about all the crap you had to put up with to actually play it.

      There are a number of other programs that i refuse to buy because of product activation as well.

    37. Re:It's still fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "For CounterStrike that's another matter, the strict checks are necessary evil to help stem the rampant cheating known from the older version."

      Most likely why a (very good working) wallhack has been working from Day 2 of the release ?

      VALVe doesn't give a shit about cheat protection : So much was clear when a (reasonably) working Punkbuster was been considered less good than their own in-house anti cheat system : VAC.

      VAC does a good job at detecting the main-cheats that do their rounds on the main-anti-cheat sites, but further than that (and -very- amateurish string scanning) it detects -nothing- a bit enhanced/changed.

    38. Re:It's still fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The folks who downloaded the cracked version of the game will have no problems because they don't need to connect to steam at all. Ever.. Their game works perfectly, unlike the poor shmucks who bought the CD/DVD.

  6. !whip crack sound! by armer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    seems like someone may have slowed down the pirates for a little bit...

    1. Re:!whip crack sound! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmmm... not quite. People that are actually pirating this game don't even need to touch steam or be connected to the internet.

    2. Re:!whip crack sound! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that many people find the multiplayer online aspect of these games to be the fun part.... I stopped playing 'solo' games years ago, preferring competition against real players.

  7. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  8. What? by avalys · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People are discovering that when you buy any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really bought anything.

    Except...these people didn't actually buy the product, did they? No, they stole it. I don't see what the problem is.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank.
    1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Except...these people didn't actually buy the product, did they? No, they stole it. I don't see what the problem is.

      The implication that one or two who got screwed are legit owners, so we've a flismy excuse for yet another rant against Steam.

      But there's nothing to substantiate that.

    2. Re:What? by m3j00 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Except...these people didn't actually buy the product, did they? No, they stole it. I don't see what the problem is.

      RTFA much? Some people that _did_ buy it but tried to use a NOCD crack so they don't have to disc-swap all the time are now banned.

    3. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but they didn't people that steal software DO NOT go to support forums and then give up information to the tech support about their STOLEN Game.

      these are people that had their key stolen or even keygen that created their key.

      valve has become a bunch of assholes, and I for one will NEVER buy anytihng from them and will reccomend to everyone I know to never EVER buy HL@ or anything from VALVE again.

      fuck em, they want to tell me to fuck myself with their "steam" product control system, then they get the same treatment back.
      I badmouth them at every turn and to everyone I can.

    4. Re:What? by avalys · · Score: 1

      According to Valve, these people are in the minority. Regardless, they knew what they were getting into when they decided to use the NOCD crack. What did they expect Valve to do? Valve put the CD protection into HL2 for a reason (even if it was only to satisfy Vivendi) - they're not going to sit around idly and watch as people try to bypass it.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    5. Re:What? by eric_brissette · · Score: 1

      I hope you're right. I'm guessing that the vast majority of those 20,000 accounts were owned by software pirates.. but there is also a good chance that at least a few didn't deserve to be canned.

      For those who didn't deserve to have their steam accounts closed, I think Valve should give them their money back, and let them keep playing. It's good to keep the customer happy.

      Hopefully a good chunk of the people who DID deserve to have their accounts closed will come to the conclusion that it's not going to be worth stealing the game and just cough up the $50.

    6. Re:What? by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

      Except...these people didn't actually buy the product, did they? No, they stole it. I don't see what the problem is.

      Except...These aren't pirates. People who pirate games don't bitch and whine on forums if the game the pirated stops working. It doesn't cost them anything to get a game, so they don't really care if it breaks. The people who are taking the time to complain are people who are pissed off because the game they bought doesn't work.

      --

      HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    7. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which also means that if one of these bastards that gave their game to a friend and said Hey Look, You Don't Need To Register Or Even Have The Medium That I'm Taking Home With Me, You Can Play Too.

      These guys using the NOCD crack are the same ones that are encouraging its use among the guys stealing it or giving it to their friends. How do you police who is which? You don't...you say you broke the agreement and kick them off and leave it at that.

      I'm not saying this it right, I'm saying this is the reality of it...don't like it, don't play it. Its only a fucking game...as a Mac user, I've found many ways to entertain myself that don't require playing games :-)

    8. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who pirate games don't bitch and whine on forums

      That's not true. I was once very active on the forum of one of the game I bought. There was regularly people complaining about some bugs. Several people did say that those bugs were only in the hacked version of the game, but those complaining were screaming they were legitimate users. When a patch was released, the hackers who broke the copy protection of the first executable didn't bother to do the work again and the hacked version simply stopped working with the new servers. The result? All of those who were complaining simply disappeared.

      So, yes, people who pirate games do complain.

    9. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except...these people didn't actually buy the product, did they? No, they stole it.

      If they had stolen it, they wouldn't have a problem. This "activation" doesn't protect against theft, only against copyright infringement.

      Please learn the difference between copyright infringement and theft.

    10. Re:What? by NeoChaosX · · Score: 1

      People who pirate games don't bitch and whine on forums if the game the pirated stops working.

      Like hell they don't. They do complain, it's just that they won't admit they pirated it - thus the excuses that accounts were locked for "no reason". And when Valve asks for verification that it's a legit copy (the pictures of the CD key and such), those same pirates will whine about how unfair that is because the lack of proof will prove that they pirated the game.

      --
      One man's selflessness is another man's annoyance.
  9. Good thing i didnt bother buying it by nb+caffeine · · Score: 0, Troll

    Coz the version i got is repacked and works sans steam. No auth, no connection needed. I can still play even if valve decides they dont want me to, or they go under in a few years. Im buying the retail this weekend, but dont think ill give up the copy i got from a certain famous bittorrent site

    --

    "Something's wrong with you...and I hope we never do meet again." - Deftones When Girls Telephone Boys
    1. Re:Good thing i didnt bother buying it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whats the site? ....stupid 20 second rule....

    2. Re:Good thing i didnt bother buying it by nb+caffeine · · Score: 1

      ever hear of this place called suprnova.org? I hear they've got torrents in the intarweb now! Actually, i love suprnova, its the only torrent site i go to anymore, they have everything (cept pr0n)

      --

      "Something's wrong with you...and I hope we never do meet again." - Deftones When Girls Telephone Boys
    3. Re:Good thing i didnt bother buying it by spyrochaete · · Score: 1

      Good for you! I think this is the correct way to exercise your rights as a consumer. It's your product and you should be allowed to use it however you wish. When my internet goes down I want to play games!

    4. Re:Good thing i didnt bother buying it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know a good pr0n torrent site? I can't seem to find one.

    5. Re:Good thing i didnt bother buying it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > Coz the version i got is repacked and works sans steam. No auth, no connection needed. I can still play even if valve decides they dont want me to, or they go under in a few years. Im buying the retail this weekend, but dont think ill give up the copy i got from a certain famous bittorrent site

      The warez community could do a great benefit to the rest of the world by releasing a "no steam" package.

      The nfo would basically read "0) THIS .RAR DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY OF THE GAME ASSETS. THAT'S WHY IT'S ONLY A FEW MEGABYTES, NOT x.x GIGABYTES.
      1) Buy the game retail.
      2) Copy the CDs onto your drive.
      3) Run this to {DMCA-mumble} the GCFs and {DMCA-mumble} the DLLs and you can play the single-player game without ever having that Steam shit on your drive. You will not be able to connect to the Steam network, and you will not be able to play CS or multiplayer."

    6. Re:Good thing i didnt bother buying it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the fact that suprnova broadcasts your ip address and anyone that wants to know what you are downloading (ie your isp provider) can find out easily.

      I have seen letters from a major ISP sent to a customer saying that they had to stop from downloading from suprnove because it is illegal.

    7. Re:Good thing i didnt bother buying it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      www.empornium.us

  10. Better than by KaSkA101 · · Score: 1

    I have to say I like this approach better than the RIAA. If you get your account deactivated ok, big deal to some people but life isn't over. The RIAA just wants to run it's customers lives.

  11. cd key? by demonbug · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can understand someone who bought a real copy of the game using a no-cd crack so they don't have to have the CD in all the time (I do this for most of my games - I HATE having to swap CDs all the time), but using a cracked CD key? There really doesn't seem to be an excuse for this.

    1. Re:cd key? by zackeller · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nobody who bought the game would use a cracked cdkey. That's the point.

    2. Re:cd key? by SlightlyMadman · · Score: 1, Interesting

      When I bought the original HalfLife game years ago, it was shipped with a key that didn't work. I called support and they told me to fax a copy of the cd and case, which I had to go pay to do as I didn't have a fax machine, and they never followed up. I ended up just giving up and buying a second copy of the game because the store where I purchased it wouldn't accept a return. A cracked CD key would have saved me from having to buy the game again that I already legitimately owned.

      I've also used keygens a couple times when going to replay a game I had uninstalled, or after a system upgrade. The key is usually printed on the jewel case or manual, which are easily misplaced, so to play the game I legitimately bought and even have the CD for, I need to get a new key.

      --

      Money I owe, money-iy-ay
    3. Re:cd key? by rtkluttz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have lost CD cases with the number many times. I have also purchased software online and given a number in an email.

      I bought it... have proof that I bought it but can't use it unless I resort to using cracks. The same problem exists for DRM'd E-books that I have bought. I reinstalled my computer from scratch but can't reactivate my E-Books because Barnes and Noble doesn't do it anymore.

      --
      Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
    4. Re:cd key? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have lost CD cases with the number many times.

      So do something about that! Leave a mail with all your CD keys in a folder in your e-mail, or GPG it to yourself and post the encrypetd copy on the web or something. Doesn't take a lot of imagination.

    5. Re:cd key? by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      You mean like you happened to buy the box off the shelf that someone else had already returned, and the legit key is locked out?

      Best Buy is a hotbed of reshelved boxes. I don't know if this is the case for HL2, but it's been true for other games in the past, in my own experience and that of friends.

    6. Re:cd key? by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      Best Buy is also where people go to pop open a box of $AWESOME_GAME, jot down the CD key, and go home and use it on their warezeded copy/post it on the intarweb.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    7. Re:cd key? by gklyber · · Score: 1

      Sounds like poor customer service. Your approach assumes that you need their product. If the demand is so high that customers will buy multiple copies, then they really don't need to treat their customers well. Otherwise, Valve needs to consider that they could push their customers too far.

    8. Re:cd key? by dbacher · · Score: 1

      This is the point in Steam...

      You have a user ID, you have a password, you use them to play many games. You don't even need the physical media for HL2 to play it, just log into Steam, choose the game from the list, click play.

      If you installed from CD, you can uninstall the game, log into steam, choose to play it and it will reload it without a need for a CD.

      So in this case, there's no point in a crack at all.

      --
      If your code is acting bloated, and is running rather slow, it's likely and predicted that some loops you will unroll.
    9. Re:cd key? by cavemanf16 · · Score: 1

      I'm not torn. I've cracked Civ3 in the past because leaving that CD-ROM disk with the SecureRom (or whatever copyright protection software it had on it) would usually crash my computer's OS (Windows 2000 at the time) within a few hours. I don't know why it did, but I don't really care, the fact is that it did. I don't want my OS to crash because a freakin' CD is in the drive it was intended to be used in! I paid for Civ3 and I paid for HL2, but why should I be REQUIRED to have the CD-ROM in the drive? The CD-ROM drive was not built to act as a copyright verification device. Maybe it's neat that it can to some degree, but since that's not its primary function it probably won't work all the time (like in my case).

      No, I have no intention of cracking HL2 because I want to keep playing it. It's fun entertainment. But I do highly sympathize with those who wish to "crack" the CD-ROM checking on their purchased copy of HL2. It is NOT stealing. In order to steal I have to have taken the item, software, whatever without appropriately compensating the vendor on agreed upon terms. Sorry, but handing me a document AFTER I have PAID for a house stating all the 100 things I cannot do to the home and expecting me to be bound to such conditions would be laughed right out of a court of law. I don't see how software EULA's are any different.

    10. Re:cd key? by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      Yeh. So if you buy one of those, would you go to the trouble of arguing with the asshat clerk just to return it, or might you download the cd key? Bad idea or not, I can understand the thinking that is behind the latter choice... at least the hacker that writes that keygen isn't part of some massive system designed to wring every last dollar out of your wallet, and at the same time treat a paying customer like a criminal...

    11. Re:cd key? by 9Nails · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much of this is people trying to find ways around the CD required to launch the game. I bet they are trying to use a Steam version's key-code to launch their retail version game.

    12. Re:cd key? by AragornSonOfArathorn · · Score: 1

      Most stores that I've been to will allow an exchange for the same software if it is opened. Just say it doesn't work, or put the CD in the microwave or something so it *looks* broken, and they'll let you get a new copy.

      --
      sudo eat my shorts
    13. Re:cd key? by Politburo · · Score: 1

      The key is usually printed on the jewel case or manual, which are easily misplaced, so to play the game I legitimately bought and even have the CD for, I need to get a new key.

      I know this doesn't help you now, and it doesn't work on every CD due to label art, but a good solution is to write the key on the physical CD in sharpie. That way, as long as you have the CD, you have the key, too.

    14. Re:cd key? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      or use the sharpie to write all your product keys on the bottom of your keyboard, that way so long as you can get an image of the software you can install a legit key.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    15. Re:cd key? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you're one of the unlucky bastards whose legit key gets duplicated by a key-gen program. I've had that happen before. Fortunately, I was able to get a new key by proving that *my* copy of the original key was legit, but I've got some games that I couldn't do that anymore, because I've lost the manual in a move. (Not many, but a few.)

    16. Re:cd key? by SlightlyMadman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if I were smarter that's what I would do. But nonetheless, my example still stands of situations when someone can use a keygen for a legitimate non-copyright violating purpose.

      You can use a gas can to huff gas, and in a perfect world you should never need one since you can fill your car directly at the station, so they should be illegal. But in reality, people screw up and run out of gas all the time, so they need gas cans despite their possibilies of being used to break the law.

      --

      Money I owe, money-iy-ay
    17. Re:cd key? by ThousandStars · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I ended up just giving up and buying a second copy of the game because the store where I purchased it wouldn't accept a return. A cracked CD key would have saved me from having to buy the game again that I already legitimately owned.

      I find it remarkable that you were willing to support a company that screwed you out of ~$50 by selling a faulty product. No wonder game companies continually roll out more onerous anti-piracy systems -- they're being financially rewarded for it.

      A cracked CD key might have saved you time and money, but that isn't in the company's best interest. Their best interest is getting you to give them as much money as possible, and their ploy worked.

    18. Re:cd key? by rtkluttz · · Score: 1

      You miss the point entirely.

      I purchased the game legally. I could give a flying flip about their copy protection or keys. From the very moment that I get my receipt, copy protection becomes irrelevant and I have no good reason not to do anything I can to bypass it and get it out of my way. It does nothing but hinder my fair use of the product.

      Does it piss them off? Most surely. Can they steal from me by disabling a game I paid good money for and then sit there and tell me with a straight face I can't get a refund for a game I can't play? Not without getting a letter from a lawyer.

      --
      Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
    19. Re:cd key? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      Its perfectly feasible, guy buys it for himself, installs and registers it fine, and his friends borrow it to try.
      Now, if those friends "guessed" a working cd key, or used a keygen, they too have 1st dibs on a technically legit cd key.

      Now, when you buy your legitimate CD from the store, and try to activate it, you are told that your CD Key is invalid and you are a pirate.

      Its not an unthinkable scenario.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    20. Re:cd key? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      using a keygen for your legit copy could mean that when somebody purchases his copy from the store, his CD Key will be duplicated and hence invalid from day one.

      Never having a chance to use the game he bought, and with only a small chance of rectifying the situation (even then, most likely shelling out to the game company a second time).

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    21. Re:cd key? by Politburo · · Score: 1

      You can use a gas can to huff gas, and in a perfect world you should never need one since you can fill your car directly at the station, so they should be illegal.

      How am I supposed to fill the lawn mower, then? Carry gas in my mouth from the station? Walk my mower a half mile to the pump?

      Analogies suck.

    22. Re:cd key? by Giggles+Of+Doom · · Score: 1

      One solution I use to solve the misplaced CD key problem is to write the key right onto the disk. If you lose it, well, you won't be able to install the game anyway....

      --
      "A coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave but one."
    23. Re:cd key? by SlightlyMadman · · Score: 1

      I forgot to mention that in my proposed perfect world everyone uses electric lawnmowers. Don't you know how bad 2-stroke engines are for the environment?

      --

      Money I owe, money-iy-ay
    24. Re:cd key? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Completely off topic but... can you still buy 2-cycle lawnmowers anymore? They are ALL 4-cycle, low-emission engines up here in Canada. You can still get 2-cycle engines on string-trimmers, though.

    25. Re:cd key? by zackeller · · Score: 1

      It's happened, but it's so rare that anyone who voiced their complaints would just hear silence.

      And it's illegal to let a friend borrow it.

    26. Re:cd key? by Calroth · · Score: 1

      I bought a copy of the original Half-Life Game of the Year edition, a month ago. Box was sealed, bought from a reputable company etc. etc. Tried to sign up for Steam. CD key was already used.

      That night, I e-mailed Vivendi saying, my CD key was in use, but I just bought it. Sent digital photos of the CD, packaging, receipt, etc. No response.

      A week ago, before HL2 came out, I sent it again. No response. I'd try again now, but I'd imagine that they're busy now...

      If stuff like this banning means that, in 5 years time when I buy HL2, my CD key will actually work... then I'm all for it.

    27. Re:cd key? by Tenareth · · Score: 1

      Ah, but nice thing about steam, they will keep a copy of your CD Key, so you won't need to find it.

      --
      This sig is the express property of someone.
    28. Re:cd key? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      But what if it is you as a legit customer that gets banned?

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    29. Re:cd key? by Calroth · · Score: 1

      I'll take my chances. At the moment, it is me as a legit customer who is banned. I paid for a Half-Life CD key and can't use it.

    30. Re:cd key? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      :( sucks to be you.

      The game is all about dictators and fighting against the system.

      Take your crowbar to Valve HQ and beat some chicken heads to a pulp.

      Good luck in gettin it sorted, the game is actually well worth playing if you comply.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    31. Re:cd key? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      And it's illegal to let a friend borrow it.

      Hardly - it is only illegal to have it installed on two computers at once without specific license.

      If I install at home, remove from home, install next door, remove next door, and reinstall at home, I have broken no law.

  12. Nice response Valve! by garcia · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Please, do not post your plea or your story or how sorry you are on the forums. If you follow the link in the post above to the FAQ document, you will find information on just how you can contact Valve if you wish.

    I find this to be an arrogant/childish statement. It goes hand in hand with their recommendation that if your mother, brother, or cousin did it you should speak to them... Yeah, people who are cracking your CDs are being stupid but that doesn't mean that you have to act like a bunch of assholes about it.

    People are discovering that when you buy any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really bought anything.

    They bought something but that doesn't mean that they own what they bought. People knew what they were getting in to when they just HAD TO HAVE HL2. Personally, I'm glad that I have no interest in the product. It seems like an awful big hassle to deal with the fucktards that apparently inhabit Valve.

    1. Re:Nice response Valve! by fireduck · · Score: 1

      Please, do not post your plea or your story or how sorry you are on the forums. If you follow the link in the post above to the FAQ document, you will find information on just how you can contact Valve if you wish.

      I find this to be an arrogant/childish statement.


      So, Valve telling affected customers to contact them directly rather than in a forum they don't explicitly monitor is childish? The forums aren't monitored by Valve, but rather appointed moderators. Since getting your account re-activated involves going through Valve, rather than a forum moderator, why is it arrogant for Valve to tell people to talk directly to them?

    2. Re:Nice response Valve! by mumblestheclown · · Score: 2, Informative
      Yeah, people who are cracking your CDs are being stupid but that doesn't mean that you have to act like a bunch of assholes about it.

      People who are cracking your CDs have made a conscious decision that a) you made something of value b) they want it c) they would rather steal it than pay for it. The rebuke that takes simply takes it away is a gentle one and shows restraint. The thieves (or "infringers" - the technicalities of the language are not important) probably deserve punishmnet. Given that Valve is acting with restraint, they certainly have the right to be as preachy as they want.

    3. Re:Nice response Valve! by dj42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's their product. Why can't they say what they want how they want? Clearly there are enough people (like myself, who bought it over Steam and has been enjoying it with no issues) that could care less if a bunch of pirates (that don't deserve to play anyway) get booted and talked to harshly. It is AGAINST THE LAW, don't they have a right to be pissed?

      --
      We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
    4. Re:Nice response Valve! by Bored+Huge+Krill · · Score: 1
      It seems like an awful big hassle to deal with the fucktards that apparently inhabit Valve.

      why the problem? It works just fine for me, and it's a great game.

      If people choose to try to crack the system that's been set up to prevent copying, why shouldn't their accounts be deactivated? There's no hassle whatsoever getting it to work the legit way - it just works.

    5. Re:Nice response Valve! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not, just that garcia just likes hearing himself talk and is scoring some brownie/karma points with the local drooling slashbot masses.

    6. Re:Nice response Valve! by Random832 · · Score: 1

      But not allowing users to talk _about_ it in a forum where other users with the same problem can be found, seems arrogant and even sinister - It's harder to organize e.g. a class-action lawsuit if they deliberately put obstacles in the way of finding/contacting other victims.

      --
      We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
    7. Re:Nice response Valve! by don_carnage · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough, the same people who pirate games wouldn't dream of stealing a boxed copy from the store.

    8. Re:Nice response Valve! by fr2asbury · · Score: 1

      I don't agree with your statement. People who steal software aren't doing it to make a profit thus they see no value in it. They are stealing the software for various reasons known only to them...

      When I buy bread, I don't profit, in fact I lose money, but that doesn't mean that there is no or negative value in bread. If I were to steal bread it wouldn't be because I find it to be without value.
      The "infringers" do find the game something of value, a certain amount of entertainment value. Maybe not as much as what's on the price tag, but playing a game is neither a necessity nor basic right. Therefore, if they can't or don't want to pay, they can and should live without.
      There's are plenty of free games they can play.

    9. Re:Nice response Valve! by stanmann · · Score: 1
      They bought something but that doesn't mean that they own what they bought.
      You know the book publishers tried this in the 20's, the Movie publishers tried this in the 70's, and now the software publishers are trying it.

      The SCOTUS has ruled more than once, that a) you bought it, you own it. b) you own it, you can fold spindle and mutilate it c) you bought it, you own it, you have the right to use it as "advertised" ... ie you can read a book, you can watch a video, and you can play a game. IF you can't, then you can a)get a full refund b) fold spindle or mutilate it until it is usable.
      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    10. Re:Nice response Valve! by shredluc · · Score: 2, Interesting
      They bought something but that doesn't mean that they own what they bought.


      Definition of bought:
      http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q= bought

      Also if you dont understand that one,
      (definition of acquire, defines bought):
      http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q =acquire

      The plot thickens,
      (definition of possession, defines acquire):
      http://dictionary.reference.com/search? q=possessio n

      If you don't feel like clicking the links, let me summarize it for you:

      to "buy", past tense "bought" is defined as "acquiring", but to "acquire" is to gain "possession", but "possession" is defined as "something owned."

      Go ahead read it, it's right in the english dictionary.

      So what you have just stated is an Oxymoron. What i have bought, is mine and i have the right to do what i want with it.
      Examples:
      House - i bought it - i own it. if i want to tear it down i can
      Car - i bought it - i own it. - if i want to junk it or tear it to pieces i can
      Underwear - i bought em- i own em. if i want to wear them on my head in private i can
      Video Game - i bought it - i own it if i want to play without a cd or online authorization, i can. and i will dammit. Cause valve is infinging on my right as owner of said property.

      You dont have to show anyone the deed to the house every time you step through the front door, do you?
      I don't have to fax over a copy of the car title to the DMV every time i want to start a car do i?
      I don't have to call Hanes every time i want to put on clean underwear now do i?
      So why should i have to do those things with Valve's software, or any software for that matter.

      On the other hand , i completely and wholehartedly agree with the rest of your comment.
    11. Re:Nice response Valve! by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1
      People who steal software aren't doing it to make a profit thus they see no value in it.

      Would the profit not be that they now have a functional piece of software that they didn't before they performed the illegal act?

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    12. Re:Nice response Valve! by demi · · Score: 1

      Of course not. Copying a game from someone isn't stealing. Stealing is when you take something away from someone else. If I steal your car, what makes it stealing is the fact that you don't have a car, not that I now have one.

      Infringing copyright by copying games may be wrong and illegal, but it's sloppy to call it stealing or piracy because it's not.

      Taking a box off a store shelf is stealing, because you are depriving someone else of it.

      --
      demi
    13. Re:Nice response Valve! by demi · · Score: 1
      The thieves (or "infringers" - the technicalities of the language are not important)

      I think they are, actually. It's helpful to distinguish between "illegal" and "wrong," for example, so it's probably helpful to distinguish between "violating the license" and "stealing." Language can be important because we absorb its connotations--your statement that the violators deserve "punishment" comes from what is implied by the term "stealing," I think. You don't "punish" someone for violating a license, though you may certainly be justified in revoking it.

      --
      demi
    14. Re:Nice response Valve! by demi · · Score: 1
      So, Valve telling affected customers to contact them directly rather than in a forum they don't explicitly monitor is childish?

      Not in itself, but people expect (with some justification perhaps) that once they've "contacted Valve directly" Valve will tell them to go screw themselves. PR problems force companies to actually do something; it's much easier to ignore a problem when you can hide behind a faceless bureaucracy and tell people to shove it.

      --
      demi
    15. Re:Nice response Valve! by don_carnage · · Score: 1

      Excellent point, very well said!

    16. Re:Nice response Valve! by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      The arrogance is not in telling them to talk directly. The arrogance is in combining that with a censoring of the topic in the forum, which they DO - which isn't just doing it for customer support, it's doing it for propoganda purposes.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    17. Re:Nice response Valve! by Damvan · · Score: 1

      Why not? The State has no problem punishing me for violating the terms of my drivers license, as well as revoke it.

    18. Re:Nice response Valve! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy fuck. This has to be the most retarded comment that I have ever read.

      A class action lawsuit over a phone call to work our why your account was locked out?!?!

      An damn, if you're that hell bent on talking about it, WRITE IN A DIFFERENT FORUM!

      You're rights aren't being infringed here, buddy. You're just being a spolied little bitch becuase you can't play a video game.

      I'm crying you a fucking river, loser.

    19. Re:Nice response Valve! by Damvan · · Score: 1

      Those are bad examples. Talk to your city about tearing down your house. They might have a problem with it. Actually, ask them if you can do anything you want to your house, since you own it. Talk to your local DMV about your car, ask them whether or not you can do anything you want to the car cause you own it. Again, don't like it, don't buy it.

    20. Re:Nice response Valve! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one's concerned about the pirates, retard. The concern is over people who legitimately bought the product who then got screwed over.

    21. Re:Nice response Valve! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is stealing because you take away from the copyright holder the money that should have been paid for the license to play the game. You don't steal from the person you got a copy from, you steal from the person who should have been paid, but was not.

    22. Re:Nice response Valve! by shredluc · · Score: 1
      Thank you for proving my point.
      As all can now see, the problem is not just with software, but all forms of enncroachment on private property. If i decide to plant a tree, i should not have to go and ask the city, if the tree is to be planted on my property. I can't go and tell them they can't change their gutters because they have not bought a bribe^H^H^H^H^H permit from me.

      The point is that they can control what the population is doing, because we have a bunch of "just accept it" clowns running around. I hear "don't like it, don't buy it" phrases all the time - and I don't like it and i'm not buying it.

      I don't accept the goverment control over where i can piss, and i fight back agians this kind of slavery.

      It easy to have them back down too, just treat them like they treat you - Case in point:

      I recieved a ticket for Street cleaning, and being a good little citizen i went to pay it the next day. Well after about a month i recieved a letter stating that i have a court hearing for an unpaid cleaning ticket. Well being prudent i imediately called and gave them the check number they cashed. Well they couldn't do anything and i just HAD to come in to court. I'm not having any of that.

      I politely told them that my time is very valuable, (lets say at $40/hour) and loosing a whole day of work they would recieve a bill for 8 hours x 40/hour + 25% inconvenience fee. If not paid within 10 days (their due date on tickets) a 100 dolar late fee would be assesed, after 30 days the bill would be submitted to a collection agency. Upon hearing so, the manager came upon the phone and i was told that the matter is completely resolved and they will take care of the whole issue. No bill necessary. No court date necessary.

    23. Re:Nice response Valve! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, no... most people accept government control because we realize that civilization requires some semblance of control. Which is what the government is, a system of controls. It protects, it confines, and in some ways it gives us freedoms.

      I'm glad you took care of your street cleaning bill, and stood up for your rights... but your rights dont include taking another persons rights, which it would be to steal HL2 and not pay for it.

      Lets not argue about whether it is stealing to download HL2 on the internet and not pay for it. If we can agree on that then we perhaps have some more serious problems than just whether or not you are going to buy the game.

    24. Re:Nice response Valve! by shredluc · · Score: 1
      your rights dont include taking another persons rights
      Your right, of course, but after i sell my house, i can't come back half a year later and demand a "certificate" of proof of ownership, and then kick them out if they can't or won't (ie. refuse) provide it.
      Lets not argue about whether it is stealing to download HL2 on the internet and not pay for it.
      I'm not talking about stealing. I'm talking about buying it. Re-read my previous post and dont' skip half of it.

      Second, don't be a sheep. We all need some kind of control to keep civilization going, but don't put blinders on. What do you think revolutions stem from? It's because people blindly accept what the government tells them, without thinking, while a select few can see through all the BS that the government uses to oppress people. That's why it's as bad as it is. People just blindly accept what they are told. I'm not bashing control. I'm saying there is a difference between control and oppression.

    25. Re:Nice response Valve! by Random832 · · Score: 1

      I've never played HL2 at all - my point was - if they're so sure they're not vulnerable from a lawsuit, what are they afraid of?

      --
      We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
  13. Activation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People are discovering that when you buy any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really bought anything.

    Amen

  14. Obviously a jaded warez-monkey. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "People are discovering that when you buy any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really bought anything."

    Uh, yeah, actually. I BOUGHT THE GAME. I didn't use a stolen key, because I ACTUALLY PAID FOR IT. And I have zero problems.

    Puh-lease. Don't even try to slander Valve here, they're so on the ethical right on this they've got halos appearing over their heads right now.

    And anyone with half a clue and that can do basic logic realizes that down the road Valve will eventually just patch the game to run without connecting to Steam. Especially if the network itself is in danger of dying for any reason.

    1. Re:Obviously a jaded warez-monkey. by FLAGGR · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Urg, he/she/it was refering to the fact that legally you don't own the game, you just own a license to play it. That license can be revoked by Valve if they think your breaching their ToS, and tough shit to you. The article mentions people that BOUGHT the game at the store, but are still getting banned, so how does that make valve "so on the ethical right on this they've got halos appearing" even though theyre basically saying tough shit to paying customers?

    2. Re:Obviously a jaded warez-monkey. by Random832 · · Score: 1

      What happens when your disc gets scratched? Checking both for the cd to have to be in AND connecting to steam is overkill. Even one is questionable, but both together is inexcusable.

      --
      We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
    3. Re:Obviously a jaded warez-monkey. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Valve will eventually just patch the game to run without connecting to Steam. Especially if the network itself is in danger of dying for any reason.

      Just like they did with the WON servers? You mean I can play HL1 online without the WON servers, YES!!

      I bought (paid money) for HL1 and never agreed to steam, wasn't warned of steam, yet now I have to use steam? Why?? I looked at my box a million times and never saw the words Steam under requirements. Valve is allowed to change the rules but they take my game away if I use a NO-CD patch?

    4. Re:Obviously a jaded warez-monkey. by learn+fast · · Score: 1

      Oh, so if you didn't have a problem, then no one else did? Are you a large sample of the population, or are you just one person? (I can't tell because you're posting anonymously.)

    5. Re:Obviously a jaded warez-monkey. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would my having a handle show whether I'm a large sample of the population or not? That doesn't even make sense!

      And noone who paid for the game had this problem, unless by some off chance another friend/family member logged in to their steam account, and tried to registrer a stolen CD key instead of the one they got with their paid-for copy of the game (and why in the world would they even do that?!?!). In which case, they stole the game, and should NOT be able to play it. What other logic is there to this?

    6. Re:Obviously a jaded warez-monkey. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just how does this make it any different from an MMORPG? I don't hear you bitching about those, even though it's the EXACT same type of situation.

    7. Re:Obviously a jaded warez-monkey. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And anyone with half a clue and that can do basic logic realizes that down the road Valve will eventually just patch the game to run without connecting to Steam. Especially if the network itself is in danger of dying for any reason.

      BS, do you have proof of this claim? Where is Valve's guarantee(which doesn't mean much) that I can play SINGLE PLAYER(not online) on my legally purchased DVD copy several years from now? What if some company buys their IP and prevents them from doing this?

      Also, is anyone else here sick of the "well, it works for me, screw you" attitude? I can understand that for something like trying to run this on a first generation VooDoo graphics card, but it is really annoying to have that as a response to those who legally purchased this game and due to the authentication scheme are having troubles just being able to play single player. I wonder how those saying this would feel if they experienced the same problems they hear people "crying" about.

      Then again, this kind of attitude can come back to bite you. This reminds me of Tribes 2, people like me were getting UE errors, it wasn't any fault on our end, and people were complaining about them. Others who didn't have any of the problems had the same attitude as above, and essentially told those talking about UEs to STFU. Eventually, a patch is released that causes just about everyone to have UE errors. So those who don't have a problem with steam, think about this before yelling at those who do.

    8. Re:Obviously a jaded warez-monkey. by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      legally you don't own the game, you just own a license to play it. That license can be revoked by Valve if they think your breaching their ToS, and tough shit to you.

      That works for an online game, but not HL2. If I buy the game, I own legally it. I don't have a license that can be revoked, I own the game. If Valve wants to lock me out, then they had better be cutting me a check for my troubles.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    9. Re:Obviously a jaded warez-monkey. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BS, do you have proof of this claim? Where is Valve's guarantee(which doesn't mean much) that I can play SINGLE PLAYER(not online) on my legally purchased DVD copy several years from now? What if some company buys their IP and prevents them from doing this?

      Also, is anyone else here sick of the "well, it works for me, screw you" attitude? I can understand that for something like trying to run this on a first generation VooDoo graphics card, but it is really annoying to have that as a response to those who legally purchased this game and due to the authentication scheme are having troubles just being able to play single player. I wonder how those saying this would feel if they experienced the same problems they hear people "crying" about.


      As I said in another post, what is the difference between this and a MMORPG? If that service disappears, you're just as screwed. Yet noone's complaining about that. And it's obvious that "the scene" will have a NO CD crack out anyways.

      And as for your "sick of" attitude, SHOVE IT. I never talked about a "works for me, screw you". I said that I PAID FOR MY COPY OF THE GAME. These people HAVE NOT. This isn't some technical issue you dummy. This is a flat out, "I own something and it works, they do not and it doesn't." situation. Stop trying to change the subject.

    10. Re:Obviously a jaded warez-monkey. by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      I looked at my box a million times and never saw the words Steam under requirements.

      Was the software sold with a warranty, or was it sold AS-IS? Because if it's sold AS-IS, and it stops working, for any reason, you don't have any right to complain. If it was sold with a warranty, then I suppose you could sue to return the software, but that would require that you return it in a timely manner, which would be as soon as you opened the box and saw the terms and conditions.

    11. Re:Obviously a jaded warez-monkey. by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Because it isn't, the same type of situation. an MMORPG is ONLY playable online. thusly you typically pay a fee to use Sony's or Mystic's servers to play on, and you pay an additional account maintenance fee. Just like certain exclusive chat rooms.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    12. Re:Obviously a jaded warez-monkey. by stanmann · · Score: 1

      In the US and EU, you CAN'T sell a new product AS-IS, there is "implied merchantability" which means that If I sell you a book, I sell you the right(implied) to read that book, If I sell you a game(board, computer or console) you are buying the right(implied) to play that game. If it doesn't work as designed, you have the right(implied) to fold spindle or mutilate it such that it becomes functional, alternatively you can seek redress and your money back.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    13. Re:Obviously a jaded warez-monkey. by FLAGGR · · Score: 1

      No, the only person that owns half life 2 is valve etc.
      Ask any lawyer.

    14. Re:Obviously a jaded warez-monkey. by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      In the US and EU, you CAN'T sell a new product AS-IS

      I'd be interested in seeing such a reference in the UCC. Of course not all US states use the UCC, but it'd still be interesting.

      If it doesn't work as designed, you have the right(implied) to fold spindle or mutilate it such that it becomes functional, alternatively you can seek redress and your money back.

      On the other hand, "the buyer must within a reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy." Once you've opened the box and run the software you've either read or should have read the terms and conditions. I'd support your right to return the software in a reasonable time after that (of course, apparently some states have laws precluding the return of opened software, in which case all software is effectively sold as is, and you should have known better).

    15. Re:Obviously a jaded warez-monkey. by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      the only person that owns half life 2 is valve etc.

      The only person that owns the copyright is Valve. Millions of people own HL2.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    16. Re:Obviously a jaded warez-monkey. by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Well, since you apparently can't use google for

      implied merchantability US law

      and click on the first link, I have dont that for you

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    17. Re:Obviously a jaded warez-monkey. by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      In the US and EU, you CAN'T sell a new product AS-IS

      I'd be interested in seeing such a reference in the UCC. Of course not all US states use the UCC, but it'd still be interesting.

      Well, since you apparently can't use google for implied merchantability US law and click on the first link, I have dont that for you

      None of the links you've provided say anything about not being able to sell a new product AS IS. In fact, this link specifically says "unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties are excluded by expressions like "as is", "with all faults" or other language which in common understanding calls the buyer's attention to the exclusion of warranties and makes plain that there is no implied warranty"

    18. Re:Obviously a jaded warez-monkey. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you're stupid. You can't tell the difference between a game where all the gameplay has to be online because it's multiplayer, and a game that has nothing to do with the internet other than copy protection. A four year old could tell the difference. In a MMORPG you pay a monthly fee for access, and you don't have to pay when there's no access. In a single player game you pay once and play forever. Is that too complicated for you to understand? I guess you must be dumber than a four year old.

      And hey moron, did it ever occur to you that they could ban your account for using a no cd crack on your legitimately bought and paid for copy? Read the terms of service, they reserve the right to do that. They can ban your PAID FOR COPY if they feel like it.

      You're the one who needs to SHOVE IT and learn to read. You come on here claiming people who paid have no problems, but even if you don't believe the tons of people who say they paid for it and can't log on, what about all the problems people are reporting with half life 1? This is a flat out, "Some people own something and it doesn't work" situation. The subject is Valve's copy protection, and it doesn't always work. Valve is STEALING and DEFRAUDING people who PAID MONEY and ran into a technical problem. Pull your head out of your ass and stop being a bitch. I suppose if the government was sending people to gas chambers, you'd be saying "I'm not dead yet so it must be a myth"

    19. Re:Obviously a jaded warez-monkey. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, brilliant, what I wrote was relevant to the post and you just did a good job of proving my point! What I was saying in that post was that ignorant people who have no problems(i.e "who cares, it works for me!") are quick to dismiss the faults and blame the problems on others, even when the problems were evident and are real. Pirates are not the only ones who complaining about having problems getting their legally bought PC game's SINGLE PLAYER running correctly.

      Lots of people wanted to play half-life 2 on the day of release. The authentication servers worked for some people, some it did not. People who legally purchased retail version were having problems just getting things to run SINGLE PLAYER. In this day and age a lot of us find it unacceptable they require you to verify your legally purchased games for just single player.

      With MMORPGs you are buying the software, and are agreeing to the company's online gaming service. While it is likely for MMORPGs servers to be shut down, it is not normal or acceptable for SINGLE PLAYER games. I have several games from companies that have gone under, and haven't released squat in terms of copy protection bypasses and server support. While not too critical, sometimes companies do take part of the game with them when they shut down.

      I own Shemue, and that game had a free online content part(which was useless and unnecessary, I bet about 95% of it could have been done offline). Sega's Dreamcast is dead, I can't connect online to access the bonus content. While it wasn't critical, it was part of the game, and one of the fun things to do was collect the little trinkets. If I recall correctly there was also the option to buy new moves that you couldn't access from the disk . With that server gone I can't do that. I also owned Samba De Amigo, also with free content, and you had to unlock songs that were on the disk with saves from Sega's servers. Well, the servers are now dead, but thankfully someone else figured it out and hacked a save file to have them.

      I have so far not had any problem with copy protection schemes detecting CD-R software, drive emulators, etc, and denying me permission to run games, but I do not assume that those experiencing problems are pirates. I know that these schemes DO affect those who legally purchased their software, and make thing a pain in the ass more for them then the pirates. I don't say there shouldn't be copy protection or deny a companies right to protect their goods, but there are times like the with above and with Valve that I don't think they are appropriate.

      And now lets get back to the attitude issue, now we have the "anyone who has a problem with this must be a pirate" belief. So by your logic everyone who is complaining must be a pirate, the only people who can have problems are pirates, and because it works for you there are no problems. So if you have any problems with your game, like the reported stuttering or frequent long load times, please don't tell us about it. We all *know* Valve's code is *%120 bug free* and that their copy protection *doesn't* affect legit purchasers.

      Again, even people who paid through steam had problems getting their copies authenticated, and are having the same stuttering, frequent long load times, etc. From what I read these are people with some serious hardware, I doubt these people who are having these problems are trying to run HL2 with a Pentium 1 and a 8-bit video card. . Don't be ignorant and think that all this affecting pirates, and only pirates are complaining. This affects a lot of the legit purchasers that you are so quick to label warze-monkeys.

  15. bought nothing. by nil5 · · Score: 0

    People are discovering that when you buy any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really bought anything.

    Now that's a heavy handed statement right there. . .

    I mean come on, that's not really the case and you know it.

  16. Legit way worked just fine.. by Soulfarmer · · Score: 3, Informative

    I wonder all the hassle about the activation. My Steam-version of HL2 worked fine from the preload to the ending credits. It serves them right to have accounts banned if you tried to use pirated cdkey etc.

    Although I wonder also why would anyone use their OWN account to try playing a game they didn't pay for. And the version I know of, pirated I mean, doesn't need the activation at all...

    --
    -Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?
  17. I'm torn by dougnaka · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I got the transgaming notice that I can download the latest with special half life 2 support, and I love all the half life games to date, but I like to buy games that I can *keep* and *own* and play on normally accepted terms. This scares me more and more away from buying the game.

    --
    My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
    1. Re:I'm torn by fr0dicus · · Score: 1

      You can *keep* it on your hard drive, which you *own*. It provides facilities to back the software up.

    2. Re:I'm torn by RsG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately, that's not strictly true. You need to have steam installed to play. Note that, after activation, you can play offline, but nevertheless the system takes away your control of the game; if valve goes under, or decides to arbitrarily ban you from multiplayer (which also requires steam to run), there really isn't much you can do. Also, if I'm reading the complaints correctly, they can remotely disable a "pirated" copy without the user's consent if steam is online.

      That last part scares me, since it indicates to me that the game has some sort of malware built into it, and because it would require valve to reenable wrongly disabled cd keys. Bluntly, I don't trust any corporation to find me innocent or guilty of any crime. That's a matter for the courts. I like halflife, but I kinda hope this doesn't catch on, or if it does become widespread, it gets shot down legally.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    3. Re:I'm torn by zanderredux · · Score: 1
      indeed. if economic theory holds, people should be moving away from Valve until they adjust their price to the fact that people do not own the game, in the traditional sense.

      I think that a fair price should be around $0.50-$2.00 per month, in a subscription model. This relatively low price factors in the probability of Valve (or whoever manages the activation scheme) going bankrupt. If that happens, you might get "locked out" the goods you purchased.

    4. Re:I'm torn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey everybody, look at me, I'm a karma whore.

    5. Re:I'm torn by demi · · Score: 1
      Note that, after activation, you can play offline,

      This is ambiguous (I don't have the game, and never will, so I can't really check). I've heard that this isn't actually true and if your computer has a network interface Steam will always try to contact the authentication servers (even after activation). If it's unplugged or whatever to prevent this, it takes a long time for Steam to timeout and allow you to proceed in offline mode.

      --
      demi
    6. Re:I'm torn by L0rdJedi · · Score: 1

      it takes a long time for Steam to timeout and allow you to proceed in offline mode.

      How do you people define a long time? My router went down and Steam took all of maybe 20 seconds to time out and ask if I wanted to go into offline mode.

    7. Re:I'm torn by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Given how financially successful HL2 looks like it is going to be, I don't think this practice will go away. One of the frustratingly thick-headed facets of the pointy-haired mentality is the notion that if a product is successful, then that must mean consumers liked absolutely every aspect of the product, including the ad campaign, the terms of service, and so on. The notion that people might be putting up with something really annoying just because they like other aspects of the product enough to compensate just doesn't seem to register with them.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    8. Re:I'm torn by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Also, if I'm reading the complaints correctly, they can remotely disable a "pirated" copy without the user's consent if steam is online.

      WRONG! You consent when you agree to the Steam license.

    9. Re:I'm torn by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's just me, but it's a GAME, that costs $50, and will give you what? 30 hours of gameplay? 50 tops? If you're really so worried about the terms of buying the game, don't buy it--make the decision that it's not worth it to you. Or you could simply buy the game, play it, and enjoy it. I don't see how it's worth it to get angsty over something that, to me, is rather trivial in cost, time, and importance :-p

      (I'm not really TRYING to sound like an ass, sorry!)

    10. Re:I'm torn by justins · · Score: 1
      I like halflife, but I kinda hope this doesn't catch on, or if it does become widespread, it gets shot down legally.

      Since everyone who has been shut down by this was probably involved in violating the software's EULA, it's pretty hard to imagine what sort of basis they would have for suing Valve. Perhaps make a case based on the absurdity of click-through EULAs in general, I wonder if anyone has ever tried that.
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    11. Re:I'm torn by usrusr · · Score: 1

      and to play offline, mr donthavepermanentinternet has to (for some reason unknown to man) store his account data _including_ the password on his harddrive.

      next worm he gets (and we are talking about the occasional gamer here and not about the security savy geek, because the latter are typically not amongt those who pay internet by the minute) will find a steam folder in the system, with a nice blob filled with 40 (or more if other steam apps are present) $$$ worth of account data, free to send to the botmaster who can give it to a friend, when the account finally gets banned there will be another ready from the worms.

      --
      [i have an opinion and i am not afraid to use it]
    12. Re:I'm torn by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      I actually looked at the EULA, and while I might have missed something, I don't recall seeing anything about a restriction on bypassing the SecuROM check. As such, people who are banned simply for using the noCD workaround (if anyone has actually been banned for such a thing) might have a solid argument.

      Not that Valve will do anything.

    13. Re:I'm torn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, "getting angsty over it" as the OP was is because some people have strong moral and ethical belief systems that guide their lives, in addition to a strong addiction for pleasure.

      I agree with you in this case that it doesn't seem so important - I saw the news about Valve and Vivendi and made my decision to spend my money elsewhere, and I'm fine with that. But others are more undecided, as they have two strong conflicting desires - gratification and moral imperative.

      Someday, both you and I will undoubtedly be torn over something as well - and it is inevitable that someone else will then say exactly the same to us :)

    14. Re:I'm torn by RsG · · Score: 1

      >Since everyone who has been shut down by this was probably involved in violating the software's EULA

      Some, at least, claim to be innocent. I won't defend the pirates, since they are in the wrong legally, but my point was that valve has overstepped their bounds. By remotely disabling cdkeys, which is what they're alleged to have done (and notice I said "alleged"), they've possibly taken punitive action against legitimate users. I don't _trust_ a corporation, even a fairly reputable one, to appoint themsleves judge and jury. And I really dislike being treated like a criminal when all I want to do is play the fscking game.

      It's not that they are taking anti-piracy measures that I have a problem with, it's the heavy-handedness with which they're employing those measures. It sets a bad precedent for DRM usage, it treads into an ethically murky area, and it illustrates whats wrong with the present way EULAs are implemented. I really do hope that the way comanies license game software eventually leads to legal reform in this area; as it stands now the power is way too one sided.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    15. Re:I'm torn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Valve goes under, then you're free to use the no CD crack along with whatever CD-key and no activation cracks you feel like. The situation changes and so does the solution.

  18. Incorrect by comwiz56 · · Score: 1

    You do buy something, but its a liscense to play the game. You agree to this liscense when you install the software. It clearly says (in über-legal-speak) "if you pirate this we castrate you". Alot of EULAs even have clauses making it a liscense violation to give the game as a gift, or install on more than one personal computer.

  19. And by "very small" they mean of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...that they have no clue how many legit customers were affected.

    1. Re:And by "very small" they mean of course by Poseidon88 · · Score: 1

      No, they are referring to the number of people that bought a legit copy of the game, then used a no-CD crack on it. I would imagine they know exactly how many there were. And the "very small" is in comparison to the number of people that were caught using a completely illegitimate key to activate the game.

  20. You do not buy games. by Antony.S · · Score: 1

    You buy a license to use them, and this license has terms and conditions.

  21. Some of the problems encounterred by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have read that many people tried the pirated version, then went on to buy the full legel version via steam, later to have their account suspended 2 days later.

    Solution?
    1. Call you credit card company and do a chargeback.
    2. Make new Steam login name

    3. buy Hl2 again and play

    1. Re:Some of the problems encounterred by witcomb · · Score: 1

      This is very interesting actually. One of the main arguments to distributing MP3's is that people who like music go and buy the music. There is no reason that this can't be applied to anything. If someone is using pirated software to sample and then actually go and buy the copy, why should they be punished?

      Granted there are many people who will not go and buy the game. This could be for a couple reasons, they are cheap and immoral or the game just sucked and they have no interest. I would be surprised if anyone registered a pirate copy to their common login, but then again. Maybe Valve should allow a method of demoing the games through Steam. At least they get to control the "sampling"

  22. Boo hoo hoo!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I pirated the game and can't use it!!! Waaahhh!

  23. michael: STFU by JohnGrahamCumming · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just don't post crappy editorial comments like this:

    > People are discovering that when you buy any
    > product that is subject to "activation", you
    > haven't really bought anything.

    OK? That's the stupidest thing I've read on /. in a long time; so Valve decided that to attempt to crack down on piracy (and it's not as if we haven't seen lots of leaked games) they would force "activation" of the product, even for single player use. Boo hoo, and now some people got caught trying to stiff Valve. Cry me a river. Valve is a for-profit business selling a piece of closed-source software.

    In other news, michael buys car and is shocked to discover must buy gas for it continue working.

    John.

    1. Re:michael: STFU by cephyn · · Score: 1

      unless of course, he buys an electric car.

      --
      Moo.
    2. Re:michael: STFU by Grey_14 · · Score: 1

      Though the Car and Gas statement is really irrelevant, I agree with the rest of your statement, this site is becoming, or I can probably say, HAS become, a flimsy excuse for a news site, Editors need to keep their opinions to themselves, and provide an UNBIASED bit of information, usually it's fine, "Look at this, very cool: " or "uh-oh, sucks to be so and so" but now it's getting to be "sucks to be so and so, MAN $company is evil!" and the like, so much for professionalism, lets see if this thread get's modded into oblivion too, ever read anti-slash? While the lot of them are right bastards, they have a few good points about the editors.

    3. Re:michael: STFU by chill · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's the stupidest thing I've read on /. in a long time;...

      Then you don't read /. a lot. I've seen a LOT stupider things written on /. Damn, that one wasn't even in the Top 10. :-)

      -Charles

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    4. Re:michael: STFU by OnTheFringe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > I guess you don't read /. much if that is the stupidest thing you've seen. Like many others you miss the point (not the one you hide under your hat). The point is that many people who BOUGHT, yes I SAID BOUGHT the game are unable to get it working and have no recourse now. The question is how many? I agree that if you pirated the game you got what you deserved, but because SOME are pirating is NO EXCUSE to rip off those who did pay. I'm just gonna die laughing when software you purchased legit stops working because of some anti-piracy scheme. It WILL happen to you too, mark my words... perhaps not with HL2, but if you buy software it will happen.

    5. Re:michael: STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Valve is a for-profit business selling a piece of closed-source software Valve isn't selling any software, they're selling the license. If Valve goes away, or the Steam servers die, or they decide to drop support for HL2 in a few years what then? I can still play my legally purchased copy of Quake and even Half-Life, but I know 10 years from now I most likely won't be able to go back and replay HL2. Michael's comment was perfectly valid. When you buy HL2 you're not purchasing anything tangible. Frankly I'm shocked at how many geeks I know who are OK with the fact that their $60 game will expire at some point in the future.

    6. Re:michael: STFU by Xemoka · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >In other news, michael buys car and is shocked to discover must buy gas for it continue working.

      Except this isn't like buying gas, buying gas would be a MMO(RPG) however in this case, people buy a product to only find out that they dont really have full rights to what they purchased.
      In reality it would be more like:

      In other news, michael buys a car, tries to take the govenor off and finds out that FORD (who he bought it from) says he can no longer drive it, and pushes a little button at head office to shut down the engine for good.

      So did michael ever really own it in the first place?

      Void their warrenty, void their abillity to play online while they use such a crack to disable the cd-check, but really, don't disable the single player, just because you feel they cheated you, I have a feeling I wont be getting this game because of these circumstances, even though i wasn't planning on buying it anyway. (not that i was going to pirate it, just not interested)

    7. Re:michael: STFU by kryzx · · Score: 1
      Well said.

      Perhaps people are discovering that when you steal any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really stolen anything.

      Wouldn't that be something.

      --
      "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
    8. Re:michael: STFU by over_exposed · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Amen!!! A similar thing happened w/ timothy in How To Manage Your Home Directory? earlier today. Granted, they're editors and have the right to edit things, including adding their own comments. But where is the professionalism? /. is a pseudo proefessional, advertising, revenue-generating web site with a large audience. That does NOT mean they should get to add their own little quips where ever they want. If the editors want to post something like that, DO IT IN THE FORUM, not in the story text.

      --
      "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." - Patton
    9. Re:michael: STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why hasn't michael's job been outsourced yet? Better yet, send him to some foreign country he loves more than the U.S..

    10. Re:michael: STFU by nine-times · · Score: 1
      Perhaps people are discovering that when you steal any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really stolen anything.

      Um... How about when I "steal" any game by downloading it off of the internet, I haven't really stolen anything...?

    11. Re:michael: STFU by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Informative

      > People are discovering that when you buy any
      > product that is subject to "activation", you
      > haven't really bought anything.

      OK? That's the stupidest thing I've read on /. in a long time;


      No, actually what you wrote is the stupidest thing you've read on /. in a long time.

      The vast majority of the population have no clue about how digital restriction management can be used to take away something that they think they own. Whether they "stole" it or not does not matter here.

      What matters is that more than 50,000 people just learned that their continued use of a product that they thought they owned (after all, they have posession of it, like a car) is in constant jeopordy of someone pressing the big red stop button.

      Should Valve go under and their steam network be turned off, all legit purchasers of half-life2 will be in the exact same situation that these suspected pirates are today. People who paid for divx dvds are in the same boat already, they just weren't widespread enough for the lesson to make an impact.

      Maybe this time the lesson will have an impact, especially on the teenagers of today who will be the ones who have to live in the DRM-ruled world the copyright cartel envisions. Maybe the fact that people have paid money for something that could disappear in an instant leaving them no recourse, will sink in enough on these kids that they will decide that the next product, be it music from the iTunes store or WMV-HD DVDs with "phone-home" DRM or the entire MS "Trusted Computing" baloney is not worth their money.

      A free market requires education and Michael's comment is exactly the kind of education that the masses need to avoid a DRM-ruled world.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    12. Re:michael: STFU by Megaweapon · · Score: 1

      Saying "pseudo professional" gives too much IMO. Michael won't ever post in the forums since he is free to spout his bullshit on the front page. The rest of us non-editors are left with correcting him in the forums, risking possible retribution via the slashdot user bitchslap script or mod point denials.

      --
      I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
    13. Re:michael: STFU by over_exposed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Story contents aside, why wouldn't michael just post that IN THE FORUM? I think the objection here essentially lies in his ego being so large to think that his opinion is so important that it needs to be in the article text as opposed to posting a comment like us underlings get to do. Forget about Half-Life, forget about steam - the editors are abusing their privilages by posting their personal comments where they don't belong.

      --
      "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." - Patton
    14. Re:michael: STFU by nine-times · · Score: 1
      In other news, michael buys car and is shocked to discover must buy gas for it continue working.

      And what if Michael buys a car and is shocked to discover that it won't work unless it remains connected to a very long cable which stretches back to the dealership and constantly confirms that it is, in fact, Michael's car...? What then? Same thing?

    15. Re:michael: STFU by over_exposed · · Score: 1

      Ok ok, good point. We'll leave the editor dieties alone so they can quietly bask in their overrated glory... I was being generous.

      --
      "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." - Patton
    16. Re:michael: STFU by 0rbit4l · · Score: 1
      How is this "insightful"?

      Just don't post crappy editorial comments like this...
      He's an editor, and additionally, slashdot is a for-profit site designed to generate traffic, sometimes by provoking (gasp) discussion (like this one that you've started) - not just reporting the news. You may disagree with his comment, but why on earth is there such ridiculous uproar every time an editor includes a comment in the story write-up? Get over it.

      On to the actual content of your post...

      Michael:

      People are discovering that when you buy any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really bought anything.
      You:
      Boo hoo, and now some people got caught trying to stiff Valve.

      (Emphasis added by me in both cases, obviously). See, that's the point. Legitimate buyers (e.g., not people trying to stiff Valve, as you assert) are running into trouble with Valve's activation scheme, when trying to use the product in a legitimate (albeit unintended) fashion. In general, that's the entire problem with "copy protection" schemes - it screws legitimate customers and turns them off of their product. So, fine, Valve doesn't care - that doesn't mean that people here don't care, though you obviously don't (seeing as how you bothered to comment about how you don't care). It's also useful to know so that those of us who care can size up Valve's treatment of such issues and decide for ourselves whether or not we'll buy their stuff.

    17. Re:michael: STFU by _bug_ · · Score: 1

      In other news, michael buys car and is shocked to discover must buy gas for it continue working.

      Yes, but if I decide to paint my car a different color or install a new stereo, my car doesn't stop working.

      crack down on piracy

      This isn't about piracy. This about my purchase of a game that I am no longer allowed to play because I wanted to play the game without having to load the CD. I own a license to play that game. I'm not pirating anything. And this functionality can be achieved via downloading the game through Steam, so I'm not adding any new functionality either.

      But I'm banned when I try to do this?

      C'mon.

      "small number". What's a smal number? How does Valve decide who has a legit copy and who was trying to pirate the game?

      This is a dumbass move all the way, on Valve's part.

      I have to have a net connection to play single player.

      I have to insert the CD every time I want to play the game, even though I'm already authorized via Steam and thus there's no need for a CD check.

      It's dumb. Tell me why it's not. Ufck the piracy angle, this is coming from a LEGITIMATE USER perspective.

      But I understand. Piracy is keeping Gabe Newell from buying himself a 16th Porsche. Poor Gabe.

    18. Re:michael: STFU by JohnGrahamCumming · · Score: 1

      > > People are discovering that when you buy any
      > > product that is subject to "activation", you
      > > haven't really bought anything.
      >
      > OK? That's the stupidest thing I've read on /.
      > in a long time;
      >
      > No, actually what you wrote is the stupidest
      > thing you've read on /. in a long time.
      >
      > The vast majority of the population have no clue
      > about how digital restriction management can be
      > used to take away something that they think they
      > own. Whether they "stole" it or not does not
      > matter here.

      Yes, it does. If they stole it then they shouldn't be able to use it. If they didn't steal it then Valve isn't stopping them from using it; what's the problem with that?

      > Should Valve go under and their steam network be
      > turned off, all legit purchasers of half-life2
      > will be in the exact same situation that these
      > suspected pirates are today. People who paid for
      > divx dvds are in the same boat already, they
      > just weren't widespread enough for the lesson to
      > make an impact.

      If Valve goes out of business there's nothing to stop you using the single player HL2 once it has been activated. Once activated it's yours to play with offline.

      The only loss you'll have if Valve disappears is Steam, and Steam is on a subscription basis, so you'll have to argue with their creditors about how to get back part of your subscription.

      John.

    19. Re:michael: STFU by MirthScout · · Score: 1

      It was a crappy editorial comment but not for the reasons you say. It was crappy only because it didn't say it well.

      To buy something transfers ownership. That does not occur here so nothing was bought.

      A software license is nothing more than a rental agreement. You pay the rent they stipulate and agree to their terms and they let you use the software that they still own. Games happen to have an perpetual rental period but most software has a yearly rental period. You break the terms of the rental agreement and they keep your money and you don't get to use their software any longer. It's as simple as that.

      As for that silly car and gas thing attempt at an analogy... ugh! You couldn't have gotten it more wrong. Michael rented the car and drove it off-road and is shocked that the rental car company is taking the car back. :)

    20. Re:michael: STFU by neko9 · · Score: 1

      Um... How about when I "steal" any game by downloading it off of the internet, I haven't really stolen anything...?

      yes. developers still have the game. its not stealing. its copying.

    21. Re:michael: STFU by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Michael buys a car, not realizing that, like everybody else, he must renew his license plates every year. He decides to fake a renewal sticker, gets caught by the cops, and gets a fine. Boo hoo.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    22. Re:michael: STFU by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      If Valve goes away, or the Steam servers die, or they decide to drop support for HL2 in a few years what then?

      What then? Why, I continue playing my copy of Half-Life 2. Since I unlocked it, I disabled internet access to steam, and Half-Life 2 still works without a hitch.

      Well, at least after they release that fucking patch tonight it will really be "without a hitch."

      But you know what I mean.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    23. Re:michael: STFU by stagl · · Score: 1

      I can still play my legally purchased copy of Quake and even Half-Life, but I know 10 years from now I most likely won't be able to go back and replay HL2

      i know this is going to take some getting used to, but for the last time, YOU CAN PLAY HL2 IN OFFLINE MODE!!!!

      sorry...

      --

      R.I.P.
    24. Re:michael: STFU by stanmann · · Score: 1

      It's all well and good that you can play HL2 in offline mode, but while HD space is cheap, I don't have the luxury of having every game I ever want to play installed and YOU CAN'T INSTALL HL2 IN OFFLINE MODE.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    25. Re:michael: STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wanker.

    26. Re:michael: STFU by Slothy · · Score: 1

      You are aware that Valve pays to run the master server for Half Life, right? If they go under, you won't see any games listed anymore, even on Half Life 1.

    27. Re:michael: STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's an even worse analogy. You wouldn't pay a lifetime's worth of rent up front for an apartment, in exchange for living in it an indefinite time period determined by the owner at a later time.

      Furthermore, you get to see the lease agreement beforehand, and there are laws about what they can and cannot contain. For instance, you shouldn't be kicked out of your place because they suspect your neighbor changed a light bulb without permission.

      Oh and you don't have to check with the landlord every time you go home.

    28. Re:michael: STFU by demi · · Score: 1

      Sorry, Michael, it looks like you visited a destination this morning that isn't allowed by your Driver License Agreement. We're deactivating your car for a year.

      --
      demi
    29. Re:michael: STFU by k_187 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if in 1998 you bought Half-Life on CD, it doesn't matter if that master Half-Life server is still there, you can install and go. Doesn't work like that for Half-Life 2, since at some point after installing the game has to call home and make sure its ok to keep playing.

      --
      11 was a racehorse
      12 was 12
      1111 Race
      12112
    30. Re:michael: STFU by Puls4r · · Score: 1

      His sentence on the front page is dead on.

      Do you want proof? What happens when Steam goes bankrupt, is purchased and shutdown by another company, etc etc.

      Suddenly that game you "licensed" goes up in smoke and you can't play it anymore, or reinstall it.

      It's Bullshit.

    31. Re:michael: STFU by dr.+chuck+bunsen · · Score: 1

      You sound like you were the 8th grade hall monitor. Activation is a bad idea, wether you like it or not.

    32. Re:michael: STFU by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      What then? Why, I continue playing my copy of Half-Life 2. Since I unlocked it, I disabled internet access to steam, and Half-Life 2 still works without a hitch.
      Which is fine, but means you can never reinstall the game again. An upgrade or harddisk crash will mean you forever lose access to HL2.
    33. Re:michael: STFU by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      Frankly I'm shocked at how many geeks I know who are OK with the fact that their $60 game will expire at some point in the future.
      I wonder how many geeks would tolerate this if it wasn't HL2 and Valve? How would people feel if Microsoft tried something like this?
    34. Re:michael: STFU by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 1

      I should hope that they either included a timer in their software so it wouldn't ask the server in 10 years, let alone 2. If they were going to cancel their steam service, they should release an update to HL2 so it wouldn't require steam to play.

      --
      Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
      Africus aut Europaeus?
    35. Re:michael: STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh... the car part is an analogy. The fact that software licenses are rental agreements is a ... well ... fact.

    36. Re:michael: STFU by mrklin · · Score: 1
      Frankly I'm shocked at how many geeks I know who are OK with the fact that their $60 game will expire at some point in the future.

      Frankly, I too am shocked at how many people I know who are OK with the fact that their $50-$500 pair of shoe will wear out at some point in the future. Or at the people who pay $10 to see a movie which is not guaranteed to be good or memorable beyond the time you spent in the theater.

      Where does all this "I deserve such and such" attitude come from?

    37. Re:michael: STFU by brkello · · Score: 1

      Man...why do you guys keep saying stuff like this. If Valve goes down and Steam goes down, Valve will most likely release a patch that lets you do whatever with the game. If they don't, someone else will write a steam clone and you can use it that way. Everyone likes to over-react to steam...relax...it isn't as bad as you think.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    38. Re:michael: STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Frankly I'm shocked at how many geeks I know who are OK with the fact that their $60 game will expire at some point in the future.
      I spent more than $60 on dinner last night, and I was 100% sure that food was going to expire real soon. Stop being such a cheap bastard.
    39. Re:michael: STFU by Catiline · · Score: 1
      How would people feel if Microsoft tried something like [Steam activation]?
      I don't know, but in another five years we'll get a chance to see with Windows XP's activation....
    40. Re:michael: STFU by anethema · · Score: 1

      Steam clone maybe...

      But the problem is the contents of the installation CD is encrypted. When you install, after the files are copied the program contacts valve for the key to decrypt the files. If valve is gone, the files remain encrypted forever, and you cant patch a cd.

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    41. Re:michael: STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, your analogy bested it in stupidity by a long shot. It is more like you want to improve your car somewhat with, say, a new stereo. The car producer then decides that you're not allowed to drive that car anymore, since it's not what they sold you, and destroys your engine. The car was never yours! It was used by you as long as the company permitted it...

      I understand that you love valve and that anyone that criticise them must be pirate lovers, but seriously, try to see the issue from the other side before you write a comment.

      And it isn't the real pirates that are damaged in this, they're way too smart (and really has nothing to lose in the first place)... it's the legitimite buyers that try to improve their product.

    42. Re:michael: STFU by Damvan · · Score: 1

      "but if you buy software it will happen" As opposed to copying the software and infriging on the copyright? Then it won't happen? Tell that to the people who infringed the copyright on HL2.

    43. Re:michael: STFU by mackman · · Score: 1

      I just don't get it. I bought HL2 through Steam and I can play it without an internet connection. How the hell will the Steam servers going away break the game if I don't even need network access to play it?

    44. Re:michael: STFU by Damvan · · Score: 1

      Exactly! At that time, I will install the no-CD patch and be good to go! No worries about getting my Steam account banned, cause Steam won't exist.

    45. Re:michael: STFU by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      So you're not happy with it. FINE! Don't buy it, but leave the rest of us, who have no problem with it, alone.

      I bought the Radeon 9600XT which came with a free copy of HL2. I installed Steam, got HL2 over Steam, and now I've played it. As far as I'm concerned, I got exactly what was owed me, and I'm a happy customer.

      The main reason Michael's comment is offensive is because of its tone. It's not "I think that activation is a bad idea," it's "activation is a bad idea, you idiot!" He needs to shut up with crap like that if he's going to play journalist.

    46. Re:michael: STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Umm, how was timothy unprofessional in that post again?

    47. Re:michael: STFU by endx7 · · Score: 1

      You're going to be using/have the same computer in 10 years?

      Are you even sure you won't have to do something really stupid, like reinstall the game to get it working again?

    48. Re:michael: STFU by over_exposed · · Score: 1

      Because he's inserting his own personal comments to the story IN the story text. If he wants to contribute to the discussion (and I think editors should!), he should do it the same we all do by posting in the discussion threads. Professionalism would dictate that editors would post the story as is and then, if they so wished to discuss, do so with everyone else.

      --
      "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." - Patton
    49. Re:michael: STFU by Cynikal · · Score: 1

      "In other news, michael buys car and is shocked to discover must buy gas for it continue working."

      no, your analogy is a bit off, its more like "In other news, michael buys car and is shocked to discover that Ford motors took his keys and destroyed them because he installed remote starter to save himself time when using his own legaly purchaced car."

      the comparison of gas to a car would be electricity to a computer (game)

    50. Re:michael: STFU by cortana · · Score: 1

      The comment is both apropos and insightful.

      I have two hypothetical situations for you to consider.

      1. Alice buys HL2 retail. Alice is annoyed by the necessity of having the DVD in the drive to play. Alice downloads a No CD crack. Alice is banned.

      How can you justify this course of events?

      2. Bob decides to try and guess activation keys for HL2 in the hope of coming up lucky. Valve ban his account. Bob can now no longer his other Steam games, that he obtained legitimately.

      How can you justify this course of events?

    51. Re:michael: STFU by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      more like replacing the seat with a more comfortable aftermarket seat and having the ECU disabled permenantly for modifying your car with non FORD parts.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    52. Re:michael: STFU by maximilln · · Score: 1

      Perhaps people are discovering that when you steal any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really stolen anything

      You can't steal software anymore than you can steal air. There's an unlimited amount of it, it's easily replaced, and it's not taking any away from anyone else if you breathe more.

      If the bowl of jelly beans says "take one" and a child takes two your mindset labels them a thief. Good job!

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    53. Re:michael: STFU by maximilln · · Score: 1

      If they stole it then they shouldn't be able to use it

      You can't steal software any more than you can steal air. It's everywhere, there's plenty of it, and if you breathe harder it's not going to deprive anyone else of any air.

      Quit with the thief/pirate/stealing fanatacism and start thinking rationally about how to productively solve the problem without criminalizing every person who takes two when the bowl of jelly beans says "take one".

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    54. Re:michael: STFU by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · · Score: 1

      Point out fraud isn't journalism? Some number X between 0 and 20,000 paid their money and did not get what was owed to them. Did michael actually say "idiot", or do you just feel like one after reading what he had to say?

    55. Re:michael: STFU by The+Milkman · · Score: 0

      I can't believe how many times this specious argument gets modded up in the various HL2 discussions on Slashdot.

      Anybody who thinks that if Valve should magically disappear (yes it can happen) that they won't patch Steam to disable activation is clearly out of their tiny mind.
      Even ignoring that, does it shock you as much that every single MMORPG will expire?.

    56. Re:michael: STFU by CharlieHedlin · · Score: 1

      My $50 shoes last about a year, my $30k car will last 10-15 years. Thats life. These things wear out, and it cost more to make new ones. On the other hand, if I don't wear the shoes, or keep the car in the garage and only drive a couple miles every few months, still change the oil, etc, it could last 100 years. I have control of how these things wear. Pretty soon my 1974 BMW will be running again as well.

      The last book I bought shouldn't wear out. I have been to university libraries where they have books hundreds of years old, and if treated right, will last hundreds more.

      Books and software are in the same category. If I buy the rights to the text or code (binary in this case, not source), they shouldn't be taken away when a company goes bust. Otherwise they should make it a subscription, and price it acordingly.

    57. Re:michael: STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What losers will be sitting around playing HL2 years from now? I hope you've moved on by then.

    58. Re:michael: STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not proof, that's conjecture.

      Learn the difference.

    59. Re:michael: STFU by AlexMax2742 · · Score: 1
      And you honestly don't think that valve won't release a patch to compensate for it? I mean, when Valve stopped supporting WoN and changed over to Steam, they gave everyone plenty of time to patch the game before they shut down the WoN authentication server.

      Take off your god forsaken tinfoil hat. There WILL be a legal way to play Half Life 2 when or if Steam shuts down, mark my works.

      --
      I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
    60. Re:michael: STFU by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      Frankly I'm shocked at how many "geeks" are OK with pirating games instead of supporting the great companies making them.

      If Valve stops allowing hl2 activation at some point, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. If it takes suing Valve (or whoever owns the hl2 copyright) for not letting us play a game we bought, then that's what we'll do.

      And if no company owns the game anymore? Then we're free to reverse engineer and offer for download any hacks/cracks/copies of the game that we can dream up.

      Works for me. Only person it doesn't work for is pirates.

    61. Re:michael: STFU by infochuck · · Score: 1

      If micahael's comment is the stupidest thing you've read on slashdot, perhaps you should re-examine your own analogy - buying a car and finding you need to also buy gas is not nearly the same thing. A better analogy:

      Buying a car and then discovering that GM can deactivate it at any time it wants, and that if GM goes belly-up it no longer runs; nevermind the fact that it only had 58,000 miles on it.

      Jackass.

      No, wait. I apologize; I have no proof you are descended from equines.

      Idiot.

    62. Re:michael: STFU by infochuck · · Score: 1

      I think the objection here essentially lies in his ego being so large to think that his opinion is so important that it needs to be in the article text as opposed to posting a comment like us underlings get to do.

      Perhaps your accusations of michael's ego being the problem are merely a reflection of your own feelings of inadequecy/your under-developed ego? The faults we see in others are often similar to the faults we see in ourselves.

      Sounds like you're just pissed because your pithy comment has to be modded up to be seen (much like you), whereas everybody gets to see micahel's comment. You, sir, are jealous. Get over it.

    63. Re:michael: STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news, michael buys car and is shocked to discover must buy gas for it continue working.

      Not really. More like

      "In other news, Michael buys car and is shocked to discover that he must call the manufacturer everytime he wants to open the door or start the vehicle, to read back every serial number to confirm that this car is not stolen, and has no stolen parts."

      Cracking down on piracy, no problem. However, why is it that ALL users are assumed to be pirates, until proven otherwise? I buy my games, all of them. I used to get hacked games on occasion, and I would try them out (hell at 60+ dollars a game, for some of the shit that has been sent to market, can you blame me?), but I always bought the games I really liked to support the developers.

      This one issue has convinced me to NOT buy HL2. I was looking at the silver package, but I do not really feel like being tied to Steam. And here is one other thing that is important. Have any of us ever witnessed any BUGS in any software that we run? What? You have? So it is possible that a whole library of paid for games, could be de-activated in error? No thanks, I think I will gamble my money elsewhere.

      I was only going to get either HL2 or Doom3, I went with D3. I thought "shit, I got the wrong one" after seeing the reviews for HL2. Now I think I made a brilliant choice.

    64. Re:michael: STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is what Michael posted at all inaccurate? How does your inability to ignore a single sentence outweigh his right to add editorial comments? How exactly does any of this reflect on his ego?

      The editors job is not just to post stories, it's to promote discussion. Obviously there are many concerns wrt Steam and it's perfectly valid to encourage discussing them.

    65. Re:michael: STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a good point. I would expect down the road, if service support for HL2 were to terminate, that Valve would release a patch which disables online authentication through Steam.

      Most of the piracy of this game is going to happen in the first months, which is why they need to be so severe for the moment.

    66. Re:michael: STFU by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Right-click on the game in steam, select Backup Game, and it will create nicely formatted binary files that you can burn to CDROM or DVDROM. They'll even format the sizes to fit either format as well as possible.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    67. Re:michael: STFU by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

      But you'll need to reactivate it when you reinstall. That's not possible (we're talking about a future where Valve has stopped maintaining the Steam servers here).

    68. Re:michael: STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If Valve goes out of business there's nothing to stop you using the single player HL2 once it has been activated. Once activated it's yours to play with offline.

      And if you haven't activated it before they are gone? So what about 5 years down the line when HL2 ought to show up in the under $5 bins? Or maybe someone actually thinks HL2 is of enough historical importance as a part of pop culture that they want to research it? Or you just upgraded to a new computer and want to re-install? If Valve is gone, none of those scenarios is valid any more. There are plenty more examples were those came from too.

    69. Re:michael: STFU by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      I believe this is wrong also, although I have not verified this yet for myself. It is my understanding that the version that is backed up is already unlocked.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    70. Re:michael: STFU by jh6cd6d3cktp7w9h7vxw · · Score: 1

      "In other news, michael buys car and is shocked to discover must buy gas for it continue working" RIGHT! It is more like I buy a car, know it needs gas. Ooopps, turns out we are no longer going to make gas because the companies that made gas went out of business. You still have your car, you still have the roads. Other people with vehicles that run on Hydrogen or whatever can still drive. You can't convert your car to use something else because it is illegal. You must buy a different vehicle or find an underground mechanic to convert it for you and risk the penalties.

    71. Re:michael: STFU by over_exposed · · Score: 1

      Thanks, doc... would you like to talk about my childhood now? Maybe fantasies about my mother or the mental abuse I suffered in middle school? Do you want me to draw a picture?

      I'm not pissed because "I had to be modded up to be seen" because the choice to read comments at a certain mod level is your own. I browse raw posts with no filters or bonuses and that's my choice. You obviously don't.

      There might be hints of jealousy - who knows. I'm certainly not going to psychoanalyze myself to the point where I can distinguish jealousy from genuine disgust at some editor's obvious lack of professionalism. There are shrinks for that, and if something I see on slashdot pisses me off to the point of changing my life, I might go see one.

      The point I was trying to make is that, in general, individuals with the title of "Editor" generally don't make comments like that unless they are editorializing. news for nerds... not editorials by nerds. That's why I read slashdot. For the news. Not for the editor's opinion. I read the discussion for opinions.

      --
      "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." - Patton
    72. Re:michael: STFU by over_exposed · · Score: 1

      How is what Michael posted at all inaccurate?
      I said nothing about being inaccurate.

      How does your inability to ignore a single sentence outweigh his right to add editorial comments?
      My inability to ignore a single sentece doesn't outweigh his right to add editorial comments.

      How exactly does any of this reflect on his ego?
      It reflects on his ego because he chooses to add those editorial comments in a place where they obviously don't belong. Comments belong in the discussion. His comment, by default, carries no more weight than anyone elses. He should place it with everyone elses instead of using his "editorial rights" to get more exposure.

      --
      "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." - Patton
    73. Re:michael: STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok genius, how are you going to reinstall?

    74. Re:michael: STFU by pod · · Score: 1
      It's not "I think that activation is a bad idea," it's "activation is a bad idea, you idiot!"

      First of all, he never said such thing.

      He needs to shut up with crap like that if he's going to play journalist.

      Second, that's handy, because he's not playing journalist. He's an editor.

      --
      "Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
    75. Re:michael: STFU by Strandman · · Score: 1

      Have anyone thought about the possibility that Valve will give you a patch that makes Half-Life 2 playable without Steam servers sometime in the future?

      With som many people whining about "what if Valve goes away", it is still possible for Valve to to this right?

    76. Re:michael: STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I said nothing about being inaccurate.
      So if it's true, how is it "personal opinion"? Stating facts on the front page is somehow bad?


      It reflects on his ego because he chooses to add those editorial comments in a place where they obviously don't belong.


      I don't see how. His comment is certainly germane to the topic at hand, and is obviously something many people are concerned about.


      You complain about him executing his "editorial rights", but IMHO it seems like you (and others) are just whining. He has them, you don't. Get over it.

    77. Re:michael: STFU by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

      No way. If it was anyone could pass out copies. You have to reactivate.

    78. Re:michael: STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be happy to live in your utopian dreamworld. When companies go under their first priority is always starting new projects to make sure their former customers can still use their products.

      Yes, that was sarcasm.

    79. Re:michael: STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MMORPGs are different, as they require a centralized server hosted by someone (in most/all cases the company who wrote the game.)

      If I want to just fire up a LAN game with some buddies or even replay the single-player mode I can't once Steam goes away. Before everyone flips out and starts screaming "OFFLINE MODE!!!" at me, I'm talking about a fresh install.

      I'm glad to see everyone thinks Valve will do the right thing if they go under, but generally the priority of a bankrupt company isn't on releasing patches for software that is years old. Besides what could happen if another company bought Valve (say, oh I dunno...MS?) could we still expect the stellar customer service?

    80. Re:michael: STFU by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      Steam allows you to backup your games. Keep the steam install around, or find it at fileplanet and the like.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    81. Re:michael: STFU by BTWR · · Score: 1

      then he still has to buy the electricity...

    82. Re:michael: STFU by BTWR · · Score: 1
      It's simple professionalism in journalism:

      On the front cover of the New York Times, they cannot say "Bush just eliminated protections of the environment. This is a really stupid idea." This is because on Page 1, the people expect the facts, not the author's point of view.

      They can, however, state on Page 1: "Bush eliminated protections for the environment" and then on the Op-Ed page, where opinions are encouraged/expected, state "Bush's cut of Protection X is stupid because..."

      Or, if Michael simply can't hold it in, he can do what a New York Times journalist might do, and take the opinion of an expert: "Bush cuts enviromental protections. Ralph Wiggum of the EPA states that these cuts will have 'horrible impacts on the grizzly bear population.'" Michael could have said his gripes about Steam and quotes IGN/Gamespot or anyone else. But... not himself. That is unprofessional. Take any journalism class and you'll learn that on day 1.

    83. Re:michael: STFU by BTWR · · Score: 1

      Michael is the new Jon Katz of Slashdot: hated by everyone (except when defending himself under a pseudonym account)

    84. Re:michael: STFU by Boiling_point_ · · Score: 1
      I can still play my legally purchased copy of Quake and even Half-Life, but I know 10 years from now I most likely won't be able to go back and replay HL2.

      10 years from now, should Steam be switched off (or some other event occur that prevents the game from playing even in 'offine mode') I'm banking that some nice cracker will release a patch :) Seriously.

      --
      "If you create user accounts, by default, they will have an account type of Administrator with no password." KB Q293834
    85. Re:michael: STFU by Snaller · · Score: 1

      "People are discovering that when you buy any
      product that is subject to "activation", you
      haven't really bought anything."

      OK? That's the stupidest thing I've read on /. in a long time;


      Well kid, if you have a problem facts then perhaps you shouldn't read slashdot.

      so Valve decided that to attempt to crack down on piracy

      Bullshit. They are trying to make everybody a slave - the damn has long since been cracked and is out there.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    86. Re:michael: STFU by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Story contents aside, why wouldn't michael just post that IN THE FORUM? I think the objection here essentially lies in his ego being so large to think that his opinion is so important that it needs to be in the article text as opposed to posting a comment like us underlings get to do. Forget about Half-Life, forget about steam - the editors are abusing their privilages by posting their personal comments where they don't belong.

      Have you SEEN how many replies this thread has generated? This is clearly headline news, everybody has a strong opinion about it...

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    87. Re:michael: STFU by infochuck · · Score: 1

      C'mon, you too. This is SLASHDOT. This isn't the "New York Times". This isn't real journalism. This is news aggregation, and one very opinionated segment of the population's opinions on said news. If you want real, "just the facts" journalism, you're in entirely the wrong place.

      Here's how it works: some person sends a link to a sotry alon with their comments on it, which are almost always unbased and ill-informed. Then the editors add their own comments to the story, which are frequently even more biased and uninformed than those of the submitter.

      If Jon Katz were still here, non-existent ties to globalism would also be revealed.

      Rinse, and repeat.

    88. Re:michael: STFU by infochuck · · Score: 1

      "C'mon, you too" --> "C'mon, you TWO".

    89. Re:michael: STFU by OnTheFringe · · Score: 1

      > NO! As opposed to neither buying nor copying. That "If else" bullshit is a lame argument. Why does not buying something have to imply that I propose stealing it instead?? If I never get a driver's license does that mean I drive illegally, or simply that I choose not to drive???

  24. Violating the license for one locks you from all? by ivan256 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, you try to pirate Half-Life 2, and they lock you out from playing it... That's all well and good. But if you've got other products you've legitimately purchased through Steam you can no longer access those either because you tried to pirate Half-Life 2? That sounds like a great reason to never use Steam. If you ever do something they disapprove of with one of Valve's products you could lose access to hundreds of dollars of software that is completely unrelated.

    Why aren't they just blocking those users from Half-Life 2 instead of revoking (shall we say "stealing" since they like to mis-use the word too) ligitemately purchased licenses for other products too?

  25. In other news... by ylikone · · Score: 0, Troll

    Valve realizes that the immense popularity of their games would not exist if it weren't from the free advertizing it gets from kids around the world who pirate their stuff. Loses over half of player base, causing the game to suffer in the long run.

    --
    Meh.
    1. Re:In other news... by RatBastard · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why should they give a damn about people who do not pay for their products? Half-Life 2 doesn't need "free" advertising from people who warez it. It's a big enough product that the loss of said "advertising" will mean nothing to their bottom line.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  26. Quit PC gaming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Now that I have an XBox with XBox live, I have totally ditched PC gaming. Sure I have to pay a little cash but I don't have to deal with this sort of activation garbage, users cheating, etc. So what if I am making Bill Gates rich, he is making me happy. I just nuked my wintendo and made it a gentoo linux box (still looking for type r stickers).

  27. Thank Goodness! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I fail to see the downside, I guess.

    I paid for this game with my hard-earned cash. So I have to activate it? That just ensures that 20,000 other people aren't making my purchase null-and-void and making me look like an idiot for following the law and paying for the game.

  28. Steam is horrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's amazing that even though people (including myself) spent around $50 USD for this game, they can basically stop us from using it...forever. I do not like this, and it's discomforting to know that they can stop whoever they want from playing the game. If I paid money for a game, I don't want to worry about if I'll be able to play it, or install it later on durring the years.

    1. Re:Steam is horrible by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      You did not pay for the game, you paid for a license to play the game. If you break the contract, your license is revoked.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    2. Re:Steam is horrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I paid money for a game, I don't want to worry about if I'll be able to play it, or install it later on durring the years.

      So follow the instructions to make a copy that works offline. It's not difficult.

    3. Re:Steam is horrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had an ATI coupon, and downloaded the game via steam - whilst Il admit I had no problems installing or playing the game, as others have posted - my concern is the future, I regularly play many old games from publishers no longer in existence....... When valve fade away my 'license to play the game' will mean *nothing*, as I wont be able to authenticate it. I do not feel I own anything (not even a 'license') with HL-2, I cant help but feel that im playing it on borrowed time... time that will be revoked sometime in the future (unless they release a patch removing the authentication at some point, much as certain games released patches to remove the need to play with the CD inserted).

      The other concern I have is about Steam as a system, whilst I applaud attempts to distribute games without publishers, I do not like the way Steam integrates into the games - whilst it worked fine for me, I hate to think what it would be like if every single game dev decides to use a Steam like client - all wanting to sit in the background updating themselves and authenticating themselves every time I want to have a blast. Many.. dare I say 'Fanboys' of Steam fail to see that what they are promoting could be annoying as spyware and clippy combined...

      Talking of spyware, when I play HL2 with the steam client set 'offline' the game tries communicating out, does anyone know why? .. blocking this traffic doesnt stop you from playing... /NiM

    4. Re:Steam is horrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strange, I don't recall signing a representative of Valve presenting me with a contract, which I signed in front of witnesses. I remember walking up to a cash register with a box, giving the cashier money, getting change, and taking my purchase home.

      When a software company shows me a contract with my signature on it, I'll conceed that it is possible for me to break that contract. But until I sign it, I'm not a party to such a contract, and therefore cannot be held to the terms of said contract.

  29. Steam Server by KaSkA101 · · Score: 1

    Wll I heard there were problems with the server when the game first came out, it was slow and such. Well it looks like /. has added another problem. On most of the links all I get is "database error". Looks like they didnt upgrade the servers at all.

  30. Editorals for Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stuff we feel like pushing....

    No, what they learned was playing a pirated version might get your account disabled.

    1. Re:Editorals for Nerds by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like how I learned that when I buy a legit copy and follow all the rules I still get wrongfully punished by Valve's anti-piracy dragnet?

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
  31. Good News by CleverNickedName · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's comforting to see piracy protection which works.

    People who paid for the product can enjoy it and those who didn't can't. Seems fair.

    --


    Unfortunately, I am not Wil Wheaton
    1. Re:Good News by acceleriter · · Score: 1

      And I see they've passed on the savings from the "lost revenue." Oh, wait, no they haven't.

      --

      CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.

    2. Re:Good News by CleverNickedName · · Score: 1

      Well, they're in the bsiness to make money. Personally, I'm happy with paying £35 for the game.
      Maybe they could have sold it for £10, but as I said, I'm happy enough with £35.

      --


      Unfortunately, I am not Wil Wheaton
    3. Re:Good News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bought it and could care less if someone else didn't. Period.

      I'm pissed that I have to have my CD in my drive and AND! have to be connected to their friggen server everytime I want to play. There's a reason I firewall my internet connection. I don't have a lot of time for games, but when I do, I want to play them on my terms without waiting around for someone elses slow server.

      Not very happy with this purchase...

    4. Re:Good News by HawkingMattress · · Score: 1

      bleh. Of course it doesn't work more than any other protection. If the client software checks something before allowing you to going on, simply making the check returning always true instead of making the actual check will disable the protection, as it has always been. So, it seems there are cracked versions around which merely don't connect to steam at all... How shocking. So, the ones who are screwed are those who payed for the game, and cracked it to disable the cd protection, as always. But valve doesn't even have to care, they know their legit customers will just download the non steam cracked version like everybody else. So we have a thing that just generates a lot of fuss, annoy customers, and does nothing to prevent piracy, as usual... There is no possible way to protect a single player game as long as the game is executed on the client, period.

    5. Re:Good News by Fweeky · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Dunno about you, but I nocd every game I buy, because I don't see the point in having to juggle CDs every time I want to play a different game. If I'm lucky I might manage to make a game work with a virtual CD drive and an image of the CD, but that's precisely the kind of thing these protections are designed to prevent, so it's hit-and-miss. Plus I don't see why I should waste another 700MB of disk space for a 3k private key I've already paid to use.

      This is especially relevent when a given protection refuses to let me use legitimate software on my system, like CD/DVD burning software and virtual CD drives.

      If I hadn't bought HL2 off Steam, I'd be very, very angry around about now.

    6. Re:Good News by kindbud · · Score: 1

      People who paid for the product can enjoy it and those who didn't can't.

      Uhh, no. Some of the people who were banned paid for the product but thought that going through Steam AND having the CD check was too much. So they used a nocd hack, and then Valve banned their paid-for account, signed up for using a paid-for CDROM copy of the game. Some people had Steam accounts for other games which got banned, even though only the HL2 game was caught being used with a nocd hack. So not only did some people lose access to a HL2 game they paid for, they also lost access to other games they paid for.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    7. Re:Good News by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      People who paid for the product can enjoy it and those who didn't can't. Seems fair.

      Hmmm. that would be nice. But what does that have to do with what the article is about, which is people paying for the product getting banned for disabling the annoying CD check?

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    8. Re:Good News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad you get "comfort" from this, but all the 'pirate' versions I've seen on the net still work. I'm not really sure how 20000 people picked an illegitimate version that requires a steam account when there are working versions that do not even require steam to be installed. Doesn't add up

    9. Re:Good News by CleverNickedName · · Score: 1

      What I understand, Valve banned people who were using a CD key they knew to be pirated.

      It'es possible someone aought the game and chose not to use the CD key the got with it, but it seems very unlikely.

      As an aside, steam allows you configure the game to run off-line. So really the only "problem" is having to put the CD in the drive. May seem odd, but think of all the exercise to be got from it. :)


      If this protection means Valve have more money to invest in their next game, then more power to them. I enjoy HL2 and I was happy with the £35 price.

      --


      Unfortunately, I am not Wil Wheaton
    10. Re:Good News by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      May seem odd, but think of all the exercise to be got from it.

      Yes, your CD drive does get a lot of excercise from it.
      And that's the problem.

      Also, don't forget the other issue, that pirated CD keys are also somebody's legitimate CD key somewhere. (What they do is find a key that works, either by having insight into the keygen algorithm, or by brute force guessing, but in either case it is highly likely that someone out there really does have that key as their legitimate purchased key. What Valve is doing is banning any key they see being used by multiple people in multiple locations at once, under the assumption that that can't happen unless it's pirated. While it's true that this is a guaranteed method to only get pirated keys, it is not guaranteed to only get the PEOPLE who are pirating. It gets the people pirating AND the legitimate user of that key. What is their response for those who's only crime was the bad luck of having a legit key that somoene hit on a guessing algorithm? Go through the effort of sending them a photo of the box with the key visible in the photo and wait for Valve to maybe reinstate you eventually by giving you a different key.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    11. Re:Good News by CleverNickedName · · Score: 1

      Clearly, the check is done on the server side.

      Anyway, you can configure steam to run HL2 off-line.

      --


      Unfortunately, I am not Wil Wheaton
  32. Legit Owners Screwed? by MooseByte · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "A Valve spokesman says, 'The number of people who actually had bought HL2 and used the CD key cheat was VERY small."

    So how draconian are they being? Is that "VERY small" number of users being excluded from the blacklist? Or did they trigger some End Game transgression of the EULA by even trying the CD key cheat?

    If the latter, that would SERIOUSLY suck.

    1. Re:Legit Owners Screwed? by RatBastard · · Score: 1

      I have little sympathy for people stupid enough to used a CD-Key hack on a legit copy of a product they bought. Why on earth would you use a pirated product code on a product you bought? It's not like the CD-Key was missing.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    2. Re:Legit Owners Screwed? by MooseByte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I have little sympathy for people stupid enough to used a CD-Key hack on a legit copy of a product they bought."

      I'm operating on the assumption that "CD-Key hack" means circumventing the need to have the !$$%^! CD in the drive to launch the game. If that's not the case, nevermind.

      However if it IS the case, then yes I think blacklisting those few legit users is obscene. I'm ALL for screwing the warez pirates, but "CD in the drive" copy protection is little more than punishment for the legit owner. It's downright natural to want to disable it.

      And as one of those who even pays for all their shareware, I've been penalized more than once when I couldn't run my legit software because the CD was unavailable (traveling, or across town and an unexpected opportunity for LAN play arises.)

      And all the while I was thinking how the warez crowd wouldn't have that problem, only legit users. That sucks. Makes no sense whatsoever.

    3. Re:Legit Owners Screwed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it also screws those using Transgaming/ Linux or other "non Bill Gates-approved" plaforms which cannot handle CD copy-protection.

    4. Re:Legit Owners Screwed? by Scuff · · Score: 1
      I have little sympathy for people stupid enough to used a CD-Key hack on a legit copy of a product they bought. Why on earth would you use a pirated product code on a product you bought? It's not like the CD-Key was missing.

      I don't know if this specifically applies to HL2, but I do know that some keygenerators have been known to pop out keys that have been issued with legitimate copies. So what do you do if you can't get on a game with your purchased copy because someone id curently using the key?
    5. Re:Legit Owners Screwed? by demi · · Score: 1

      How do you use a legitimate CD-Key to circumvent the "CD in drive" check?

      --
      demi
    6. Re:Legit Owners Screwed? by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      Very small? Hmmph. I should probably be posting as AC here, but what the hell -- the first thing I did after installing Half Life, then Quake2, then Starcraft was install a no-CD crack. I still have the original packaging from most of it, too -- in the closet where they should be. I've got too damn many CDs in my computer desk as is, and my CD tower is quite full. Hmm, probably time to start cracking mission packs.

      If you're a f*cking lawyer, I can even send you a digital photo of the remaining packaging.

    7. Re:Legit Owners Screwed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apples and Oranges.

      Legit CD key, still does cd check.

      stolen CD key , still does cd check.

      Legit CD Key, plus cd check crack, key still valid.

      see.

    8. Re:Legit Owners Screwed? by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      Makes no sense whatsoever?

      Are you serious? How the hell do you want the developers to not get screwed?

      Seriously? If it "makes no sense whatsoever," then I must not have any sense, because it makes sense to me.

      Please help restore sanity into my life by telling me what the developers *should* do in this case, because there's apparently a sensible alternative that everyone in the world is missing, but you have figured out that it makes no sense whatsoever.

      Please educate us.

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    9. Re:Legit Owners Screwed? by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      I'm operating on the assumption that "CD-Key hack" means circumventing the need to have the !$$%^! CD in the drive to launch the game.

      I can't access the forum right now to see if anyone is complaining about being banned for that reason, however I have been using the noCD crack since it was released (Saturday, IIRC) and I have not been banned, nor has anyone on the forum where the crack was first released said that they were banned.

      I even looked through Half-Life 2's EULA, and I could not find a single statement that would seem to forbid the use of CD keys. Seems as though Valve really does not have just cause for banning accounts on that basis alone.

    10. Re:Legit Owners Screwed? by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      It doesn't make any sense because CD checks like SecuROM and SafeDisc only inconvenience legitimate users, who might not have their CD with their laptop or might even find that the particular permutation of the CD checking software used is incompatable with their optical disc reader. This is a common problem, and many game companies completely blow off user complaints regarding this issue.

      Then there's the issue of many CD checks (though not the latest SecuROM) requiring full Administrator rights on the computer, which forces security-minded users to compromise accepted security practices.

      Meanwhile, the warez d00dz are playing without any problems because SecuROM/SafeDisc/etc protections are typically cracked before the game's release, and in the few cases where it's not, it takes less than a week before the protection is hacked off or otherwise circumvented.

      I wrote a nice long rant about it long ago in the Deus Ex: Invibile War forum

      http://forums.ionstorm.com/index.php?showtopic=2 06 570&hl=rant

    11. Re:Legit Owners Screwed? by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      Then you call up Valve and they will issue you a new key after you prove to them you actually bought the game and haven't sold it to some kid down the street.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    12. Re:Legit Owners Screwed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, good luck on that. Because you don't contact Valve. You contact Sierra/Vivendi Universal. And god knows when they'll ever get around to helping you. If at all.

    13. Re:Legit Owners Screwed? by Scuff · · Score: 1

      Realistically, this is where you look into getting a new key some other way, as getting one from valve isn't going to happen. Now, if you've just bought the game at retail in the past month, you could exchange it at the store for another copy, which is the only way I see that getting a new legitimate key would be possible.

  33. Bought, works fine, no problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bought it off Steam, works fine, haven't had any problems. I know people have issues with Steam and Valve, but to me this is one of the greatest games ever, so people should pay for it, or shut up.

    1. Re:Bought, works fine, no problems by Ithika · · Score: 1

      Point being of course, people have paid for it but it won't work. Don't you read even the headlines to these articles before posting ill-informed asinine comments?

  34. Activation-based programs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The question is, will there be enough of a stir from "legitimate" users that software companies will start considering *not* using activation-based methods of validation?

    What is a good alternative for a software company that does not want to allow freeloaders, yet doesn't want to hassle legitimate purchasers?

  35. It's not that hard to play a pirated version of it by DroopyStonx · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why is this such a big deal?

    Go on usenet, find the appropriate cracks. Enjoy. The end.

    See how easy that was?

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
  36. who cares by bung-foo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Go valve. Please deny acces to everyone who hasn't paid for the game. And then go on to deny access to everyone who cheats. I couldn't care less about people who stole a product being denied the ability to use what they stole.

    1. Re:who cares by searchr · · Score: 1

      The point of that post and others here is, what do you care for the people who DID pay, who gave Valve or Vivendi their $55, and now CAN'T PLAY? Do you care less? Valve is punishing thieves, yay team, but at the cost of accidentally punishing MANY paying customers, as well as considering ALL custumers thieves before they prove themselves otherwise. Kind of the opposite of how our society has worked up till now.

    2. Re:who cares by bung-foo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are they, really? or are people just pretending to be innocent? Valve says that there were only a few people who tried to activate legit copies with fake cd keys. I'm inclined to believe them because it is in their best interest not to piss off people who are actually paying customers.

      I think that 99% of the pissing and moaning is coming from the 12 yeard olds (chronologic or emotional) who got caught.

    3. Re:who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cant "steal" bits and bytes.

    4. Re:who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cant "steal" bits and bytes.

      Really? They sure as hell aren't free to create.

    5. Re:who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're really saying is that it's okay for Alice to steal $5 from Bob (*) to get $100 back from Carol?

      *) apparently with no intention of compensating it later.

    6. Re:who cares by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      It would also be in their best interests to screw over, say , 0.05% of their customers if doing so would stop piracy. If only a few legit users are screwed by this, it's in their best interests to go ahead with it anyway. The dis-incentive you speak of isn't real.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    7. Re:who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So? Thats not stealing. You cannot steal something that is intangible.

  37. haven't bought anything? by Hanzie · · Score: 1
    People are discovering that when you buy any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really bought anything.

    Actually, the folks who didn't buy anything didn't get anything. Unfortunately, there is a point, because the folks are apparently purchasing an online service, and consequently, are subject to the whims of fate as to the playability after the online service shuts down (for whatever reason).

    You also have to consider that it would be totally in keeping with the strategies of a certain large, yet unnamed, software company to purchase the online service's owning corporation and shut it down, or intentionally degrade it, to make Halo2/Xbox combos.

    That is only one scenario. Purchasers would also be unable to set up a reverse engineered online service, because federal courts have ruled that it contradicts the purchase agreement.

    On the bright side, those who have paid legitametly are probably having no problems. Just my 2 cents worth. hanzie.

    --
    ********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
    1. Re:haven't bought anything? by searchr · · Score: 1

      No, the point is that people who DID buy something, a physical box with physical cds at a physical store, for $55 US, are considered thieves by default until they prove themselves otherwise. That may fly in Russia or China, but it used to work the other way around here.

      Literally, you pay $55, yet you do NOT own Half Life 2. Even beyond getting coralled in with the thieves, Steam takes all control away from the user. I couldn't play HL2, the non-online single player game, all weekend, because Steam couldn't connect to confirm me. No explanation, no help online, nothing. Steam was down, my game was down. If this were an online service, I'd get a prorated refund or similar. No such business plan here. They take my money, and control how and when I play. They may think they're halting piracy, but calling your actual paying customers thieves and treating them like characters in an Orwell novel will likely drive up piracy, just as a f#$k you to the "man".

    2. Re:haven't bought anything? by wintermute740 · · Score: 1

      "On the bright side, those who have paid legitametly are probably having no problems."

      Except that Valve admits that some of the people (they claim the number is small) that are being blocked have purchaced the game. I have no problems with them blocking the pirates, but to block people who have piad for your product (or service) is a bit draconian, even if it does violate the EULA. I thought the courts ruled EULA's aren't valid many years ago. (shrug) Oh well... Good thing I'm not a gamer, or I'd be a bit more pissed about it.

    3. Re:haven't bought anything? by Hanzie · · Score: 1

      I defer to your superior evidence. I have only what I have read, you have personal experience.

      I apologize. Were I in your shoes, I would be having vision problems due to elevated blood pressure.

      Thank you for being civil and good luck with your gaming.

      hanzie.

      --
      ********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
  38. Who wants to bet..... by commo1 · · Score: 1

    Who wants to bet that Microsoft is watching these developments very closely? All things told, they have been quite cooperative given the piracy level of their software. I get in fights with them all the time about valid IDs not working because of a failed motherboard in an OEM system or becuase of an added video card or some other component messing up the install ID, but they finally give in and release a working activation code.

    Out of the gate, there's no way Microsoft can win by being the big brother overlord, especially when we're talking productivity software (OK, OK, a joke's a joke) as opposed to entertertainment, no matter that funds have changed hands, butwe all know that they will be getting better and better at license authentication.

    1. Re:Who wants to bet..... by ehanuise · · Score: 1

      I'd actually be very glad to see them do so.
      More hassles in activation/installation means more opportunities to inform people about the alternatives.

      A friend of mine had to help an old guy in a rural and remote part of greece last summer. The guy had bought a PC in a supermarket, and it was his first PC.
      After a while, the PC 'stopped working' so the old guy asked around in the younger members of the family for help. My pal having some knowledge of PC's was asked by his girlfriend (family of the old guy) to check it out.
      It eventually turned out the guy had winXP preinstalled, and that it needed 'activation'.

      The old guy didn't understand crap about that, and of course had no internet connection, nor telephone. He eventually returned the PC to the store, calling them robbers.

    2. Re:Who wants to bet..... by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Microsoft probably benefits from piracy more than it hurts them. Because people can run illegitimate copies of their software at home, they get a large mindshare that they would otherwise not have, and so then businesses (which do pay for software) end up picking Microsoft products because of that mindshare.

      I don't expect Microsoft to get serious about stopping piracy any time soon.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  39. speculation on your part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alot of people do crack versions they buy since they hate dicking arouund with "Please insert disk 1 to play"

    1. Re:speculation on your part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a lot more want to play the game and not have to pay for it.

    2. Re:speculation on your part by scowling · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Doesn't matter how many are in each camp. There is a legitimate use, and that legitimate use should be protected.

      --
      www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
    3. Re:speculation on your part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a legitimate use, and that legitimate use should be protected.

      Is there? The CD check is copy protection. You're trying to circumvent it. Doesn't the HL2/Steam EULA have something so say about that, let alone the DMCA?

    4. Re:speculation on your part by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      Completely irrelevant.

      Besides, I doubt your numbers. There really aren't that many pirates out there.

      20,000 accounts? How many copies did they sell release day? How many million? And only 20,000 cracked ones turn up?

      Hell, lets say they only sold a million copies, by their math, that's only 2% copies that are cracked. Of those, how many were warezed? Not that many, considering most of the half life 2 "releases" out there are non-working or hoaxes. Of the ones that were downloaded, how many are illegitemate? If the game CD I got in my box won't read properly, I might download a copy.

      I watch the torrent sites and have seen the warez "scene", and it's not that big, not nearly as big as Da Man would have you believe.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    5. Re:speculation on your part by Poseidon88 · · Score: 1
      Cracking a CD check does not count as legitimate use. It is a violation of your license to use the software, and if the owner of the software can show that you have broken the agreement, they can revoke your license. This is the first game that makes use of a system which allows the developer to easily see who is using a no-CD crack, so I imagine a lot of people are going to be in for a very rude surprise.

      Meanwhile, I'll be happily playing my Steam-downloaded copy of the game without ever needing a CD in the drive.

    6. Re:speculation on your part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're full of what?

      Not that many pirates out there? Are you fucking kidding me? What world do you live in?

      Fucking retard.

    7. Re:speculation on your part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no point in arguing with these idiots.

      They're just a bunch of whiney selfish pieces of shit who think they should always get their way.

      I'm sure the guy who broke into my car the other day and stole my $600 alpine, $8,000+ in cd's and my $400 Valentine one radar detector justfies him self also. I'm sure he thinks he did nothing wrong and since I got money I can afford to replace all this shit.

      It's the same fucking mentality.

      Slashdots nothing but a bunch of whiney ass hole kids who can't get over them selves.

    8. Re:speculation on your part by digitallife · · Score: 1

      Sorry, was that the license they tried to enforce after you bought the game? Can I have my money back in that case?

    9. Re:speculation on your part by Poseidon88 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You didn't buy a game. You haven't bought a game in probably about 10 years (about when game developers started including EULAs). If you think you've been buying games, you're deluding yourself.

      What you've been buying all these years are licenses to use a piece of software. The company that owns the software (in this case, Valve) can revoke your license any time they want, if they feel you have violated the license agreement. The difference now is that, for the first time, Steam allows them to do so with real and immediate effect. You are free to contest a revocation by contacting the owner, or by taking your case to a court of law, if you feel you did not violate the license agreement.

      If you want to argue whether or not software should be licensed, that's fine. But this is the way it currently works, so you'd better get used to it.

    10. Re:speculation on your part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boo hoo hoo, whiner! You certainly got the "whiney ass hole kids" part right, and it's even illustrated in your own post.

    11. Re:speculation on your part by scowling · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is a legitimate use. There's nothing you can say to convince me otherwise, so don't bother trying.

      I don't own the game, but if I had, I would not have agreed to any contract upon purchase of the box. If I don't want to have to put the CD in the drive every time I want to play the game, I shouldn't have to. Period. Don't like it? Tough.

      I support any efforts made to circumvent this and other forms of intrusive copy protection.

      --
      www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
    12. Re:speculation on your part by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      Go look how many people are downloading stuff at supernova et al right now, this very instant.

      Compare that to how many people are in the checkout line at the Best Buys and EB's right now.

      People are mostly honest, and given the option of paying or stealing, most will pay.

      I was in a little shop yesterday, the owner was in the back room when I showed up. He called out that he'd be with me in a minute. I had the place to myself, I easily could have taken what I wanted and left without paying. Yet I didn't, and it wasn't for fear of being caught (I wouldn't have been).

      Most people just aren't douchebags.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    13. Re:speculation on your part by scowling · · Score: 1

      At least we have the guts to post in ways that can identify us, sockpuppet.

      And congratulations comparing a legitimate infringement of a perceived right to your car getting broken into. You win the 2004 Golden False Analogy Award.

      --
      www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
    14. Re:speculation on your part by scowling · · Score: 1

      I'm not American. The DMCA doesn't apply to me. And I don't acknowledge the EULAs as valid. Many jurisdictions agree with me.

      "Legitimate" doesn't necessarily mean "legal", anyway. History has shown that it is always legitimate to ignore bad laws.

      --
      www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
    15. Re:speculation on your part by digitallife · · Score: 1

      Oh sorry, so they are enforcing the license that I bought, but wasn't shown until after I put down the money and could no longer get a refund. Thanks for clearing that up.

    16. Re:speculation on your part by lew3004 · · Score: 1

      Well that's really the crux of the whole issue, isn't it? The publisher can cut you off at the knees at will because they "feel" you've violated some liscense agreement. What's the consumer's recourse? A lawyer. Right. People in general will hire an attorney, waste (more than likely) several months of their life and miss work all to pursue consideration from a judge on a $50.00 game. More than likely, customers will just be turned off, pissed off and then just plain off the company pulling these antics. If that's the future of gaming count me out. I won't be purchasing this game anytime soon or anything else from Valve in the near future. Unlike others in most of these forums I actually do vote with my pocketbook and I will survive without HL2. I've survived 3 years without new CD's and I, too, don't see this as an issue.

      --
      I still can't get the screen shots of Castle Wolfenstein for the Apple IIe out of my head.
    17. Re:speculation on your part by Poseidon88 · · Score: 1
      What's the consumer's recourse? A lawyer. Right. People in general will hire an attorney, waste (more than likely) several months of their life and miss work all to pursue consideration from a judge on a $50.00 game.

      I said that was an option, not the only option. And you don't generally need a lawyer or several months for small claims court. The better option, and the one Valve is actually encouraging, is for any user that feels they've had their account incorrectly terminated to contact Valve and provide evidence that they own a valid copy of the game. I suspect that anyone who can do so will find Valve very willing to rectify the situation.

  40. Just Say No To Activation by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1, Informative
    "People are discovering that when you buy any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really bought anything."
    Exactly. After spending many thousands of dollars purcashing copies of Windows, Norton Systemworks, Photoshop and other programs over the years -- no more.

    If a program requires 'activation' I either don't use it or get a cracked/warez copy. I'll be happy to go back to buying their software when they drop the stupid activation schemes.

    1. Re:Just Say No To Activation by NinjaPablo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If a program requires 'activation' I either don't use it or get a cracked/warez copy. I'll be happy to go back to buying their software when they drop the stupid activation schemes.
      Yes, because pirating the software in protest to their anti-piracy schemes will encourage them to drop activation. Riiiight. How about just dealing with it and getting on with your life, or finding a competing or open source version of the product?
      --
      SmashTech - No smashing of tech involved
    2. Re:Just Say No To Activation by sammy+baby · · Score: 4, Funny

      A guy walks into a doctor's office and pokes himself in the chest. "Doc, it hurts when I do this." He pokes himself in the shoulder, and says, "And when I do this." He pokes himself in the thigh. "And when I do this."

      The doctor says, "You must be Polish, right?"

      "How'd you know?"

      "Your finger is broken."

      ("Those damn software companies. How dare they use product activation to help curb piracy? Well just for that, I'm going to pirate their stuff until they stop!" Yeah. I'm sure that's likely to convince them.)

    3. Re:Just Say No To Activation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have fun running your unpatched copy of windows. I guess you deserve the anguish since you didn't pay for it.

    4. Re:Just Say No To Activation by anon*127.0.0.1 · · Score: 1

      " If a program requires 'activation' I either don't use it or get a cracked/warez copy. I'll be happy to go back to buying their software when they drop the stupid activation schemes."

      No, actually you'll be happy to find another excuse to pirate the software instead of paying for it. Possibly the classic "They charge too much for this." or the "I'm just trying it to see if I like it".

      I'm not terribly happy about Valve and their Steam activation scheme either, but I accept it as something they almost have to do in todays gaming climate. Personally, I find it easier to have Steam call home every time I start up HL2 then tracking down the game CD and popping it in the drive. On the plus side, if Steam works the way it should, I might finally be able to play an online multiplayer game without having everyone else running aimbots and wallhacks.

      --
      I am NOT a man!
      I am a free number!
    5. Re:Just Say No To Activation by brkello · · Score: 1

      You, my friend, are being an idiot (you might not be an idiot, but what you are condoning certainly is stupid). If you want a product, and don't like the activation scheme, find a product that doesn't have one or DON'T USE IT AT ALL. You are just trying to justify your illegal activities...trying to make it seem like you are a moral person for doing this. But you aren't...you should sit down and re-think your position...or I hope some day people take your work and refuse to pay.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    6. Re:Just Say No To Activation by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      Those damn software companies. How dare they use product activation to help curb piracy? Well just for that, I'm going to pirate their stuff until they stop!" Yeah. I'm sure that's likely to convince them.
      Numbnuts, some of us aren't going to pirate or buy HL2 or play it at all unless Valve knocks off this attempt to end-run around the First Sale Doctrine.
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    7. Re:Just Say No To Activation by sammy+baby · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the heads up, genius. Of course, the guy I was responding to wrote, "If a program requires 'activation' I either don't use it or get a cracked/warez copy," thus making the problem worse - but hey, thanks for pointing out the obvious.

  41. Reasonable by BigDawgES · · Score: 1

    Over the past ten years, we've observed an overwhelming trend toward completely free exchange of everything digital. This revolution threatens all creators of digital media.

    I believe that Valve has taken reasonable steps to ensure its survival in the climate of free information.

    1. Re:Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RE: Over the past ten years, we've observed an overwhelming trend toward completely free exchange of everything digital.

      Where have you been since the PC (that's PC as in Personal Computer) was invented?

      Since the first days it was always like that...

      It's only now that Joe Blow has PC's that it's any big deal

    2. Re:Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Valve has taken reasonable steps to ensure its survival...

      Sure, by sacrificing everyone else. Valve's survival is not more important than our culture's survival.

  42. HL2 by dewke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I bought Half Life through steam and was pleasantly surprised by how smoothly it went. I was expecting a nightmarish problem judging by Valve's earlier problems with network security.

    However, regarding activation. Maybe if so many people in the "community" weren't so busy pirating the games Valve wouldn't need to go through these hoops.

    What I'm more concerned about overall is, what happens when people have their steam accounts stolen? How is Valve going to deal with that. I could probably use Visa to get my $59 back, but what a tremendous pain in the ass.

    --
    Oderint dum metuant
    1. Re:HL2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... weren't so busy pirating the games Valve wouldn't need to go through these hoops

      This is BS, a cracked version was available hours after it was released. Valve is doing this so they can maintain the customer (ie track them, serve them ads, sell their info, etc). Only a fool would believe that Valve didn't know that a pirate version would quickly become available. Don't be fooled.

    2. Re:HL2 by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Maybe if so many people in the "community" weren't so busy pirating the games "

      so how many is that?
      trick question. nobody really knows.
      I know a few people in the community, and they don't commit copyright violations.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:HL2 by Giggles+Of+Doom · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thats a fantastic point. If people didn't steal games there wouldn't be copy protection.

      A lot of you feel screwed for having to activate and have a CD in the drive. You say it makes you feel like you're being treated like a criminal. Do you feel like a criminal every time you walk through Wal-Mart's anti-shoplifting scanners? Do you feel like a criminal every time you pass a cop sitting in the median waiting to pick off speeders? How about the times you have to show ID when using a credit card? Or getting asked for ID to buy beer? Do you feel your rights are being violated when the airline check-in person asks to see your ticket? How dare they try to stop people from stealing their product! The obvious answer is : if you don't like it, don't buy it. No one is forcing you to play the game.

      So you can't use the no-cd hack with your retail copy. Big deal. Get a little CD wallet and keep it on your desk with the handful of games that won't let you use no-cd hacks in it. Evidently there IS a problem as they banned TWENTY THOUSAND people, and its only been a week. I love running things off images too, but CD's aren't hard to store in a sorted, compact manner.

      --
      "A coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave but one."
    4. Re:HL2 by dewke · · Score: 1

      I can only speak from experience, but as an op in the efnet #doom3 channel we had a *constant* stream of people begging for cracks and asking how to play online when they didn't own the game. I can only assume it's the same for HL2.

      --
      Oderint dum metuant
    5. Re:HL2 by dewke · · Score: 1

      It's sad but true. There haven't always been antitheft devices in cd's and dvd's. There are now. Why? Because stores were losing money to theft.

      If you don't want to have to have a cd in the drive buy HL2 via steam... Simple enough. The game had already been preloaded so it took me less time to activate it that way than it would to drive to best buy.

      --
      Oderint dum metuant
    6. Re:HL2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe people in the community wouldn't need to "pirate" (e.g. using nocd cracks) games if Valve didn't put up so many hoops that you need to jump through before being able to play what you've paid to be able to play.

    7. Re:HL2 by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 1

      If your 'puter is compromised, the nice accountname + accountpassword is neatly stored in a textfile : Ready to be taken.

    8. Re:HL2 by dewke · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't that surprise me... I never bothered to look. Silly valve, at least they could have use something simple like a md5 hash.

      --
      Oderint dum metuant
  43. Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone is awaiting the "stuttering audio patch"

  44. Re:Remeber the good ol' days? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Top of the line games do not happen with the free exchange of work, the man hours, ability and resources needed to just do not happen.

    Cue zealots comparing the production of Half Life 2 to $open_source_project....

  45. I want to see Valve do this! by Man+in+Spandex · · Score: 2, Informative

    There have been many threads going on where we argued on how useless and unfair (compared to customers who bought it off steam) the cd-check is and valve did not reply even once. Instead, the moderators deleted the "800+ replies" thread but it's far from over because there are many other threads currently on this topic that are open to discussion and hopefully, we will make enough noise to get them to listen.

    Using a no-cd patch with steam is a risk that you take because afaik, it could detect it but I can't confirm that. Frankly, this is Valve's job to remove the cd-check which is, like I said many times, utterly useless since activating Hl2 thru steam with your cd key is good enough to prove that one person has a legit copy. Even if the game had no-cd check, sharing the cds would be useless since Steam would popup asking for a valid key which is already in use....

    1. Re:I want to see Valve do this! by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 1

      Frankly, this is Valve's job to remove the cd-check which is, like I said many times, utterly useless since activating Hl2 thru steam with your cd key is good enough to prove that one person has a legit copy.

      I wouldn't be surprised if the CD check is some condition for distribution from Vivendi - the fact that there's some much more effective copy protection system behind the scenes is probably irrelevant to the Vivendi lawyers (I imagine).

      As for the hullaballoo about supposedly legitimate users being blocked - here, I'm reminded of tales of woe on the Steam forums where honest, law-abiding users have had their utterly real, store-bought copies of Half-Life 1 banned, only for the Steam administrators to reveal that the HL1 CD key in question has been widely distributed on the internet, and perhaps even never existed as a retail key in the first place. But, if these users would be so kind as to scan their Half-Life CD case with the appropriate key visible, to act as proof of purchase - but wait! "They don't have scanners/fax machines/whatever in my country, you insensitive clod!" "My dog ate the CD case!" "Waaah!"

      It's easy to make up a story about being banned unjustly. ("Hey, Valve's Steam thing hosed someone's entire computer - I read it on the interweb so it must be true!") I'm sure there are places where the process has fallen down, and a few innocent accounts banned. It does sound like Valve needs to speed up reinstatement of proper accounts from what I've heard, but it's not surprising they take so long if they have all the jokers to deal with as well...

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
  46. Poor babies by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Use a cracked game, one which you didn't pay for, and then whine when you can't play.

    Awwwww.

    How about putting a crowbar in your wallet and actually paying the developers/programmers/distributors for their efforts.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:Poor babies by TravisWatkins · · Score: 1

      I'm going to use the crowbar to "pay" them? Sounds like a plan to me.

      --

      "But I'm still right here, giving blood and keeping faith. And I'm still right here."
  47. Activation sux... by Sefert · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I bought HL2 the day it came out. The steam servers were so swamped that it took me over 2 hours to get the damn thing activated. Frankly, I do find the idea of being treated like a potential criminal every time I launch the game offensive. It's like having a store run a criminal record check every time you wander in to buy something. I'm not going to argue about the license - Valve certainly does have a right to protect their interests, but I'll certainly think twice once I see any product using Steam as a prerequisite to using it. They can do what they like, and me and my money just won't get involved. (btw - the post above about still needing the damn CD is right - what the hell for? If anything good could have come out of Steam it would have been able to stop having to swap CD's back and forth).

    1. Re:Activation sux... by petersam · · Score: 1
      2 points

      1) I agree that it would be nice if you didn't need the CD anymore, but it isn't a deal breaker. If you have the CD, stick it in. I think you could probably hack up a CD emulator as opposed to hacking a binary - hacked binaries may have trouble with authentication, depending on the protocol. Note that I'm not saying that's how HL2 implemented it. Just noting that a signed EXE/DLL is one way to verify it hasn't been modified.

      2) I don't see how asking an anonymous person for proof that they've purchased the game is treating you like a potential criminal. Do you complain when you have to show a ticket before getting into your local sports stadium?

    2. Re:Activation sux... by Sefert · · Score: 1

      1) You're right - it's not a deal breaker. I have CD's scattered all over my desk, so obviously I still buy them. 2) My original analogy is flawed - you've obviously come up with a more apt one. The point I was really trying to make was that when I'm in the privacy of my own home, mucking about playing a single player game, I don't like the idea of having to communicate with the outside world so they can find out whether my copy is stolen or not. To extend your analogy above, it's more like someone dropping by my seat in the stadium to check my ticket again every time I glance at the playing field. A CD key checks the legitimaticy once, like having it checked when you go into the stadium - Steam checks it over and over again. I always buy my games - never steal em (I seriously cannot figure out why people go through all that hassle to save 50 bucks - if they're so damn poor that they can't afford 50 bucks, would Valve get their money anyway?), but I still like to use CD-cracks on games I play frequently. Steam prevents that too. Basically, what Steam does is make sure that when I play the game, I play it only with their permission, in the format that they dictate. I've always been one to make my own rules, and it's this that really chaps my ass. Feels like Big Brother.

    3. Re:Activation sux... by dbacher · · Score: 1

      If you uninstally the game, and run it from Steam (without the CD being installed), it won't ask you for the CD when you run.

      I don't have a CD -- it cannot ask me for it. Everyone who I know who already had it preloaded via Steam, and then registered using a retail key is also playing diskless without a crack.

      --
      If your code is acting bloated, and is running rather slow, it's likely and predicted that some loops you will unroll.
    4. Re:Activation sux... by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      I bought the game and installed it, it took 2 1/2 hours from first cd to activation. I was so pissed that I downloaded it off the net. The whole thing came down in an hour. So by legally purchasing the game I am penalized an hour and a half for loading it and 5 to 10 minutes every time I want to use it. If I pirate it, I get it faster and don't have to deal with all the DRM crap. Nice job Valve. I told my friend the game was fun, but not to bother. I won't buy any more games from these guys.

    5. Re:Activation sux... by Thorhs · · Score: 1

      I see it more as buying a season ticket to the stadium game, you have to prove you have a ticket every time you enter the stadium, just like you have to prove you own the game before starting it up.

      There is one thing though, you don't have to connect to Valve every time you start the game. I have enjoyed playing HL2 in offline mode since the first time I activated it. I can't say for the CD-in-drive thing since I buyed it online.

    6. Re:Activation sux... by X_Bones · · Score: 1

      I bought HL2 the day it came out.

      They can do what they like, and me and my money just won't get involved.

      So... you hate the idea of having to activate a product online, claiming it makes you feel like a "potential criminal," yet you go out and buy HL2 the very first day it's available. Everything I read about HL2 before it was released mentioned something about Steam or online authentication, and I'll bet that you knew about it beforehand too. You lost your right to complain about activation the minute you bought the game. If Steam makes you feel like a criminal, DON'T USE IT (though you can still complain about how long you had to wait to activate the game-- Valve completely dropped the ball on that one).

      Staggering hypocrisy. Someone tell me again how this got modded +Insightful all the way up.

    7. Re:Activation sux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like having a store run a criminal record check every time you wander in to buy something. Wow, Valve may have achieved something even greater than we ever thought possible: they've managed to simulate for millions of white computer geeks what it feels like to be a black male trying to vote or go shopping in America.

    8. Re:Activation sux... by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 3, Insightful


      If you have the CD, stick it in.

      Scenario 1:
      One CD drive on the computer.
      Try to play a game while playing a music CD as well.

      Scenario 2:
      Taking a laptop on a trip. Space is at a premium. Now you have to bring CD's of all your games just to activate them even though you installed their contents to your hard drive with full installations.

      Scenario 3:
      CD gets a scratch. Without CD keys, you just play anyway since you installed it already. With CD keys now you can't play until you wait to prove your case to the company, and get a replacement sent to you via snail-mail.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    9. Re:Activation sux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like needing your ticket every time you return to your seat rather than each time you enter the stadium

    10. Re:Activation sux... by RexCelestis · · Score: 1
      Frankly, I do find the idea of being treated like a potential criminal every time I launch the game offensive. It's like having a store run a criminal record check every time you wander in to buy something.

      In some sense, isn't this the case? Unless I pay with cash, a store will take steps to validate my credit card, debit card, check, etc. This is a step to protect me against fraud and loss, and I appreciate the effort.

      While I hear the concerns about the status of Valve authentification in the future, I also understand these steps to protect themselves against theft.

      Rex
      Nohting fades as fast as the future,
      Nothing clings like the past.

    11. Re:Activation sux... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      What I really don't understand is that ID's games don't have this feature.

      Doom 3 works when you install it. Doom 1 and 2 did too, as did Heretic and Hexen, most of which I borrowed from friends ;-)

      Of course, I singlehandedly sold about 30 copies of Doom 1 in highschool to other people (just cause I had a 0-day copy didn't mean they deserved one).

      But more to the point, some of the recent games by ID software have been very highly anticipated and I'd presume highly pirated. I'm assuming they care, but its not worth their effort to go beyond a key check from the box (which I'm quite happy with for Quake ]I[).

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    12. Re:Activation sux... by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

      Scenario 4). Use a CD/DVD rom drive from a manufacturer that SecuROM doesn't work on, e.g. Philips (who only *invented* the CD standard). Watch the spinny icon as the stupid code fails to work, and the game that you bought is just an expensive coaster.

    13. Re:Activation sux... by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      ..and does this give you a reaction of sympathy for those people or a kind of "you deserve it" reaction?

      Are you a true humanitarian or just another person who would gladly assume the position of the great oppressor.

    14. Re:Activation sux... by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I do find the idea of being treated like a potential criminal every time I launch the game offensive. It's like having a store run a criminal record check every time you wander in to buy something.

      Oh please...it's like having to go through a scanner at stores that detects shoplifting...and it's like having security cameras watching you in stores. Trying to prevent theft isn't evil

    15. Re:Activation sux... by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      Philips (who only *invented* the CD standard) and secuROM breaks that standard, that is why it is unreliable, just as all other copy protection schemes, because if a disc complies with standards it can be copied.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    16. Re:Activation sux... by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      well i guess that's ID's fault for not treating their customers like shit. Will be interesting to see in 20 years who's still around, My money is on Epic, ID, Atari and not Valve or Vivendi

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    17. Re:Activation sux... by drxenos · · Score: 1

      I said the exact same thing on Steams forums. The Dork from Valve replied with some snide comment and the closed the thread!

      --


      Anonymous Cowards suck.
    18. Re:Activation sux... by Sefert · · Score: 1
      Actually I had just read a quick review saying it was at least as good as the original game, so I wandered to the store and bought it. I generally don't read much about games ahead of time as they are usually just hype and not useful info. I had never heard of Steam before I bought the game. Nor did it mention it on the box.

      Perhaps the reason I got modded up that you are not realizing, is that this is just another step in the erosion of your rights as a consumer. I see tons of mandatory registrations of software around, CD checks, CD keys, mandatory authentication of software, and general erosion of freedoms with the product you've licensed as a consumer. More importantly, this is yet one more baby step in the removal of your anonymity in cruising around planet earth, doing your thing. Technology is a wonderful thing, but it has the potential to automate the monitoring of humans in all sorts of states. Now, you could easily argue that Steam is as minor an infraction of this as possible, and certainly not as serious as automatic face recognition in airports, automatic license plate scanners on police cars, etc, and you'd be right. But that doesn't make it acceptable. Movies like Enemy of the State, though a massively (though entertaining) unrealistic potrayal currently of technologies capabilities, are not so far off in the future. It won't be the government either that is after you, but rather the corporations, abusing the volume of information they have at their fingertips.

      I'm not trying to sound like some huge alarmist, because I totally understand the counter arguments, but generally it's the people in the computer industry who understand the dangers most prominently of the potential abuse of privacy by technology. And THAT is why it's so disappointing to see Valve go down this road in the quest for a few extra sheckels.

    19. Re:Activation sux... by Lawbeefaroni · · Score: 1

      If you buy it via Steam, you don't need a CD in the drive to play. Want the luxury of having the physical media? Then you have to *gasp* use that physical media when you play.

      (yeah, I know, non-broadband users are screwed. Sorry, feel bad for you, but the majority of people complaining have broadband.)

      --
      "When it rains, it pours." --Morton's Salt
    20. Re:Activation sux... by Nocterro · · Score: 1

      If stores saw an amount of shoplifting equivalent to the level of piracy game developers suffer from, you probably would have to go through a criminal record check to shop.

      --
      [clever sig]
    21. Re:Activation sux... by Sefert · · Score: 1

      Would they? Shops suffer a 1-2% theft rate. Any idea on the real number that piracy accounts for?

  48. Re:Violating the license for one locks you from al by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems fair. If you try to shoplift something from Sears and get caught, you have to pony up 8x the price of the item you were stealing to avoid charges.

    If you try to pilfer Valve, and you get caught, you should definitely be made to pay multiple times over.

    The days of stealing are over. Pay your way and if you get screwed, don't start whining about your treatment. You were the one who initiated an act of thievery first.

  49. Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by Assmasher · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm glad that Valve is 'cracking skulls.' Mess with the bull and you get the horns buddy.

    In all seriousness, Valve is an intelligent company and has most assuredly been very careful about this. Of course there are going to be mistakes, but out of 20,000 warez a**holes there's probably only a very VERY (to quote Valve) few people who actually purchased the game and then for some reason went out and grabbed a key generator when they didn't need one.

    That's very likely 20,000 less cheating bastards at Counter-Strike Source (leaving on a few million to deal with.)

    --
    Loading...
    1. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      So what about the remaining 0.1% that Valve just totally screwed? Do they not matter because there's not enough of them?

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    2. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess this must be a fundamental difference in philosophy.

      You are saying it is OK that a tenth of a percent of paying customers get wrongfully accused of theft. This is wrong, no matter which way you try to spin it. The goal should be that ALL paying customers are treated like so, even if that means some warez dudes get away with it!

    3. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, is English a second language for you? Is the "99.9% of them deserved it" part confusing? I'm sure it is annoying for a valid customer of Valve to have this issue; however, if you'd bothered to visit the Valve Steam forums you'd realize that the several hundred people who are known to have been accidentally banned have had their accounts re-activated by Valve.

      I'm sure there may be 100 people who get illegitimately screwed out of this action (probably far fewer and possibly none) but they will be inconvenienced only long enough to provide proof of purchase to Valve.

      I certainly think that less than a few hundred people being inconvenienced versus Valve losing their 6 year, 40 million dollar investment, and smacking thieves in the face who rip off countless other software companies as well, is totally acceptable.

      --
      Loading...
    4. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      According to the Valve Steam forums, several hundred people who are known to have been accidentally banned have had their accounts re-activated by Valve.

      There will probably be a few people who have to go the onerous route of supplying proof of purchase to Valve to re-activate, but considering the costs to software companies from outright thieving, it is imho a tiny price to pay. It took 6 years and 40 million dollars to produce this game, and then some warez s***heads delayed it almost by a year with their breakin. I hope Valve hammers them all so that I can buy HL-3 that much faster.

      --
      Loading...
    5. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by Makarakalax · · Score: 1

      I tell you who these "pirates" are. They are kids.

      When I was a kid I had a group of friends and we all swapped games. We did this because we could only afford a few each, so we spread the resources.

      Now I am grown up I love games, I play loads of the things. The REASON I like games so much is because when I was a kid I pirated a lot of games.

      Games companies are only hurting themselves by naively assuming that 1 pirate = 1 lost sale. Why on earth don't more people realise you can benefit from the fact that computers make copying stuff easy!

      Most people. Yes! Most people have morals and pay for software they can afford. You do don't you? Yep so do I.

    6. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by i_r_sensitive · · Score: 1
      That's very likely 20,000 less cheating bastards at Counter-Strike Source (leaving on a few million to deal with.)

      Precisely the point. Valve is waving the falg that they have taken action against 20,000 accounts. Valve aknowledges that some percentage of them have been actioned unfairly. Well and good. The question is how many pirates haven't been caught yet?

      Hard to comment on the efficacy of their anti-pirating measures in the absence of such data, but even poring through the posts, there are apparently a few they haven't caught...

      IMHO, piracy is a serious problem, but I'm not sure that this is the solution.

      But, largely it seems discordant and scattered to me... Is HL2 software or a service? The activation, Et. Al. makes it seem a service, but undeniably there have been software issues along the way too. The software, based on what I'm seeing, is capable of standing alone, without the cobbled together service it has been tied to. The service however is so singularly devoid of value as to make questionable how many people would voluntarily undertake those terms of service without the lock in.

      Really, is Steam offering you something that you would accept under their terms if you did not have to? Most of us probably wouldn't.

      However, for arguments sake, let's say that the Valve/Steam unholy duo has made a positive impact on piracy. Okay, where are the benefits to me? Games companies in particular have hammered us for years that piracy results in higher costs to legitimate users of the software... Well, now we get to see how much of a lie that was. Has HL2 started the trend of games costs going down? Wait a minute, you have good piracy protection, according to you, and that allways increased the costs of our games. So why aren't the prices going down?

      Don't hold your breath. *IF* piracy affected income before (which is precidcated on everyone who used a pirated edition buying the software in the absence of a pirated version...) it only affected income. The anti-piracy measure, on the other hand is a recurring fixed cost, wether or not piracy occurs, and one which is merely being handed on to the customer. So, instead of lowering game prices by fighting piracy, we replace lost income with a fixed cost.

      Ultimately, wait and see if you reap the financial rewards which the games companies have allways claimed would be our due from the elimination of piracy. I suspect you won't see it, not in the next Valve/Steam release, nor the one after it.

      So whatever else, this is not something Valve/Steam undertook with your best interests as their customer at heart, remember that the next time you shell out for your Steam-enabled game...

      --
      "Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
      "Talk minus action equals /." -
    7. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      I pretty much agree with everything you said. I would just note that Valve/Steam undertook this decision with their best interests at heart, and currently (as regards gaming), those are my best interests as well. ;)

      They are doing something valuable in that they are introducing FUD into the warez community and (hopefully) scaring off the less hard core members who just log on to a P2P service/site and steal the game, and install/run it (without realizing they probably just installed a series of trojans from spammers who pull these games off P2P themselves, put in a trojan, and push it back out.)

      Basically, most people seem to think that they deserve everything and if they want to simply take something they can and even should. They should be disabused of this notion and I, for one, applaud Valve's stance and their efforts (whether they are merely a token remains to be seen.)

      --
      Loading...
    8. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I hope Valve hammers them all so that I can buy HL-3 that much faster.

      Way to suck that corporate tit, guy!

    9. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by barc0001 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure there may be 100 people who get illegitimately screwed out of this action (probably far fewer and possibly none) but they will be inconvenienced only long enough to provide proof of purchase to Valve.

      Thinking like this reminds me of a quote from that old movie Blue Thunder when they tested the new anti-terrorism fun of the chopper:

      "6 terrorists to 1 civilian lost is an acceptable ratio"
      "Yeah, unless *you're* one of those civilians"

      The bottom line is activation tends to screw legitimate customers. If I was one of that "very small" group who just paid $60 for a bloody game I want to play, why the hell should I have to "prove" anything in order to enjoy it? And how quick is this "proving"? Immediate? Do they have a "Prove it" hotline? Do I have to wait overnight? A week? Do I have to Fedex them my UPC code from the box? Or should I just throw up my hands, hit the newsgroups and download the WareZ version and forget all the hassles?

    10. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Some of those being screwed are going to be screwed because the only "wrong" thing they did was to have the audacity to buy a copy of the game just just so happened to be one that matches one of the CD keys generated by a keygen program. The purpose of the keygen piracy technique is, after all, to create a key that actually fits the pattern being used by Valve to generate *their* legitimate keys, so obviously there will be clashes. In these caess Valve cut off the legit as well as piracy versions of the key since they can't tell which is which.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    11. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by anethema · · Score: 1

      Nope.

      I find for many people morals are dictated by consequence. When its just so damn easy to go to suprnova.org and download whatever you want with virtually 0 chance of beeing caught..people tend to do it.

      This mostly really applies to lesser things for most people. Stuff like this, or speeding, etc. If cops didn't enforce speeding ever, everyone would just go whatever speed THEY felt safe at. Not what speed the law says.

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    12. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by Bombcar · · Score: 1

      Is this for real? Here I thought one of the main reasons for Steam authentication was to be able to use CD-Keys that have absolutely no pattern and are completely random, and only stored in some massive Steam database. Then you could only find a key by continually querying the Steam servers.

    13. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by i_r_sensitive · · Score: 1
      Really, I think it is a perfectly normal reaction to being lied to. The games companies lied to us for the longest time on the effect of piracy. Then used that lie to leverage this Valve/Steam abortion, which apparently is nothing but a vehicle for more industry lies.

      These people are no more ethical or palatable than any of the usual suspects, but the /. crowd by and large seems to turn a blind eye to this.

      Fundamentally, as a group, games companies should be no more palatable than the Giant of Redmond, or RIAA/*AA. I get the real scary feeling that Valve/Steam could donate a portion of the profits to RIAA and Microsoft and the entertainment whores would be lining up to line the pockets of their enemy.

      It seems very apparent that these guys get a lot more leeway from this crowd, and that is truly sad. No matter how much headway we make throughout the rest of computing, it seems that we will calmly and quietly accept lies from, and unacceptable onuses to the games companies.

      --
      "Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
      "Talk minus action equals /." -
    14. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      If the tit is serving what I like, I'm not too discriminating. I also wouldn't characterize Valve as the big shadowy corporation when they're just a small company with some very talented people who, God forbid, dislike people stealing from them what they've been killing themselves to produce.

      --
      Loading...
    15. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      LOL, that was on tv just the other night wasn't it? ;)

      In any case, where was all this outcry about inconvenience when people were generating keys which blocked legitimate owners from playing online with the original HL/CS?

      Activation does suck, but activation has been introduced because people ARE STEALING so much software that companies are losing significant revenue (not in all cases, but in games it is significant.)

      You don't want activation? Find some other way to deter warez a**holes.

      --
      Loading...
    16. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      I agree with some of what you say in principle; however, we tend to treat software as something immaterial because it isn't quite so physically tangible as other items which, I believe, more clearly divide people over right and wrong. For example, unless you consider software something special, you are suggesting that if I'm too young to have the money to buy my own bike, it is okay for me to go and steal a bike from the bike shop. If I'm not good enough to beat my friends at poker, it is okay to cheat until I become good enough. Et cetera. Being young and low on cash is not an excuse to steal. Get a job. Wash some cars. Mow some lawns. ;)

      --
      Loading...
    17. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      It is because some of them are 'some of us.'

      --
      Loading...
    18. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      Actually they aren't. Visit the steam forums and you'll find out that Valve used a series of particular methods for identifying those who stole the game, only one of which was by examine the keygen. I doubt there are very many actual purchasers who (as of now) have problems using their product(s). Most of the affected legitimate users were re-activated earlier today.

      --
      Loading...
    19. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by Makarakalax · · Score: 1

      Yeah I agree completely, software is special and violating copyright is nothing like stealing a bike.

      As you say software is immaterial, but bikes are material. And of course as a kid I wouldn't have dreamed of stealing a bike, while letting my mate copy Transport Tycoon was just being friendly.

    20. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by barc0001 · · Score: 1

      You don't want activation? Find some other way to deter warez a**holes

      Well, how about a small modification to id's strategy vis a vis Quake III?

      id didn't give a crap if you made a hundred copies of Q3A and played it with your buddies at the office on the LAN. The only thing they cared about was if you had a legit CD key for online play. Which made Q3A very popular with a whole bunch of people who might not have tried it otherwise. This approach might not work for a single-player game, but for the multiplayer/counterstrike aspect it'd be fine.

      The single weakest aspect of the new HL launch has been people having their keys invalidated by people with keygens. How bloody hard can this be to fix? If I was actually going to take a stab at such an important facet of my company's anti-piracy effort, here's what I'd do:

      Hire a mathematician whose sole job is to work on developing a system of creating keys that you cannot easily keygen. Once he has his incredibly complex routine for generating keys running, it spits out 500 million keys. He then devises another routine that randomly winnows out 99% of those keys. Then, out of those remaining keys, he devises a third routine that randomly swaps characters in the keys at random positions. Voila! 5 million keys that can't be keygen'd because they're almost completely random. The Master Server that controls online play is then loaded up with the 5 million valid keys, and all of your jewel cases get keys printed from the same list.

      Now, you can't embed a routine for checking the validity of the key in the software itself where it can be watched by the bad people. Instead, it only finds out if it's key is good or bad by checking against the master server.

      Implement this, and you'll shut all the warez kiddies out of online play permanently. And if you make an appealing online play aspect for your game, you have free advertising (people playing it with their friends who haven't yet bought it on LANs) that will turn into additional sales. Like they say other places, first one's free...

    21. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      have absolutely no pattern and are completely random, and only stored in some massive Steam database.

      Then in that case it would be worse because it would be *guaranteed* that all fake keygen keys that worked were in fact dupilcates of legit keys, rather than just being likely to be so. (Since there's no pattern to compare against, the only way for a key to be valid is for it to be in that list of randomly generated keys that were generated for purachasable products.)

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    22. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Most of the affected legitimate users were re-activated earlier today.

      Of course most of the users Valve *knows* were legitimate were re-activated. Once they classify someone as KNOWN to be a legit user, they will reactivate them. That's not the problem. The problem is that they don't actually know.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    23. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      If you bothered to visit the Valve forums and read about the way they identified the cheaters, you'd realize that you're making the wrong assumption. It is safe to assume that the people with problems are cheaters, it is not safe to assume they are legitimate owners.

      One of the reasons for this, again if you'd bothered to check the Valve forums, is that the CD keygen tool generated a keygen that only represented a particular subset of possible working keys. Valve generated keys for production which matched certain patterns (such as geographic location.) The legitimate users who were caught up in the problem were those whose keys 'could' have been legitimate and they had their accounts re-activated. Now that this is public information, Valve says they have other ways to identify cheaters as well.

      --
      Loading...
    24. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      If you bothered to visit the Valve forums

      Don't assume ignorance when disagreement is a possible explanation. That's arrogant. The set of techniques Valve is telling you about is a subset of the set of techniques they are actually using, by their own admission. The fact remains that in ANY situation, making a claim that you have generated no false positives is not a justifiable claim. It is identical to claiming that your code has zero bugs just becuase you squashed all the known ones on your list.

      I have no doubts that Valve has a techcnique that they BELIEVE will identify only cheaters, just like when a programmer claims to have gotten rid of the last bug, he probably does believe it.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    25. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      If you're worried about being labeled ignorant or being thought so, answer the following question honestly: Did you visit the valve forums before you wrote your previous post?

      I have more faith in Valve's technical ability than in the majority of the game playing public who, in my personal experience, steal whatever they can when they believe no repercussions will ensue.

      --
      Loading...
    26. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Did you visit the valve forums

      No. So what? I'm not a valve customer. Are you admitting that you lied when repeating what they said here? It not, then everything I said stands. If YOU weren't lying about what they said, then what they said is 100% impossible because they were claiming an unprovable thing. At most, they can claim that they don't KNOW of any legit customers they cut off.

      When someone says they performed an action that is impossible within the bounds of logic, I don't need to see every detail of how they did it to know they can't be telling the truth. I'll believe their claim the day after I see someone solve the halting problem, or sucessfully divide by zero. It's the same class of impossible.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    27. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      Are you a loony? LOL. Why on earth would my repeated suggestion that you stop talking about something as if you're an expert w/o even making the effort to obtain a contemporary viewpoint mean that I am saying that I lied?

      Man, that's some crazy logic you've got going.

      Who cares if you're a valve customer. If you're going to attempt to have an objective viewpoint about a situation, you might (just might) fight it useful to actually visit a forum where you can garner information from both sides rather than armchairing your foot into your mouth.

      As for your pedantic assertions that Valve must have lied because what they said is 100% impossible; perhaps (just perhaps) you could get down off of Mount Sinai and join the rest of the world in understanding that Valve's statements are to be read in the context in which they were presented. Not the your puerile of lawyerly literalism.

      Get off your high horse, get off your keyboard-ass and visit the forums and read from both sides. Then come back an tell everybody how you know everything. Someone may give your diatribes a shred of credence.

      --
      Loading...
    28. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      oops, please insert *** in the domain of your puerile and lawyerly literalism ***, you know where.

      --
      Loading...
    29. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Why on earth would my repeated suggestion that you stop talking about something as if you're an expert w/o even making the effort to obtain a contemporary viewpoint mean that I am saying that I lied?

      I apologize for making the false assumption that you are a competent enough reader of English to know what the fuck the word "IF" actually means. I didn't say you lied. I said that if you aren't lying about what was said in those forums, then my argument stands. The only way it would make sense for me to bother reading the forums would be if I had a reason to doubt your claims about what was said there.

      The rest of your post is based on this stupidity.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    30. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      That's funny. You're too stupid to realize that I'm referring to your assertion that either I'm lying or Valve is wrong. Maybe you should let your mom have her computer back now.

      Again, in case it wasn't clear the first two times: Your axiom is faulty. Perhaps you'd like to assail this point again using a different tactic. I don't have to be a 'liar' or Valve is 'wrong.'

      --
      Loading...
    31. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      Hilarious you are mate.

      "The only way it would make sense for me to bother reading the forums would be if I had a reason to doubt your claims about what was said there."

      Great, so we both agree that according to the forums there are virtually no actual HL2 customers having problems with authentication at this time.

      Thanks.

      --
      Loading...
    32. Re:Good, 99.9% of them absolutely deserved it. by Bombcar · · Score: 1

      But it would be impossible to keygen, because the only way the keygen could find a key would be because the steam server accepted it, and so they just make the steam server drop an IP after 5 incorrect keys.

      Most keygens work by taking the code from the program that checks the serial number, and running numbers through it. If this can't be done, then the keygen cannot work.

  50. Future Install? by don_carnage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, what happens in 5 or 10 years when you want to play the game and can't install it on a new machine because Steam is gone or has been replaced? I understand their attempt to thwart piracy, but perhaps they should try a different approach. Perhaps innocent until proven guilty?

    1. Re:Future Install? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps in 5 to 10 years, when Valve has determined that they won't be making any more money off HL2, they'll set up some sort of way to let you play the game. I don't know.

      Innocent until proven guilty? I would guess that there's enough proof to lock out the accounts, either because there's some sort of bogus activation code, or multiple registrations of the same code, or something (if my ignorance about HL2 registration shows, it's because I haven't purchased the game yet). Again, I don't know, but I don't think Valve would be blocking accounts willy nilly.

    2. Re:Future Install? by justzisguy · · Score: 2, Informative

      If they are a responsible company, they should release a patch in a couple years, once they are no longer gaining revenue for the product. Intuit did something similar with Turbo Tax.

    3. Re:Future Install? by AlexCV · · Score: 1

      Then someone will use Mist (hypothetical name), a Steam work alike that says all the right things in all the right places.

      Ain't no such thing as a trusted communication channel where you can make one end play by your rules.

    4. Re:Future Install? by mansa · · Score: 1

      From what I understand, if Valve suddenly decided to stop making games, and get into ranching or something, they could very easily "turn off" any steam authentication.

      I think steam is a great thing... automatic updates, and more $$$ for the developers, not the stinkin' publishers.

    5. Re:Future Install? by Snowmit · · Score: 1

      In 5 to 10 years you won't care because your biopods will be jacked directly into the matrix and they'll be running full featured Half-Life emulators in there.

      --
      I have a lot of opinions about Cyborgs and Architects
    6. Re:Future Install? by John+Whitley · · Score: 1

      Actually, there's an easy solution to this, and Id Software has already implemented it: open source the game and engine after its major profit cycle has run down. It's probably fairly trivial for them to make it run w/o Steam activation before doing so.

      If they didn't want to open source it (or couldn't due to third-party IP in the codebase), they could still do away with Steam for some future "Half Life 2, Classics Edition" release in 3-5 years or so.

    7. Re:Future Install? by O_Sleep · · Score: 1

      What a lot of people don't understand is that this has already happened. I once bought an axis and allies game that worked over e-mail. The stupid thing is that it needed to contact their games's publisher's ip. They didn't exist anymore and they didn't opensource it.

      People say, "If this company is a responsible company blah blah."

      If there is no financial incentive to opensource old games. There is no responsibility of the managers of the company to opensource the product. What they did with Doom III was a nice thing to do and probably got them some goodwill, but try writing that down on a quarterly report.

      The only saving grace is that if Valve does eventually die out, I can use a crack to disable the authentication for the product (which I do own and have paid with real $$!!!). I definately won't buy through stream (not that I would buy this game anyway).

    8. Re:Future Install? by O_Sleep · · Score: 1

      I mean what ID did with Doom and Quake

      also, the point of the Axis and Allies game is that I bought it and it didn't work because the publisher wasn't around.

    9. Re:Future Install? by ValuJet · · Score: 0

      You know you can play the game while you're not connected to the internet right?

    10. Re:Future Install? by LordBrutish · · Score: 1

      How many 10-year old games do you still play regularly?

      If the answer is "few" or "none" then your argument is rather moot, isn't it?

    11. Re:Future Install? by bahwi · · Score: 1

      Valve releases a patch, you no longer need Steam to play, and you enjoy playing HL2 while the rest of us play HL3, Doom 4, or whatever the hell is released in 5 or 10 years.

      A lot of people are pirating games these days, the best would be some grassroots way to stop it or something. If it wasn't a problem, they would have never done it. This is hardly a pre-emptive move to stop piracy, it comes after all the other crap that has happened recently.

    12. Re:Future Install? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you understand? They hate you because of your freedoms.

    13. Re:Future Install? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a pentium machine with PC Dos 7 (Dos2000) that has many old Dos games like Commander Keen, Monsterbash, original Descent, Ms Pacman, etc. and I do play those games every so often. (It is an old Dell with 200 Mhz and 20 MB hd, onboard SB with SB subwoofer and two speakers. Works great!

      AC and I know it. :(

    14. Re:Future Install? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if that scenario is likely, consumers should buy their products at a huge discount, since you might end up locked out of your purchase, which will render the game pretty useless.

    15. Re:Future Install? by don_carnage · · Score: 1

      Counterstrike? Ok, maybe that's not 10 years old but it's in the 5-10 range.

      There are games that I've thought about going back and playing just for the nostalgia: Alone in the Dark, Seventh Guest, Wing Commander: Privateer, Descent: Freespace, Myth, etc. These are good games that pushed the limits of my hardware at the time that I can now just ace through.

    16. Re:Future Install? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      IIRC, while you can play the game without the Internet, you still need to get an electronic validation to get it to play.

    17. Re:Future Install? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I play Dr. Mario (64 & GB) and Tetris with some regularity. And those games don't treat me like a criminal either.

    18. Re:Future Install? by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 1

      Valve releases a patch, you no longer need Steam to play

      Everyone seems to assume Valve would patch HL2 to make it work without Steam if they were about to go under. Why? There hasn't ever been an official statement that they would do it. There's nothing in the EULA that obligates them to do it. There's just a vague warm fuzzy feeling from the Valve fanboys who assume they're going to play nice. It seems more likely to me that if Valve were in dire financial straits, they would try to turn Steam into a game rental system. CS:Source could suddenly cost $20/month to play.

      Don't like that idea? Too bad. You should have bought a game instead of access to a game rental system.

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
    19. Re:Future Install? by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      Then someone will use Mist (hypothetical name), a Steam work alike that says all the right things in all the right places.
      And if there is a company in the industry that owns Valve's assest they'll get sued, just like bnetd did.
    20. Re:Future Install? by BattleTroll · · Score: 1

      The same thing that happened when all those Apple II games you had on 5 1/4 inch disks stopped working - you moved on to a new game. I could see all the hubbub if this was some mission critical application. It's a *game* for crying out loud, get over it!

    21. Re:Future Install? by nkh · · Score: 1

      I still have a 386 (20MHz) full of the games I bought 10 years ago (all the LucasArts adventure games for example...) And I'm sure I'll play Half-Life or Quake 2 in a few years just for the fun of it. As for my game consoles, I'm playing Super Mario 3 on the NES right now. Is there a problem with that?

    22. Re:Future Install? by Guiness17 · · Score: 1

      err...and what if the answer is 'quite a few'? I can name about half a dozen games 5-10 yr old games that I still play regularly. And as parent's parent mentioned, PBEM that goes through the publisher server is a Bad Thing.

      --
      Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations...
    23. Re:Future Install? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many 10-year old games do you still play regularly?

      The fact that I am just now starting the Baldur's Gate series makes it pretty close. BG would not be available if it required Steam. There isn't much left of the origional companies that created and distributed it. There is minimal interest by the companies in maintaining an active community for such an old game. Try going to the Interplay web site and be thankfull it doesn't require activation. This could easily be Valve in 8 years. I personally will not buy the game because of this horrible activation. So that's $50 somebody won't be getting. Will I miss out? Sure, but I won't be criminalized by a company that wants my money. I also switched off of Turbo Tax and haven't gone back. Doom 3 is fine w/ me.

    24. Re:Future Install? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There hasn't ever been an official statement that they would do it. There's nothing in the EULA that obligates them to do it.

      You're right. Here's what the EULA (Subscriber Agreement) says about this scenario:

      In the case of a one-time purchase of a product license (e.g., purchase of a single game) from Valve, Valve may choose to terminate or cancel your Subscription in its entirety or may terminate or cancel only a portion of the Subscription (e.g., access to the software via Steam) and Valve may, but is not obligated to, provide access (for a limited period of time) to the download of a stand-alone version of the software and content associated with such one-time purchase.

    25. Re:Future Install? by justins · · Score: 1
      Sure, but I won't be criminalized by a company that wants my money. I also switched off of Turbo Tax and haven't gone back. Doom 3 is fine w/ me.

      Particularly since there is a working crack for it, I'm sure. :p
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    26. Re:Future Install? by stanmann · · Score: 1

      in the last year, I have played Dark castle, Wolfenstein 3d(the original), Abrams battle tank, Centurion defender of rome, Blackstone, Keen. I have been unsuccessful in playing Bouncing babies, Redbaron(the freeware game) and SoD(lost my media). I've also played Diablo I/II, Everquest, Wolfenstein(the new one) and Halflife.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    27. Re:Future Install? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot for asking this on /.

      My list:
      Bard's Tale
      Wasteland
      Ultima 1-3
      Zork 1-3

      They're some of the best games of all time and I still like them. Many others agree with me. HL (the original) is also one of the best FPS games of its generation and will be played ten years from now, no doubt.

      HL2 can die, I haven't bought it, I refuse (unlike everyone who claims they will refuse "next time", BS!)

    28. Re:Future Install? by drxenos · · Score: 1

      So what if its just a game. I paid good money for it. Who the hell are you to arbitrary decide its importance?

      --


      Anonymous Cowards suck.
    29. Re:Future Install? by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1

      Rogue. 20 year old game. So ha!

      By the way, Wolfenstein 3d is not the original - it's the sequel.

      There was a 2d version that came out on Apple II, Commodore 64, and Tandy. Its big gimmick was that it had speech (albiet with 4-bit resolution).

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    30. Re:Future Install? by stanmann · · Score: 1

      If I could find it I would play it, I spent 2 years on ebay and in thrift stores trying to acqire legal copies of M1:Abrams battle tank and Centurion defender of Rome, I even went to the original publisher.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    31. Re:Future Install? by eaolson · · Score: 1
      Perhaps in 5 to 10 years, when Valve has determined that they won't be making any more money off HL2, they'll set up some sort of way to let you play the game. I don't know.
      Why would Valve spend valuable man-hours (i.e. money) setting up such a system for a game that is no longer profitable to them? Maybe out of the goodness of their hearts, and the desire to seem receptive to the interest of their customers. But if they go bankrupt or get bought out (and we know that neither of those things would ever happen in the computer industry, let along the gaming software industry) these wouldn't apply.
    32. Re:Future Install? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're not a MAME fan, then?

      There are plenty of people who play games that are ten, 15, even 20-25 years old. The popularity of retro Atrai 30-in-1 joysticks and NES carts for the GBA show that it can even be profitable.

    33. Re:Future Install? by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, we have all the evil pirates to thank for still being able to play those old Apple games. Pretty much only the cracked games were able to be transfered to file formats for use with emulators. Even if you own the legitimate game and the company still exists today, they will in no way provide you with a copy. They don't care about the 30 dollars you gave them twenty years ago.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    34. Re:Future Install? by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      Battle.net is still owned and operated by Blizzard and has been for many years. Most of the people who wanted to play on Bnetd either cheat or pirate. The people who actually did buy the game agreed to play by Blizzard's terms for online play. Note that bnetd is not needed for LAN or offline play.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
  51. The $100 Question by jackstraw2323 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What happens if I buy the game on ebay that somebody already played. Will steam not allow me since it's already registered to the previous user? More importantly what happens when VU shuts down valve and steam B/C profit margins aren't high enough or some other BS reason, and there are no servers to validate my copy? I don't want to buy a game that might not work in a few years.

    1. Re:The $100 Question by Grey_14 · · Score: 1

      You DO NOT BUY these games on E-Bay. Same holds true for original half-life, (Which is still available new at most stores for a decent price, so dont bitch about not being able to get them anymore), if you bought original halflife, you can almost be certain that there are a half-dozen people using that WON key :P

    2. Re:The $100 Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Valve is not owned by Vivendi. Valve was stuck in a 3 game deal with Sierra. Sierra was bought by Vivdeni, ergo Valve is in a 3 game deal with VUGames.

      I don't know the details, but Vivendi did not acknowledge Counter-strike as the second title because it was only a mod.
      Title 1: Half-life
      Title 2: Condition Zero (I believe)
      Title 3: Half-life 2

      Vavle is free and clear now.

      What happens in the future, shall be interesting.

    3. Re:The $100 Question by acceleriter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So in other words, this activation/CD key stuff is just an end run around the doctrine of first sale.

      --

      CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.

    4. Re:The $100 Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you read the FAQ on Steampowered.com, you will find that they specifically forbid the resale of the game after it has been purchased, through Ebay or any other method. Further proof that in fact you have not purchased anything REAL, you have only purchased a non-transferable permission slip.

      The day that Valve and companies that purvey such methods go bankrupt is the day that legitimate customers have won a great victory against oppressive schemes.

    5. Re:The $100 Question by acceleriter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They don't have the right to forbid such a sale--the First Sale Doctrine of copyright law means that a seller loses control of an item once it's sold. And if they want to claim it's a license, not a sale, then they'd best quit selling boxes and using the word "buy" in their advertising.

      --

      CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.

    6. Re:The $100 Question by HarvardAce · · Score: 1
      Regardless of whether Valve/VU is selling a license or the actual game, they are under no obligation to ensure that the game works after it has been resold.

      Can they tell you that you can't resell the game? Well, chances are in the EULA, which you expressly consented to by installing the game, they put in a clause that says you can't sell the game or transfer the EULA to another party. If you buy something, and sign a contract that says you can't sell it to anyone else, then you are bound by that contract, regardless of what laws may apply when no contract is in effect.

      Now, do I think this is a really unfriendly thing to do? Sure. But that doesn't mean that they can't cripple the software if you sell it (regardless of whether they can actually prohibit a sale).

      --
      Note to self: Stop putting jokes in my insightful comments so I can get something other than +1 Funny!
    7. Re:The $100 Question by acceleriter · · Score: 1

      Whether a EULA is indeed an enforcable contract is still up in the air, with rulings having gone both ways (Softman and Bnetd cases). Even if it is a contract, though, it's a contract imposed after the sale, and a contract of adhesion. I doubt they'll have much luck obtaining a judgement from someone who resells the program, or against the buyer who cracks it so he can use his legal purchase.

      --

      CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.

    8. Re:The $100 Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you buy something, and sign a contract that says you can't sell it to anyone else, then you are bound by that contract, regardless of what laws may apply when no contract is in effect.

      Not quite. There are some laws that preempt contracts. I don't remember whether copyright preemption has been settled or not -- there definitely have been cases about it.

    9. Re:The $100 Question by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

      I don't want to buy a game that might not work in a few years.

      Then don't buy the frigging game! That's the free market in action.

      Dang, I was going to lurk on this thread, but reading the comments, you would think it was everyone's god-given right to play this stupid game forever.

      Fuck it. Shut up and write your own game and release it under whatever terms you want.

      No one is holding a gun to your head here....It's simple, you don't like the terms, don't "buy" the game.

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    10. Re:The $100 Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and it sucks.

    11. Re:The $100 Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, no. What you're selling to someone after first sale is not the game itself. You're going to go ahead and sell your steam username and password.

      Heck, that's what I've done for all of my buddies. I finished the game, and don't feel like playing multiplayer.
      So they kicked in $10 a pop, and get two weeks of half life 2 joy, each in turn. And, I know where they live, so if they mess with my steam account, I can hurt them.

      Of course, if you're flat out selling your steam account, that's not a problem. Exchange your money for password, and you're good to go.

    12. Re:The $100 Question by bellers · · Score: 1
      You're buying a license.



      Whats so complicated about that? You dont OWN anything. You are purchasing the non-exclusive right to use a piece of software.

      There is NOTHING new about how this works. It's like you people are suddenly waking up and freaking out because you JUST NOW REALIZED that you dont own the software you 'bought'.


      YOU NEVER OWNED THE SOFTWARE YOU BOUGHT. EVER.

      --
      This space for rent.
    13. Re:The $100 Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feel better now, fuck nut?

    14. Re:The $100 Question by jackstraw2323 · · Score: 1

      I'm not buying it yet, I was just asking if that might be an issue, as I like to revisit games some years later, especially if they are as amazing as this one is supposed to be. It's called evaluating your purchase. However I think it's my right to demand a product that won't mysteriously stop working if they go out of business sometime. Is it Likely? Remember Black Isle? Yeah.

    15. Re:The $100 Question by Convergence · · Score: 1

      Strange. That was the same argument that the paperback publisher used 50 years ago.... you know, in that court case where the doctrine of first sale was created.

      The publisher tried a 'license' that disallowed resale of the paperbacks below a particular price.

      Didn't work then. and I pray it doesn't work this time.

      The whole notion of software 'license' was created under a doctrine that you needed the explicit permission of the copyright holder (a 'license') to create a temporary copy of a software in RAM as needed to run it. In return for permission to create that copy, you contractually give up rights . Unfortunately, this whole house of cards fell over 10 years ago when copyright law was rewritten to explicitly say that such a temporary copy does *not* require the explicit permission of the copyright holder. Ergo, no 'license' is necessary to run it, and there's no need to agree to the contract.

      It is true that some courts have interpreted that clause very narrowly, and accepting that EULA's as 'standard practice'. IANAL, but AFAIK, EULA's still don't have any legal doctrine surrounding them making them legal contracts except that 'its been that way for 20 years'.

      IANAIL, but AFAIK, I do *not* need some seperate license from a copyright holder to use the software. I bought it, and it is within my rights under copyright law to make the appropriate temporary copies in RAM and on the HD to install it. (In the particular case of steam, the quid pro quo could be the additional ability to access the online servers and multiplayer mode. However nothing in copyright law says that you shouldn't be able to make your own multiplayer servers. This may change --- we have to see how the bnetd case turns out.)

    16. Re:The $100 Question by acceleriter · · Score: 1

      Well put--thank you for making a cogent argument against the new rights that publishers are attempting to assert.

      --

      CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.

    17. Re:The $100 Question by Lawbeefaroni · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem here is that Valve's Steam "service" is a vital part of the product. It might not be necessary in theory, but they made it so in practice. So now every time you fire up HL2 or play CS:Source you're accessing their service. You're accessing your non-transferable account on steam. They are not obligated to provide this service to anyone not party to the original license (the first buyer).

      --
      "When it rains, it pours." --Morton's Salt
    18. Re:The $100 Question by Barbarian · · Score: 1

      I believe if you then find out that the cd-key has been registered, you can mail the physical disc/cd-key to Valve and they will give you a new one.

    19. Re:The $100 Question by James+Foster · · Score: 1

      You're not allowed to sell the game.

      The Steam EULA states that Valve are allowed to take away your Steam account at any time.

      They can also change the EULA, and you must check it regularly. If they change the EULA, you have 30 days to cancel your Steam account (and therefore lose your purchases), or the new EULA will apply to you.

      It's technically possible for them to make everyone who bought HL2 pay an extra $5 a month to play it, or else lose their "purchase".

      http://www.steampowered.com/index.php?area=subsc ri ber_agreement

    20. Re:The $100 Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You charge your friends to play your game, that you already finished?

      Nice friend

    21. Re:The $100 Question by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      Very much so. So, if someone is pissed enough to take this to the SCOTUS, Valve is screwed. They slapped down the publishing industry in the 30s, and the movie industry in the 70s. Still sucks that no game store is going to have used copies of HL2 until then, though.

  52. Seems strange by sokk · · Score: 0

    I'm not filled in with the details of this particular mass-ban, but does this mean that someone who legally owns eg. Half-Life 1 won't be able to play it on the net anymore.

    I'm starting to see problems with this Steam technology: When you connect multiple games to a "profile", and they ban _all_ your games because of something.. then something is wrong. They can't say: "Well, we know you've paid us a great deal of money for our earlier games. But we don't give a fuck, and we will punish you by banning you from your old games". Can they?

    1. Re:Seems strange by js3 · · Score: 1

      they can, because you are a fool (sorry). People who paid for HL2 knew about this whole steam crap, some even like and defend it. So if valve sticks a big one down there, you have nobody to blame but yourself. I don't have hl2 only because of their method of distribution, because I don't want to deal with 50$ and 2 months later going through that kind of bullshit.

      I have no problem buying games that require valid cdkeys to play online, starcraft, battlefield1942, farcry, need for speed 2 etc.

      --
      did you forget to take your meds?
    2. Re:Seems strange by sokk · · Score: 1

      I should probably have mentioned that I've bought Half-life 2 myself. A great game.

      I also own Half-Life 1. The people who bought Half-Life 1 didn't know about Steam at time of purchase. I believe that the old multiplayer network (WON?) is down as well. So they are in a sense punishing you (dollar-wise) if they ban your Half-Life 1 account/serial; just because you couldn't resist the temptation of waiting for a download, waiting for your monthly pay or whatever.

      So in that sense: You don't own your games, because you never know if they'll ban you for some obscure action. Eg. I hate that I have to put the Half-Life 2 DVD in everytime I want to play. If I use a no-cd crack, and that causes a ban of all my games from Valve. That would surely piss me off.

      I'm not saying they will, I'm just entertaining a thought here.

    3. Re:Seems strange by js3 · · Score: 1

      well yea but the point here is you don't know so that's a risk you take. When I buy any other kind of game, like those I listed in my previous post, I know as long as I have my cd I can play the game I paid money for. This is not guaranteed with HL2

      --
      did you forget to take your meds?
  53. Refunds by nharmon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They are disabling accounts, thus effectively preventing people to play the legal games they did buy. So, is Valve obligated to provide refunds to users who cannot access their previously purchased games.

    I mean, if I sell you a car, and you come into my house and steal my laptop, I don't get to take back my car and laptop and keep the money.

    1. Re:Refunds by SorcererX · · Score: 1

      No, you'd get the laptop back and the person stealing it would go to jail. In the case of these games, what would you prefer? being banned from playing a few games, or getting into legal proceedings with Valve because you ripped them off?

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
    2. Re:Refunds by digitallife · · Score: 1

      Legal proceedings, actually, thanks. At least that would keep them semi-honest.

    3. Re:Refunds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, under forfeiture laws, you might, actually. If the car was used to get to the scene of the crime, even more probably.

    4. Re:Refunds by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      nothing will keep valve honest

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    5. Re:Refunds by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      I mean, if I sell you a car, and you come into my house and steal my laptop, I don't get to take back my car and laptop and keep the money.

      More like if you sell me a car with an ignition which can be deactivated remotely, and inside the car is a notice saying that my ignition will be deactivated if I steal from you, but if I don't agree I can return the car for a refund, and then I drive the car anyway, and then I come into your house and steal your laptop, can you press the button to deactivate my ignition? I'd say yes.

    6. Re:Refunds by andycal · · Score: 1

      But in that case the same person wouldn't get to be prosecutor, judge and jury. That's the most offensive part of this action.

    7. Re:Refunds by Pecisk · · Score: 1

      Wrong, wrong and ...emmm..wrong.

      You know, there is some kind of difference between buying a REAL car and buying a RIGHT to play game. REAL car cannot rally be revoked without refund, game or software - can, if you have agreed to license agreement, which usually says that owner of the software (producer or publisher) can revoke your rights to PLAY this game anytime they want, usually, when you have done something wrong according to the license. For example, used some kind of scheme to get rid of copy protection.

      Don't agree with that? Well, then don't use commercial software, as almost all EULAs say that.

      It is all about ownership - they OWN the game, and you buy a RIGHT to play this game. Nothing more.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    8. Re:Refunds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll take court.

      -When did this theft take place? We don't know.
      -Where did this theft occur? We aren't sure.
      -How did the defendant gain access? We don't know
      -Can you show any proof that property was removed from your posession? No

      Looks easy to me.

      The only evidence is a CD Key, prove that I stole it. Maybe I bought it from a guy, who told me it was legit, and I installed it with him in the room, to wait and be sure it authenticated before paying. It authenticated, I assumed the key was valid (it phoned home, and activated), now I am out what I paid for this game, and all the other titles on that steam account.

      This is a bad system, and it will cost them a pile of money. I know more people who are saying "Fuck that" than are looking for hacked versions.

  54. Re:Remeber the good ol' days? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Free exchange of data and ideas?

    Just because the "product" is incoded in bits doesn't put it into the realm of "data and ideas". You aren't buying an idea, you're buying a product. If you could buy a laptop then use your "replicator" (read: cd-burner) to create infinate, exat copies laptop makers would be in arms. AND most people would agree that "replicating" the laptop and giving it away free to other people would not be "right."

    Valve has put the last X number of years into this product, and they deserve to be compensated for their work. If you don't like the terms by of it, then don't buy it. Nobody is forcing you to play HL2. Is the system perfect? No way! But just because a person doesn't like the system they should start stealing. (Yes, stealing - call it what it is ) Doing so is would be a bit like a person not liking to pay for a game at Wal-Mart because of the chips they have..so they take the CD out of the box and walkout. Similar idea.

  55. this is amusing by hsmith · · Score: 1

    Seeing people complaining about companies that go after those who pirate software. yet when stories of EA employees being "explotited" bloody murder is claimed.

    i don't think anyone at slashdot realizes how much money it takes to pay those programmers. if everyone purchased the copies they play with i am sure EA employees wouldn't bitch about not getting compenstated enough.

  56. Maybe I just don't get it, but... by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    People are discovering that when you buy any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really bought anything.

    Aren't we talking about people who haven't bought the game, and are using an unlicensed copy and a cd-key generator? If so, they haven't really bought anything because they haven't paid for anything period. Or am I missing something?

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Maybe I just don't get it, but... by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

      Yeah you missed the part where hundreds of people are being banned for no reason, or because they used a No-CD crack, or tried (unsuccessfully) to use a banned CD key.

      Hundreds of people are being ripped off and there are a lot of people defending it, it sickens me.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    2. Re:Maybe I just don't get it, but... by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

      Ah, I got it. Their ban system is buggy. Thanks.

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
    3. Re:Maybe I just don't get it, but... by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

      It's not that the ban system is buggy, it's that there is no ban system. They simply see if you tried to use an invalid key and ban all your games, not just the offending title.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
  57. HL Activation by Smiffa2001 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I for one don't blame those people that want to risk getting Steam accounts banned by using a cracked game. Speaking as someone that bought the game retail, I spent 2 hours or so watching Steam 'unlock' my copy so I could play it. If someone wants to try to get round this, let em...

    Cracking down on piracy is good, don't get me wrong but at risk of opening up the debate again, I think Valve got it wrong on this one...

  58. Amen. Michael is a tool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i agree with you. i'm not surprised by that little tailend-oh-i-wish-i-had-a-blog-someone-cared-to-re ad from Michael; it is par for the course.

  59. Got it by bittorrent... by dark-br · · Score: 3, Informative

    and it's still working ok... Am I lucky or it's only a question of time?

    Anyone else still playing with... err... pirated HL2?

    (And don't give me that crap "oh, bad you, pirate! go sit on a corner". Hurl the first stone those who have NEVER pirated a piece of software!)

    1. Re:Got it by bittorrent... by DroopyStonx · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yep, got my copy off alt.binaries.cd.image.games.

      Works perfectly!

      It's funny how people are acting like this is THE end of pirating. Sorry, the data is on the CD, therefore, it can be used and copied no matter what restrictions you think may curb it!

      Us smart ones know where to look ;)

      --
      We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
    2. Re:Got it by bittorrent... by fanboy19 · · Score: 1

      I gave my friend my Steam login information. He was able to login and download the game directly from Steam. Pretty funny when you think about it. They setup Steam to stop piracy and what they end up with is making it even easier.

    3. Re:Got it by bittorrent... by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      BURN IN HELL WAREZ MONKEY!!
      just kidding. i've downloaded my share of games, but i think valve has the right to do this.
      of course i think they should also provide a no-cd utility for valid cd-accounts.

      anyway, i've heard that the copies of hl2 torrented from ie. nova emulate steam, so they don't actually connect to actual steam. maybe that's why your copy works..

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    4. Re:Got it by bittorrent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's ironic is that the people who had no intention of paying for Half-Life 2 and downloaded a cracked copy from usenet are able to play it offline with no problems, while the people who legitimately paid for a copy and either want to use a no-cd crack or some other workaround are now out fifty bucks.

      I have a feeling there's also some people who did nothing wrong whatsoever (20,000 accounts identified within 1 week?) but got caught in the crossfire and are now really pissed off. If there's even one person wrongfully targeted, that's one too many.

      Of course there's also the people who already had a Steam account and tried to get HL2 for free using a stolen key or keygen or some other method and got caught too, but I don't pity them.

    5. Re:Got it by bittorrent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh how I wish I hadn't paid the 50e... should have pirated as usual. Took me three days to finally beat the steaming pile of shit into submission so I could actually play, only to find just another mediocre FPS.

      By the way, I had my fully legit installation of CS: Source constantly crashing for some reason, so just for fun I got the warez version, created a new steam account and tried to play with that. Everything worked fine and I even got to play online without any problems... Sad really.

      I truly regret I spent my money on this...

    6. Re:Got it by bittorrent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IF you get the right pirate release your copy will have all the Steam files removed. It's the paying customers who get screwed by Valve not the pirates.

    7. Re:Got it by bittorrent... by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      Let me guess, you're using the version that doesn't require Steam to be running at all, right?

      The one where the AI is disabled on every map load (unless you use an autoexec.cfg file to work around that)?

      I have to wonder who is really getting banned here. I wasn't aware of any 'warez' release of the game beyond EMPORiO's, and that one didn't use Steam so Valve can't deactivate anything on it.

    8. Re:Got it by bittorrent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But don't you now have to make sure that only one of you is playing the game at any one time?

    9. Re:Got it by bittorrent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never pirated software.

      You suck. And you are part of a problem that affects honest people.

    10. Re:Got it by bittorrent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you're a "missionary only" kind of guy too.

      Take the wife from behind tonight. Throw her down on all fours and pound her like a dog. When she's on the virge of cumming take your little needle dick out of her cunt and start pounding the bitch in the ass.

      When it's over she'll respect you like never before. For the first time, you'll be a man in her eyes, not the the spineless goody goody fuck you've been your whole life.

      Then fire up BT and go to town.

  60. Companies are discovering... by Kymermosst · · Score: 2, Interesting

    People are discovering that when you buy any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really bought anything.

    Companies are discovering that people will routinely and casually avoid paying for their products or for the use of their services whenever it is easy to avoid such payment.

    Similarly, people routinely and casually avoid stopping at stop signs and using their turn signals.

    --
    "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  61. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can't just dictate whatever terms you want to people. They'd like ot pretend you have a contract with them. No, sorry, it's not. A contract requires an exchange of things (goods, money, whatever) and requires both parties to agree and sign. Saying "You agree by opening the box" isn't valid. Also contracts must be open to negoation. If you are leasing an apartment and disagree with a clause in the lease, you can strike it out, inital the change, and send it back to the management company. They are not required to accept these changes, but they have to negotiate it.

    EULAs try and do many things that are just unenforaceble. Basically they want the best of both worlds. They want it to be a physical good when it suits them, but a licensed product when it suits them. Doesn't work that way. When you sell a product on the shelf, with no contract signing, you are selling a good. Things like the doctrine of first sale apply, even if you write an EULA that says they don't.

    This is different from something like an MMORPG. Here there are two parts: the good and the service. The game they sell you is a good, and you are welcome to keep it, even if you never use it online. Their servers, however, are a service, you pay for the right to use them. Being a service, they can put restrictions on that without a contract, since if you don't like it, you are free not to use the service.

    Think if the logic Valve applied here was applied to a physical good, like a dishwasher. You go and pay for it up front, no contract, and take it home. Then, one day, it stops working so you call for warentee service. They say "Oh no, it's not broken, we just deactivated it. See you violated your license for using it, so we are turning it off. You'll need to go buy another one if you want to use it."

    That's how stupid this shit with the software is. It's not a service, it's a good. You are purchasing it with the expecation that oyu are able to use it as such. You can use it in any way you like, reverse engineer it, resell it, whatever. All you can't do is make a copy of it, or a derivitive work. Those are copyright infringement.

    Either way, I hope it blows up in their face. I can gaurentee I will not be buying a copy as a result. I'll stay with the Unreal Engine series, as Epic aren't assholes about things like this. Likewise, I'm recommending to all my friends that they do not purchase it.

    Should such a time come when Valve wises up and gets rid of this retarded protection, I'll reconsider, but at this point, there's no way they are getting my money.

    1. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Sirwar · · Score: 1

      You admit your own antiquated notion that buying software is like buying a dishwasher. This path of thinking is exactly what allows bad copyright and software laws to keep being created.

      If anyone doesn't want to require a CD to play, simply buy it off steam. If you require the confort of "home appliance purchases", then please get out of the way and stop holding up progress.

    2. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They are not required to accept these changes, but they have to negotiate it."

      Saying that this is how it is, take it or leave it *IS* negotiation.

      No one has to respond. No one has to do anything except say this is how this is going to go down. You don't like it, tough shit. That is a valid form of negotiation. I've done it myself in the past and the courts have held it to be legitimate...I've also submitted changes to contracts and not had anyone blink an eye. I've also been in situations where I've been on the other side where I was told these are the negotiation points...and we ain't budging and realized that it was in my best interest to go with it.

      The great thing about this is that it gives the players an out. If you don't like what they say and they decide you've been in violation and cancel you without offering a refund, you can easily go to your credit card company and state that you've done your damnest to resolve this, but they aren't moving, so I'd like my money back please.

      Or even for Valve to do the same...they could easily just return the money and tell you to fuck off...personally, if I were them, I'd make it hard on the folks that tried to skirt the issues of what I thought we had agreed on. This isn't very nice, but it is legal...

    3. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Tharian · · Score: 1

      I haven't purchased the game (nor do I plan to since I really can't afford it right now) so I'm curious about something.

      Do they have a way around having to purchase another download if you lose your system to a software crash or some other fatal error that requires a reinstall of the operating system?

      Or do they force you to purchase another download in order to play a game you had previously purchased?

      How do you prove you already owned the game if you only had a downloaded version?

      --
      I'm not a nerd. I'm a geek. Nerds make more money.
    4. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      bwahaha that reply tells me I'm not the only one that feels that way.

    5. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Greyjack · · Score: 1

      You sign on to your Steam account using your username and password, and download the game again.

      For that matter, you can install it on a second PC that way, and play it on both of 'em at the same time (provided you disable the network connection on one of 'em).

      (Is it legal/ethical to do so? Like I want to start that conversation here again for the billionth time)

    6. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Eric+Savage · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can't just dictate whatever terms you want to people. They'd like ot pretend you have a contract with them. No, sorry, it's not. A contract requires an exchange of things (goods, money, whatever) and requires both parties to agree and sign. Saying "You agree by opening the box" isn't valid. Also contracts must be open to negoation. If you are leasing an apartment and disagree with a clause in the lease, you can strike it out, inital the change, and send it back to the management company. They are not required to accept these changes, but they have to negotiate it.

      IANAL, but one of the first things taught in Business Law 101 is how basic contracts work. There is no requirement to offer, accept, or negotiate a contract. If I make an offer, you are certainly allowed to make a counter-offer (what I assume you mean by negotiating) but now my original offer is void. Also signing is not required for contracts, only certain types of contracts.

      If you buy a piece of software, and it says that you agree to whatever terms by opening it (and purchasing it, which you have already done), then the deal is complete when you open it. If the terms are not available before you open it, obviously nothing is binding. These days its more often done as part of the installation. If you change the terms of a lease and send it back, you are correct that they do not have to accept it, but they also don't have to ever talk to you again (or accept a subsequent unmodified lease that you send them, since its now void).

      --

      This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.
    7. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The nice Unreal people actually released their own "no CD" patch for UT2004. AND you can use more than one copy on your subnet, and still play online (eg to show a friend how great it is). They figure that if you want to play it online, you'll pay for it. One sale, one licence key, one online experience, simple as that.

      I admit it is a little harder for HalfLife as it is a more single-player oriented game. However regardless of the rights and wrongs of EULAs, I want a game I can come back to in a year and still play without having to ask permission to do so. I will not be buying HalfLife.

    8. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by javatips · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I would like to add that when you buy some software... The only contract you agree too is within you and the place where you buy the box. You are in no way linked to the entity who produced the good. This third party cannot enforce any contract upon you. Now if you copy the game to give to someone else, then you are comitting copyright violation.

      If for some reason, Valve is disabling your account, it is the reponsability of the store to fix the issue... If the store cannot fix it, then they have to issue a refund or provide a replacement... If they do not solve the problem to your satisfaction (in this case you being able to play the game), you can sue them in small claim court.

      Now if you modify your copy of the game, then the warranty will no longer apply... They may be allowed prevent you from playing the game (or using the network play), but if you reinstall a fresh, unmodified copy... They MUST allow you to play.

    9. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by subgeek · · Score: 1

      you can install it on as many machines as you want, but you can only use one at a time. that's part of the point of online validation.

      http://steampowered.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/steampowe red.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=10&p_creat ed=1092152126&p_sid=8Q8hbfrh&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoP SZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD0yNjI mcF9wYWdlPTE*&p_li=

      you prove you own a downloaded version by having a steam account, which is necessary to download in the first place. you log in as yourself. valve has a record of your purchases.

      --
      you probably shouldn't have read this.
    10. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by pla · · Score: 1

      Saying that this is how it is, take it or leave it *IS* negotiation.

      You have to pay me a million dollars for reading this. Take it or leave it.

      Oh, you already read the above sentence? Guess your life just started sucking, eh?


      See the problem with doing the same in a EULA? You can't read it until you've already done the action it covers.

    11. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Danse · · Score: 1

      Stop trying to justify your warezing the game, you fucking faggot.

      With such compelling arguments coming from the other side, this is surely going to be the intellectual debate of our generation.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    12. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Danse · · Score: 1

      You admit your own antiquated notion that buying software is like buying a dishwasher. This path of thinking is exactly what allows bad copyright and software laws to keep being created.

      While there is some truth to the statement that using poor metaphors for intellectual property can lead to bad laws, it is equally true that throwing out all the years of progress in making contract-law work well would be at least as bad. The problem is that you need both intellectual property law and contract law in this case, and you need to make them work together. The problem with most software is that it completely disregards contract law and tries to reinvent it on its own, very very poorly. Until such time as some balance is struck, I expect to continue to see a lot of turmoil over EULAs and IP law in general.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    13. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Danse · · Score: 1

      No one has to respond. No one has to do anything except say this is how this is going to go down. You don't like it, tough shit. That is a valid form of negotiation. I've done it myself in the past ...

      Ok, so he sends it back with some stuff crossed out and they don't respond. That's his answer I guess. So no deal. What's the argument now? Oh yeah, all the other points he made that you forgot to address. It takes more than one trait to make a valid contract.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    14. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Samrobb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe you can answer a question for me, then:

      If I buy a book, I can then sell it to someone else. Doctrine of first sale, correct?

      If I buy HL2, but *don't* install it, I can then sell it to someone else. Again, doctrine of first sale. At this point, it's a product that I own; there is no licensing agreement, no contract entered into, etc.

      If I buy HL2, and *do* install it, then Valve (and other companies) argue that I've entered into a contract with them. As part of that contract, I have *lost* something - my ability to resell the product. I cannot sell my copy of HL2 to someone else without Valve's permission. Well, I guess I can still sell it - but because of the issue of registration, that particular copy of HL2 is worthless now, to anyone but me.

      Here's my question: how can Valve sell me something that is obviously a product, a physical good, something that can be resold and treated by law exactly as if it were book or a car or an iPod... but which later is somehow redefined or transformed into a license?

      It's as if the law considered a car a "product" only so long as you didn't start the engine; but as soon as you actually get behind the wheel and put the key in the ignition, you no longer *own* a car, but instead now have a "license" to drive that one particular instance of a car.

      --
      "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
    15. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Think if the logic Valve applied here was applied to a physical good, like a dishwasher.

      I usually try to stay civil here, but you're just an idiot. The whole reason that there is any copy protection for any software is because software is not a dishwasher, or a car, or an airplane, or ANY physical good.

      Can you replicate your dishwasher and give it to your friend at the click of a button?

    16. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by TheLittleJetson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hey great rant, but be realistic. Valve can do whatever they want, because they have the most anticipated game in years. Raise a fuss, tell your friends, maybe even walk around with a "BOYCOTT VALVE" sign. It won't make a dent in the sales. Most people who want to play the game will just shut up, jump through the hoop, and start playing. Those with rigid opinions on software licensing are not the target audience of the game.

      BTW, how exactly is modifiying the program to bypass copy protection routines NOT a derivative work?

    17. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by jinxidoru · · Score: 1

      Better example: a book. A book is a physical good which you can give to your friend at the click of a button. It's called a copier. Granted, it might not be quite as simple as software, but it's still pretty easy. And with most software, unless you're using a crack, it's a little more involved than the click of a button because you have to copy it to a new CD, just like copying a book. So there! :P

      I usually try to stay civil as well, but you're just a pompous idiot. That's far worse than an idiot.

    18. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by jinxidoru · · Score: 1

      Yes, it might not put them out of business. And the difference between $100 million and $120 million may not seem much to us, but corporations notice things like that. I am also one who will never purchase something with this sort of restriction. Protecting your rights is one thing; raping consumers of theirs is a completely different issue.

    19. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Techguy666 · · Score: 1
      A contract requires an exchange of things (goods, money, whatever) and requires both parties to agree and sign. Saying "You agree by opening the box" isn't valid. Also contracts must be open to negoation.
      This made me wonder, what happens if you send a registered letter to a software company with their EULA or "contract" partially stricken out or rewritten - and you write on the outside envelope (in small print), "by opening this envelope, you consent to the agreement enclosed within"... And an employee opens the envelope? How well would that hold up in court and would a software company even be brave enough to contest it?

      Just a twisted little thought. It might not be an effective way to fight a company, but it would create an amusing story for a slow news day.
    20. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you but I do have a license to drive my car. A license that can be revoked if I don't follow the terms of aggrement. Just like a HL2 CD just because the license has been revoked they don't come knocking on your door to take away your CD as well.

      PS. Your point is valid and I actually do agree with you. Just playing devils advocate here.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    21. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      ahh I get it, ease of duplication is what makes something diffrent than a regular good. I don't remember pet rocks haveing any kind of licens agrement beyond regular tradmark, copyright, and patent law. yet it was easier to duplicate than a click of a button, hell you don't even need a button just pick one up off the ground, ohh you just broke the EULA for pet rock, 3 years prison for you.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    22. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, just the other day I was talking to my friend about misplacing $20M.

      I checked everywhere... under the sofa, behind the fridge, my car.

      Oh well, $20M just isn't that much.

    23. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you could replicate the book yes, but it would be ignoring the COPYRIGHT, which kind of makes it a lot like the software being discussed, because it isn't the physical product that gives it value anyway...

      DEERRRRhhEEERRRRR

      idiot.

    24. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Politburo · · Score: 1

      ahh I get it, ease of duplication is what makes something diffrent than a regular good.

      We've gone around this 10,000 times on slashdot. Why don't you get it yet? What makes it different is that it's copywritten material, not a physical good.

      That whole thing about pet rocks? Try to make sense next time, thanks!

    25. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      they have the most anticipated game in years.

      Yup, it's made it to #3 in the games charts...

    26. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Politburo · · Score: 1

      No. It doesn't fucking hold. Go and copy me a book and make it exactly like the original. Now do that for every book in existence. You can go to sites, IRC rooms, whatever, and get huge lists of games and apps to download. There's nothing even remotely similar to this with books.

      With software, you can make exact copies with almost no effort or cost. It just doesn't hold for books, dishwashers, cars, anything else. The digital nature of software makes it different from almost every other copywritten material. We've seen that as sound and movies have become digital, they've had the same copyright problems.

    27. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No your wrong on how contracts work.. UNLESS I SIGN SOMETHING IT IS NOT A CONTRACT!

      NICE TRY!!!

      But opening a box has already been proven in a court of law not to be the same as signing a contract.

      YOU FUCKING RETARDED PIECE OF SHIT!

    28. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Not sure but doesn't Copyright already exist? Why do we need all kinds of extra EULA and such that really have nothing to do with copyright and only about industrial controll and scare tactics?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    29. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by maximilln · · Score: 1

      Go and copy me a book and make it exactly like the original

      That can't be done with software either. You're basing your entire argument on packaging and presentation. Why should software code be safeguarded any more closely than a storyline or the knowledge in a book?

      You can go to sites, IRC rooms, whatever, and get huge lists of games and apps to download

      I can make lists all day long. So what?

      The digital nature of software makes it different from almost every other copywritten material

      Only in the minds of you, trolls, and lawyers.

      We've seen that as sound and movies have become digital, they've had the same copyright problems

      It never did occur to you that perhaps the laws are bogus, the enforcement is selective, abuse is rampant, and you as a consumer are not receiving a fair trade for your dollar? You'd rather just give software companies a blank slate to dictate to you exactly how they're going to milk you for every penny you're worth in exchange for some fancy advertising, pretty packaging, and a malfunctional product?

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    30. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Lets start picking this apart

      You can't just dictate whatever terms you want to people. They'd like ot pretend you have a contract with them. No, sorry, it's not. A contract requires an exchange of things (goods, money, whatever) and requires both parties to agree and sign. Saying "You agree by opening the box" isn't valid. Also contracts must be open to negoation. If you are leasing an apartment and disagree with a clause in the lease, you can strike it out, inital the change, and send it back to the management company. They are not required to accept these changes, but they have to negotiate it.

      1) The exchange: Your money - their product which comes with a contract. You can get a refund.
      2) Agreement: Clicking yes on the EULA is agreeing to the contract. At no point must you sign a piece of paper to agree to a contract.
      3) Contracts do NOT have to be open to negotiation. Where did you ever get this idea? If you don't like the contract you can choose to not accept it
      4) If you are leasing an apartment and you disagree with the clause - you can strike it out and send it back - and they can either accept the change or say no. You cannot change the clause w/o them consenting and just think its valid. Also, if you signed the lease prior to this, then you have zero say.

      EULAs try and do many things that are just unenforaceble. Basically they want the best of both worlds. They want it to be a physical good when it suits them, but a licensed product when it suits them. Doesn't work that way. When you sell a product on the shelf, with no contract signing, you are selling a good. Things like the doctrine of first sale apply, even if you write an EULA that says they don't..

      Actually EULAs are enforceable - if you think they aren't --- pirate some software and go to the company and tell them (showing them proof) that you pirated the software. Watch as your life gets thrown into litigation hell. Again, contracts don't have to be signed. There can be verbal agreement, or in EULA's a clicking of "I accept" is good enough


      Valve's licensing termination is pretty reasonable. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

      You are purchasing a good that comes with a service. However, you are applying a blanket statement to all goods - and things are different. By saying you "own" the software implies you can do as you will (legally); by licensing it - you do not "own" the software anymore so you are more restricted. It protects the company from people renaming the product and selling it as their own...or doing other stuff.

      Either way - your entire argument is invalid to say the least.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    31. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by nuntius · · Score: 1

      but you can still sell the car w/o a license... ;)

    32. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by popoutman · · Score: 1
      If I buy HL2, and *do* install it, then Valve (and other companies) argue that I've entered into a contract with them. As part of that contract, I have *lost* something - my ability to resell the product. I cannot sell my copy of HL2 to someone else without Valve's permission. Well, I guess I can still sell it - but because of the issue of registration, that particular copy of HL2 is worthless now, to anyone but me.


      I disagree. Installing it is not entering into a contract of any type. You have not signed anything, and neither has an agent of Valve. Unless the software printed out a contract that you signed and had witnessed, and sent both copies to Valve to be countersigned by an authorised agent of theirs and to have them return one copy for your records, there is no contract present.

      As an aside, Valve could be sued in the EU for offenses against goods fit for their purpose if there is no method present to allow a piece of software to be sold. All Valve have to do is send the new purchaser a new key, and to disable the original key.

      All this bull about EULA being contracts really needs to be stopped before people start believing them to be contracts. /rant.

      --
      - This sig deliberately left blank. Nothing to see, move along.
    33. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whew, I know what you are talking about... Maytag always has bastards hacking their washers and stealing them. Bunch of A holes! :-(

    34. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Because it turns out that copyright is just about impossible to enforce for digital items, which is why all these crazy systems (Steam, Safeloc, CSS, etc.) have been created.

    35. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      What they sold you was a marker that was redeemable for a license. The marker is the CD Key. This isn't complicated stuff, legally.

      And why do we go through this? Because nobody wants to send their computer to Valve to have them install HL2 for them.

      That's the price we pay, for being able to have video games.

      When you come up with a better mechanism, patent it, and license it out dirt cheep to game developers, so we won't have this problem any more.

      Until then, that's how the system works. If pirates didn't steal games (say, 20,000 of them in the first month of a game coming out), then developers wouldn't go to these extremes.

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    36. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by res+ipsa+loquitur · · Score: 1

      I see this misconception a lot:

      You can't just dictate whatever terms you want to people. They'd like ot pretend you have a contract with them. No, sorry, it's not. A contract requires an exchange of things (goods, money, whatever) and requires both parties to agree and sign.

      There is no rule that the acceptance - or even the offer - must be in writing. Have you ever heard of an oral contract? They're valid. They're hard to prove in court, but they're valid contracts.

      Saying "You agree by opening the box" isn't valid.

      This exaggerates the situation. EULAs are brought up when you load new software, and you need to click "I agree to the above terms and conditions" before you move forward and install it. In contract law, that's good enough. If you didn't actually read it, the court won't care. If you didn't understand it, the court won't care. The court will care that you clicked on the "I accept" button, because that's enough to make a contract. Just because you don't want this to be valid doesn't make it invalid.

      You have to leave this entire "if I don't sign a piece of paper, then there's no contract" attitude behind, because that's just not right.

    37. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by maximilln · · Score: 1

      That's the price we pay, for being able to have video games.

      Not true. We've had video games for long before this junk.

      When you come up with a better mechanism, patent it, and license it out dirt cheep to game developers, so we won't have this problem any more.

      There is a better system. Face reality. Wake up tomorrow and there are no copyright laws. Deal with it. Evolve your business model without the aid of legal thuggery or silly online registration.

      If pirates didn't steal games (say, 20,000 of them in the first month of a game coming out), then developers wouldn't go to these extremes.

      So many leaks happen before the original release... why is it a taxpayer burden to clean up their mess if they can't safeguard their product before release? It sounds to me like their internal business model is severely flawed.

      There is no convincing argument that developers need to go to these lengths even if the pirate argument is given the benefit of the doubt. One wonders how the software industry ever made it through the 80s and 90s if online registration were a necessary extreme.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    38. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Politburo · · Score: 1

      That can't be done with software either. You're basing your entire argument on packaging and presentation. Why should software code be safeguarded any more closely than a storyline or the knowledge in a book?

      I think there's still a distinction, but analogies suck and I shouldn't have brought it in to begin with. In any case, the core question we're talking about is this: Should content providers be able to dictate how you can access their content? My opinion: Yes, unequivocally, as long as there is transparency.

      We don't have that transparency right now. Most people don't know about Macrovision, CSS, Safeloc, etc., etc. So long as you understand what the rules were going into the game, and that those rules do not change, I don't have a problem with anything that content providers choose to do. First, we need to make illegal clauses like "We reserve the right to change this agreement at any time."

      Yes, I understand fair use, etc. The problem is that the current system allows widespread copyright infringment. There has to be a middle ground that consumers and content providers can find.

      Only in the minds of you, trolls, and lawyers.

      Possibly, but you should keep in mind that the opinion of lawyers does have a real effect on what happens in this country.

      and you as a consumer are not receiving a fair trade for your dollar?

      That's the problem with dollars. What one means to me may not be what one means to you. I was and am happy that I paid for Half Life 2, through Steam. I know that my money went to the content creators, and I consider it a fair trade. I would use Steam again to buy products from Valve.

      You'd rather just give software companies a blank slate to dictate to you exactly how they're going to milk you for every penny you're worth in exchange for some fancy advertising, pretty packaging, and a malfunctional product?

      They're only 'milking me' for the pennies I choose to give them. The moment that the system infringes on my ability to use their products, I'll cease to use their products. I didn't get any packaging with the game, and as for malfunctional product, I've had 0 problems with Steam or Half Life 2, so I really don't know what you're talking about.

    39. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I understand, his point is not about being able to license software, but that licenses are sold as goods in the stores. There is a difference.

    40. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by badasscat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know about you but I do have a license to drive my car. A license that can be revoked if I don't follow the terms of aggrement. Just like a HL2 CD just because the license has been revoked they don't come knocking on your door to take away your CD as well.

      Your comparison is not valid because a) your driver's license is with the state, not with the car manufacturer, and b) your license can only be revoked if you break the law, not if you simply break the terms of the license (in this case, the terms of the license is the law, but you wouldn't need a license if those laws didn't exist).

      If the state wants to license me to play video games on the condition that they revoke my license if I break the law, then I actually probably wouldn't have much of a problem with it, provided I didn't have to pay anything to obtain that license. But Valve is engaged in vigilante-ism right now, and just as in other forms of law enforcement, their version of vigilante-ism is probably violating various laws themselves (the biggest issue I see is that they're nuking legally purchased, unrelated products of those who are simply using a NoCD crack - there's no way they can legally do this that I can see, whatever their EULA says).

      Issues of law are not left up to the private sector, as your own example inadvertantly demonstrates. If somebody commits a crime against you, for example, it is illegal for you to personally go and take your own revenge on that person. What you must do under the law is contact the police and let them deal with it. That is how civilized society works. And even if that isn't common sense, it's the law of the land in this country.

      The software industry seems to think this is the Wild West, but it isn't. The same rules apply to them. Only the state and federal governments have the power to enforce laws regarding copyright and commerce, and a company cannot take those rights away from the government through a EULA, especially when that EULA is between you and the publisher, not between the state and the publisher (in other words, no contract can invalidate the rights of a third party that's not even involved in that contract).

      I said it in another reply - what Valve is doing is similar to what the RIAA wanted to be able to do if they found a single illegal MP3 on your hard drive. They want to be able to search your hard drive and nuke the contents if they so choose. The RIAA was attempting to get a bill passed that allowed them to do this, but the point is they knew that they couldn't do it without being authorized by congress. Valve apparently thinks they can get away with it without such authorization, but I hope one of these customers takes them to task over it, and to court.

      Note that I don't even own HL2, not a legal and certainly not an illegal copy of it. So hopefully I am looking at this through unbiased eyes. I do hope to buy it at some point but I will not until issues like these are worked out - to me, the whole Steam authentication thing sounds pretty onerous, and if Valve is just going to nuke my games for using a simple NoCD patch, then I'm not really sure I need the aggravation.

    41. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      Not true. We've had video games for long before this junk.

      Okay - that's the price you pay for having *new* video games. Some of them, at least. Like this one. So, that's the price we pay, for being able to have this video game.

      There is a better system. Face reality. Wake up tomorrow and there are no copyright laws. Deal with it. Evolve your business model without the aid of legal thuggery or silly online registration.

      So, what? You still haven't explained how this will work in practice. How does the software get written and the artwork get created? By fan contributions? Find a single game made by fans for free that comes *close* to any of the FPS's that have come out.

      Face reality. Different products come at different costs, and HL2 comes with a price tag you don't like. Fine, don't buy it.

      So many leaks happen before the original release... why is it a taxpayer burden to clean up their mess if they can't safeguard their product before release?

      Taxpayer burden? What the hell are you talking about?

      Copyright law? Are you serious? The defense of copyright law is what you're talking about? Valve could have taken each of these 20,000 pirates to criminal court - but they didn't. They're doing everything they can to keep copyright law and taxpayers out of it, and still earn money as a business. And then you go pissing all over them for it.

      What, are you against businesses? Or money?

      It sounds to me like their internal business model is severely flawed.

      Are you high? They make money, and people enjoy their products. What's the flaw? The fact that *you* don't like them? Hell, dude, I don't like the fact that Disney puts their videos in the Disney Vault, but I'm not going to make an absurd statement like "their internal business model is severely flawed." Your logic is flawed.

      There is no convincing argument that developers need to go to these lengths even if the pirate argument is given the benefit of the doubt.

      People stole their fucking source code. Do you have any idea of how many people downloaded it? Now, do you want to start over with your assesment that they don't need to go to some lengths to defend themselves?

      One wonders how the software industry ever made it through the 80s and 90s if online registration were a necessary extreme.

      Hmmm... What invention proliferated in the late 90s that could have made it necessary for developers to make it harder for people to steal their software. Hmmm... If only I could think of some device that made it possible for huge numbers of people to pirate software in a fell swoop.

      The Internet, you idiot. This is not rocket science. BitTorrent traffic is what, 35% of everything on the Internet. You want to bet how much of that content is ILLEGAL?

      Software developers are responding to that technology the best way they know how. Again, get over it.

      They develop products, and you can buy them or not. Beyond than that, you're just pissing in the wind.

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    42. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by usrusr · · Score: 1

      i bought the boxed hl2.

      it requires me to put the disc into the drive when i want to play it.

      how can this disc not be a good?

      it's exactly that chimera which the post you replied to describes that is not possible under the laws where i live (and no, i did not travel to some place with funny laws to buy the game box). i hope some people will join up to teach them law.

      --
      [i have an opinion and i am not afraid to use it]
    43. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by maximilln · · Score: 1

      that's the price you pay for having *new* video games

      We've had new video games for decades without online verification.

      You still haven't explained how this will work in practice.

      No one's demonstrated that online verification prevents unauthorized sharing. Sure you have a nice news story about 20000 deactivated accounts, but we all know how easy it is to set up a few zombie farms to spew junk regs at the Steam server to generate the numbers.

      How does the software get written and the artwork get created?

      The same way it always has. The people that can do it and want to do it will. The rest of you go find something else to do.

      They're doing everything they can to keep copyright law and taxpayers out of it, and still earn money as a business

      You must be young. What they're doing is running a publicity campaign to feed on the recent awareness of licensing (brought from linux) to address the always present TERROR of software pirates in order to shove online registration into the public and make you think it's for your own good and that it's helping everyone.

      You really need to look at the bigger picture.

      After that... The rest of your post just really isn't worth responding to. You've clearly demonstrated that you have no clue.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    44. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      Even if your license is removed/revoked, you still have the ability to drive the car on private property without the manufacturer saying you cannot sell it.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    45. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by frost22 · · Score: 1
      You have to leave this entire "if I don't sign a piece of paper, then there's no contract" attitude behind, because that's just not right.
      You have to leave this entire "Its written there, so it must be valid" attitude behind, because that's just not right.

      You know, there are actually places in the world where contracts are routinely declared unenforceable because they violate this or that law. In the country I live we even have a law about what retrailers may and may not write into their terms anbd conditions. Retailer's T&C are frequently declared illegal and void, and some are even fined.

      Someone else mentioned the period for online and mail order. During the first week, you can without giving any reason, cancel any and all online, mail order and door-to-door contract. Then it's just gone 'poof'.

      Just because you say otherwise doesn't make it so. Or true, or whatever
      --
      ...and here I stand, with all my lore, poor fool, no wiser than before.
    46. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      If pirates didn't steal games

      Okay, I'll talk loud and slow, since you're obviously impaired:

      NO ONE HAS STOLEN HALF-LIFE 2 EXCEPT FOR THE ONE THEFT A YEAR AGO!

      COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THE SAME AS THEFT!

      Now, was that so hard to understand?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    47. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      What?!?

      I'm the one without a clue?

      We've had new video games for decades without online verification.

      Times change. The Internet pretty much changed all of that.

      No one's demonstrated that online verification prevents unauthorized sharing.

      Are you insane?

      The people that can do it and want to do it will. The rest of you go find something else to do.

      Okay, I chose for Valve to develop it, and I chose to buy it. Why do you keep posting in this article?

      Your paranoid ramblings about Valve wanting there to be TERROR of software pirates is entertaining, but not based in fact or reason. They want people to stop stealing their software. They're pretty sure that bringing attention to the fact that pirates are getting caught will reduce the chances of a random user downloading an illegal copy.

      Again - why do you care if a company makes software that I want to buy, if it doesn't harm you?

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    48. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by drew · · Score: 1

      umm.... i think that was the point of his comparison.

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    49. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by drew · · Score: 1

      Most people don't know about Macrovision, CSS, Safeloc, etc., etc. So long as you understand what the rules were going into the game, and that those rules do not change, I don't have a problem with anything that content providers choose to do.

      just because these systems are transparent to most users does not make them ok. examples.

      macrovision:
      my friend and i went to best buy and each bought a $400 dvd player when dvd's were pretty much brand new. neither of us had rca inputs on our tv's at the time, so we hooked up our brand new dvd players the only way we could- we hooked up the rca cables to the video input on our vcrs. we could watch dvd's on my player acceptibly as my vcr mostly ignored the macrovision, but my friend's was unwatchable.

      css:
      i knew better than to buy any movies while i was in europe on my honeymoon, but suppose i didn't? how many people have no clue that dvd's won't work on a player sold in a different country/region than the disc? (i am not even going to get into the whole issue of playing dvd's on linux)

      why should the content providers have any right in either of those two cases to tell me i shouldn't be able to watch something i legally purchased? i'm all for letting the copyright holders do what is necessary (within the limits of the law) to enforce teir copyrights. but i see no reason why we should let them decide how we exercise our legal rights to use a product we have purchased. what if the movie makers decided that from now on you could only watch the movies they make on tv screens larger than 40 inches and 5+1 surround system, because anything less would do justice to their vision? by your logic, this is alright, as long as you they tell you up front. would you stop buying movies if this decision was made? or spend the money to upgrade to a full home theater system (assuming you don't already have one)?

      as much as the various content providers right now can't stand the idea, it is your legal right to use something you purchase from them however you want (within the limits of the law) and resell it if you want. both of those are rights that have been established and upheld by the courts. and i see no reason we should be willing to give up those rights. in fact i think we should fight to take back some of the ones we have already lost....

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    50. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by drew · · Score: 1

      It protects the company from people renaming the product and selling it as their own

      while most of what you said is right, this is not true. the company is (and always has been) already protected from people renaming the product and selling it as their own by copyright law. otherwise you would see these same sort of obnxious licenses on books, movies, plays, etc....

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    51. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      No one's demonstrated that online verification prevents unauthorized sharing.

      Are you insane?

      Uh, you just proved there is unauthorized sharing. You didn't address whether online "verification" affects it. For all I know, there could be keygens created that work just fine, and even with online verification, there could still be all sorts of warez out there. Someone could break the Stream verification so that the program could be activated locally or through some 3rd party computer. There are many ways to crack an online verification system.

      So, you haven't proven that online verification will be any more secure than CD keys, physical defects in disks, or anything else done up to this point.

    52. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop trying to justify your warezing the game, you fucking faggot.

      Trully I am speachless at your great display of intellectual capacity. Let me guess, you were one of thouse people who voted for the idiot Pres Bush?

    53. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      So, a CD Key isn't stolen if you produce one through unauthorized mechanisms?

      A credit card number isn't stolen if you produce one through unauthorized mechanisms?

      A social security number isn't stolen, if someone infringed on the copyright of your birth certificate?

      The *whole point* of this article was theft of, drum roll, CD KEYS. We are not talking about someone infringing copyright by copying the CDs - we are talking about theft of a CD KEY. I don't remember anyone claiming *copyright violation* for the CD KEY, here.

      And, disabling the CD KEY mechanism is protected, not for copyright's sake (although it is in the DMCA, I'll grant you that), but because of disabling a security device.

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    54. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      How many pirates do I have to prove are foiled by verification?

      One?

      Alright - my cousin's friend is a chickenshit who bought it, because he was paranoid that he'd get caught using an illegal version. Caught by the game developer, that is.

      Finally. Thank god, we can finally lay this to rest. My anectdotal evidence of one dude I kind of know, sort of, has settled this dispute once and for all. :)

      Really - it's a question of: 1) Can the developer do it? 2) Does the developer feel more secure? 3) Is there a better mechanism than CD Keys, Physical Defects, or Online Verification - better by *everyone's* standards.

      I know of a more expensive one - dongles - and I feel like Steam (Valve) should consider a high-priced ($10 extra, maybe) dongle-activated version, but by no means should they have to offer it, just because whiney hackers on SlashDot bitched about it.

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    55. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BTW, how exactly is modifiying the program to bypass copy protection routines NOT a derivative work?



      You are free to make a derivative work. What you cannot do without permission is DISTRIBUTE a derivative work. If someone makes a no-CD version of a game and distributes the WHOLE GAME rather than a patch, that person is breaking the law.



      If someone says, "Hey, I have a different version of Harry Potter. To read it, buy the original book and replace the second sentence on page 3 with ____ (and so on)" then they probably have not created a derivative work. They are not distributing the original. If they make their changes and destribute the entire changed object, that is a derivative work.



      (Using my parent's computer and too lazy to login to my own ./ account.)


    56. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I voted for Kerry, but you're probably a fucking faggot bush supporter you warezing asshole.

    57. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

      What they sold you was a marker that was redeemable for a license. The marker is the CD Key. This isn't complicated stuff, legally.


      Nonsense. They didn't sell him a "marker", they sold him exactly what was advertised and written all over the sealed box that he purchased - a copy of half life 2. Not a "marker redeemable for a license". Can you point to anything written anywhere on the box that indicates that the purchased product is anything other than a copy of a copyrighted work? Is there anything on the box that says "we are not selling you half life 2, we're selling you a marker which could possibly used to allow you to play half life 2 for as long as we feel like allowing you to"?

    58. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Copyright only prohibits distribution. You are free to modify copyrighted works to your heart's content so long as you don't make and distribute copies. That's the whole "doctrine of first sale" thing. It says the author loses all control, other than granted by copyright law. They can't say "Ok, you can buy this, but not resell it" or "You can buy it, but not destroy it".

      Software companies seem to think that sticking a little EULA invalidates that. Nope, sorry.

    59. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I might have been a bit unclear on the signing part, I was refering to a written agreement, which an EULA is. The reason why an EULA and it's "click to agree" isn't valid is several:

      1) A click hasn't been held as valid for written contracts. Not saying it couldn't be, but I doubt it.

      2) There is no proof you clicked it. What if you are computer incompetent and had a teenager you pay to do comptuer work install it for you? Minors can't enter into a contract without parental consent, which is absent here.

      And the biggie...

      3) The contract is after the fact, which isn't legal. The exchange of money and goods has already occured. The whole purpose of a contract is that the terms of an agreement are known BEFORE it happens. Both sides decide it's acceptable, and tehn agree to the said exchange under the said terms, which is then binding. In the case of an EULA, you've already exchanged your money for goods, and then only after attempting an install are you told there is a contract. Sorry, doesn't work that way. It the agreement isn't before the exchange, it's not valid.

      An EULA isn't a copntract, it's not a set of rules dictating the terms of an exchange, it's a blanket statement from a company trying to enforce terms on a product you already paid for. That's just not legally enforcable.

    60. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      No, none of the above are "stolen" in the situations you describe. Stealing is the act of physically depriving the rightful owner of their property by taking it. You can steal a CD, but not a CD key. You can steal a credit card, but not a credit card number. You can steal a birth certificate, but not a social security number.

      Also, think about this: When something is stolen, merely being in possession of it is a crime. Is it a crime to merely know an unauthorized number? Is it a crime to overhear or accidentally glimpse one of these numbers? You could say "no, if they forget it afterwards," but what if they have a photographic memory?

      See, that's the difference: possession of these things isn't a crime; the crime occurs when they're used for a nefarious purpose. I'm not a lawyer, but I think they call that "fraud."

      So, to recap: Actually taking a CD of the game from a store without paying is theft, getting a copy from your friend is copyright infringment, and using an unauthorized CD-key to trick the game into letting you play is fraud.

      Oh, and "piracy" means committing robbery at sea.

      I realize that I'm arguing semantics, but I don't believe I'm being pedantic. It's important that people understand the differences between the terms, and use them correctly, because of their connotations. For example, calling copyright infringement "stealing" or "piracy" is not only inaccurate but also deceptive and prejudiced, because it plays to people's emotions. In effect, it's tricking people into believing that copyright infringment is just as bad as stealing. If people understand the difference between the two acts and still come to that conclusion it's one thing, but tricking them into it is wrong.

      By the way, aren't birth certificates produced by the government? If so, they aren't copyrighted.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    61. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Pofy · · Score: 1

      You are confusing ownership of copyright twith ownership of individual copies ot the work (that has copyright). It is two very seperate things. We are not selling or buying copyrights (the non physical thing). We are buying and talking about the individual, physical, copies of the work. They are no different than any other physical product for everything EXCEPT what is regulated by copyright laws and that is basically copying (making new copies), distributing themor making public performances. Otherwsie there is really no difference between a book, computer software or a dishwasher.

    62. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >Actually EULAs are enforceable - if you think
      >they aren't --- pirate some software and go to
      >the company and tell them (showing them proof)
      >that you pirated the software. Watch as your life
      >gets thrown into litigation hell.

      Huh, what does pirating have to do with EULAs? You can't do that because the law (copyright law to be specific) says you can't. There is no need for any EULA at all to prevent you from that.

    63. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by res+ipsa+loquitur · · Score: 1

      Sycraft-fu, I wasn't trying to call you out or anything, and I apologize if it sounded like I was. It's just that I've noticed a lot of /.'ers who really misunderstand (1) what "fair use" means, and (2) contract law.

      Regarding your third point in particular; this is the area that I think needs to be settled. If I'm only buying a license - as opposed to the physical CD - then why am I charged a restocking fee when I try to return the game? If I'm buying a license that I can't see until I get home to my computer, and if I find it unacceptable once I see it, then I should have a right to reject that license & get a full refund - from the store that sold it, not just from the manufacturer.

      If all I'm buying is a license, then what if I shoplift? Have I taken anything? What's the value? A shoplifter who hasn't agreed to the license hasn't "taken" the license yet.

      I think that stores & manufactures want games to be physical products when it suits them, and licenses when it suits them. They can't have it both ways, and it's high time someone challenged them on it.

    64. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Politburo · · Score: 1

      why should the content providers have any right in either of those two cases to tell me i shouldn't be able to watch something i legally purchased?

      That's just it. You purchased a licence for the product. That licence has conditions. If content providers want these conditions, they need to be upfront and not hidden in legalese, and there cannot be any "we can change this at any time" clauses (which should be illegal to begin with).

      and i see no reason we should be willing to give up those rights.

      While I understand where you're coming from, I really don't think I have the right to tell a content creator that they can't protect their works from unauthorized copying. If that's how they want to distribute their work, why should I complain, as long as I have all the facts before I make a purchase?

    65. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      EULA's are addendums. I have said it in many posts before - many laws can be modified by a contract as long as it is 1) not a dummy law 2) not a contract that causes criminal action. There are other exceptions I am sure (as there are many many laws out there) - but the company has the right to modify the pre-established law by presenting you with a contract - aka EULA.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    66. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      Well, "Internet connection required" should be your first clue.

      The dozen articles on Slashdot should have been your second.

      The reviews on all of the game sites should have been your third.

      Caveat emptor.

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    67. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sycraft-fu (314770) said...

      A contract requires an exchange of things (goods, money, whatever) and requires both parties to agree and sign. Saying "You agree by opening the box" isn't valid. Also contracts must be open to negoation.

      Hmm... I exchanged my money for "HL2" - which includes the box, disc, manual, etc. So there was consideration on both sides.

      No, contracts do not necessarily have to result in a signed document, and no, they do not require a notary or witness. If that were so, tort law (which govern contracts) would not apply to any kind of transaction. A purchase at a register can constitute a contract.

      No, contracts do not have to be negotiable. A contract of adhesion is one example of a "take it or leave it" contract. One party sets forth all the terms of the contract, and it's presented in a way that is NOT negotiable. Example would be your auto insurance contract. Yes, you can pick and choose some options (coverages) as packages and addons, but you can't negotiate what they contain. You either agree by "buying" the contract, or you don't.

      What's interesting is that with Contracts of Adhesion, the person setting forth the terms has a HUGE responsibility in interpreting the contract. The other party can do things that might actually breach any other kind of contract, but since they did not write the terms, courts will hold the originator of the contract to a much higher standard than if this were a mutually negotiable contract. If the originator wants to later modify the contract, it is very hard, if not impossible to do so, and usually requires new agreement by the other party. If there is no agreement, you can't go back and nullify the original contract. If there are any "grey areas" in the contract the require interpretation, courts will favor an interpretation that generally favors the signer, and not the originator since the signer had no say in clarifying the terms or negotiating them. This is why most insurance companies are really selling you a 6 month policy contract, and why, if they change the policy as a whole, the wait for your renewal to change it (it's considered a new contract) unless it benefits you, then they change it right away.

      As the purchaser of a Contract of Adhesion, you have a lot more power over the originator than they have over you.

      A EULA is a lot like this - I have to either take it or leave it. The weird part is, I'm forced to take it or leave it AFTER I've already given consideration (my money), not before. The simple solution to this is to print the full EULA on the box, including a stipulation that I will Otherwise, it does create some very interesting legal grey areas for the software publisher.

    68. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1
      Having a list of 10,000 credit card numbers that aren't yours isn't a crime?

      Good luck telling that to the judge.

      Also, you're wrong...

      piracy

      2. The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy.

      2. b. the unauthorized use, interception, or receipt of encoded communications (as satellite cable programming) esp. to avoid paying fees for use piracy of programming signals -- United States v. Harrell , 983 Federal Reporter, Second Series 36 (1993)>

      Do you want to reconsider the lecture, professor?

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    69. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

      Well, "Internet connection required" should be your first clue.

      The dozen articles on Slashdot should have been your second.

      The reviews on all of the game sites should have been your third.


      Clue to what, exactly? That valve would break the copies of halflife2 that people purchased? Sure, I saw that coming, which is why I did not and will not buy it.

      That what's being sold in that box is not a copy of half life 2? No, those things are not "clues" to indicate that.

    70. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Pofy · · Score: 1

      But there is no need for an EULA to prevent pirating since the law allready makes it illegal.

    71. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      There may not be a need as far as we see it - but apparantly the companies want to add EULA's for their own reason - maybe they feel the law is not enough. Does copyright laws prevent someone from hacking the software (not copying, just reverse engineering to hack it)...if it doesn't maybe thats why they have it. If the law in place is good enough - a company will let it be - if it is not good enough (this is a matter of opinion) people will modify it.

      Now, it doesn't matter if you or I agree/disagree about the EULA ---we didn't create the software and as such we have ZERO say in how the company decides to implement it - other then we can choose to NOT pay for it.
      If you happen to make any copyrigtable material one day it is your choice to make it open source or closed source. I presume from your stance that you will not include EULAs and trust that the laws will be sufficient to protect your work.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    72. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      How many pirates do I have to prove are foiled by verification?

      I don't care. It will be broken. It will be Warezed. The restrictions inconvenience legitamate users with no identifiable, enumerable benefit. Thus, it is a failure.

    73. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Oh, and "piracy" means committing robbery at sea.

      And "hacking" is what you do when you take a sharp edged object (eg: a machete) and strike it at other objects (eg: vegetation). After all, the English language is static so words never take on new meanings.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    74. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      ...words never take on new meanings.

      Not if I fight tooth-and-nail against the people who use the new meaning, they won't! : P

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    75. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      Ah, you don't care.

      They should care what your opinion is, but you don't care what their opinion is.

      Got it.

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    76. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      They should care what your opinion is, but you don't care what their opinion is.

      I said that I don't care about how many they assert will or will not pirate based off the feature. They have have *always* been wrong before. They claimed radio would kill the music industry. They were wrong. They claimed TV would kill the movie industry. They were wrong. They claimed the VCR would kill the movie industry. They were wrong. With a track record like that, I'll assume they are wrong until "they" prove otherwise. So I will discard any unproven assertions that piracy hurts their bottom line. I have a reason to, and the entertainment industry gave it to me.

      Do you think it unreasonable to be hesitant to believe an industry that has been wrong so many times before?

    77. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      Tell me how DeCSS is helping the movie industry.

      Tell me how warez are helping the software industry.

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    78. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Pofy · · Score: 1

      Of course they can want it for a veriety of reasons, I was just commenting on the specific case you mentioned, "pirating" the game. No need for it there.

      Yes, I have happened to produce my own material that get copyright, both text in form of a highly used game guide and in the form of various tools usable together with that and other games. They were all free for people to use and those who wanted got the source code and so on (even posted it publicly many times). So no, no EULA in sight and I am happy with it. Didn't charge money of course, but really, even if I wanted, a typical EULA does not really prevent me from that anyway.

    79. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You first. Tell me how radio killed record sales. Tell me how the TV killed movies. Tell me how the VCR killed TV and the movies. When you can tell me that, then I'll address your questions.

      Tell me how DeCSS is helping the movie industry.

      If you are implying that I asserted that DeCSS is "helping" the movie industry, then you are a liar. If not, then you are answering with a non sequitur. So, which is it? Are you a liar, or making up strawmen because you can't think of any valid responses to my statements?

    80. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      I will absolutely answer your question by saying that in all of those cases that you mentioned, the owners were able to take advantage of the new markets, and eventually benefited from them. I will also point out to you that the incremental cost of each of those products ranged between free and about $20. The software *I* make for a living costs much more. So, I take it seriously. If you can paint for me the picture of how I can take advantage of the new market of software theft, I'm all ears.

      The DeCSS point was not a non sequitur - and I didn't need to accuse you of lying to make my point. I was trying to illustrate to you that *not all* mechanisms for dissipating the control of content has benefited the content producer. Can't you see that? DeCSS has *clearly* not helped the movie industry. I would argue that any other copy protection defeating mechanism is similarly harmful to some content producer, and not all of them recover. Some do. I absolutely acknowledge that. But it's not your choice about whether they should *try* to defend themselves or not. It's their choice, and the rest of it, while interesting philosophically, has no impact on practice. In practice, people will spend blood, sweat and tears making products, and idiot fuckwads will do everything they can to avoid paying for it.

      Have you the heard of the Internet? Have you heard of BitTorrent? Do you write software for a living? Do you make money off of copyrights and licensing? Have you had your multi-thousand dollar software stolen, and sold on the streets in China for dollars? Have you ever written copy protection software? Have you ever caught users stealing your software, based on the fact that your copy protection was smarter than the pirates were?

      I have.

      Is it AT ALL possible that this industry is different than the ones you mentioned? Because if you think it's not AT ALL possible, then I think you're being intellectually dishonest - it is possible, and I think you know it. And if you admit that it is AT ALL possible then all of your arguments are bullshit - because you keep bringing up content and technologies that have basically nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.

      You don't win this one, buddy.

      Happy Thanksgiving. I particularly enjoyed it when you called me a liar.

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    81. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The software *I* make for a living costs much more. So, I take it seriously. If you can paint for me the picture of how I can take advantage of the new market of software theft, I'm all ears.

      Ah, I understand now. There is nothing I can say that will convince you that all the lies told for years aren't true because you have an emotional attachment to the subject. You sound just like the ??AA. They are rabidly opposing all advances in technology because they change their business model.

      Is it AT ALL possible that this industry is different than the ones you mentioned? Because if you think it's not AT ALL possible, then I think you're being intellectually dishonest - it is possible, and I think you know it. And if you admit that it is AT ALL possible then all of your arguments are bullshit - because you keep bringing up content and technologies that have basically nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.

      Huh? You are saying that because there necessarily exists some difference between different segments of the entertainment industry (entertainment software, movies, TV, music), there can never be any analogies drawn between them? Who's being intellectually dishonest now?

      I particularly enjoyed it when you called me a liar.

      If you don't like it, don't lie. I never claimed DeCSS was helping the movie industry. You implied I did and asked me to prove it.You simply fabricated things from thin air. That's called a lie. Next time, try reading what I write, and responding to that, and you won't have any trouble with me pointing out your lies.

      But I get it now, you are so scared about losing your livelyhood that you have lost all impartiality. Anyone that suggests that the industry might survive, despite piracy (and supports this with examples) must be claiming that it is ok to steal from others, at least that is what you seemed to claim.

    82. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      I don't work in entertainment. I work in a completely different industry. It's much more than entertainment that's at stake here, and the same tools are used in many situations. (BitTorrent, for instance.)

      I brought up DeCSS as a counter-example of how sometimes industry cannot respond to threats to ownership. *I* brought it up. I never once insinuated that you brought it up, and you've never once attempted to disarm the point - merely calling me a liar. A liar? *I* brought it up, you moron. And it's not a non-sequitur. It's a new technology (much like radio, VCRs, etc.), but this time, it doesn't help the industry - it *clearly* hurts it. The point? Not all new technologies are as clean as the preacher's sheets. Some suck, and only hurt people. They are (and should be) illegal to use.

      all the lies told for years

      Lies? You think it's a lie that warez hurt software developers? You think it's a lie?

      there can never be any analogies drawn between them?

      There can be anologies drawn between them, but they are just that - analogies. So, they are not perfect. When you bring them up, it's not the conversational coup de grace that you think it is. When I point out that it's AT ALL possible that there's a difference, I'm pointing out a chink in the armor of your argument.

      Next time, try reading what I write

      Next time, try reading what I write. I *never said* you said anything about DeCSS. I brought it up as a counter-example. It's a simple conversational mechanism, but apparently you can't follow it. You still haven't responded to any of my points, other than to call me a liar and to throw some psychobabble bullshit about how I've got emotional issues.

      the industry might survive, despite piracy

      I never claimed it wouldn't survive (despite piracy). That doesn't make piracy right. That doesn't mean piracy should be legal. That doesn't mean that people should stop trying to fight piracy.

      you are so scared about losing your livelyhood

      Good one. That's pretty funny. I'm doing just fine, bucky boy - and I'm also willing and able to use both software tricks and the law to defend my rights. You're on the wrong side on this one, but you're on the winning side. Piracy is making gains, as the tools (BitTorrent, for instance) become more widespread. There is no legitimate use for sharing warez, and I'm going to attack the people who do it (or defend those dickheads) at every turn.

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    83. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You think it's a lie that warez hurt software developers? You think it's a lie?

      Yes. I think that it was a lie when record companies claimed that the free radio will kill their sales. They skyrocketed, even though people could get the same thing for free.

      I think it was a lie when the movie industry claimed that free TV broadcasts would kill movies. Movies are bigger than ever, even with TV, bittorrent, and everything else.

      So, when someone claims that just because something is available for free that it will necessarily hurt their bottom line, I remember all the other "IP" peddlers that have claimed the same thing before, and were wrong. They were wrong before, and they use the same arguments proven to be wrong in order to support their position, and they do it over and over.

      There is no legitimate use for sharing warez, and I'm going to attack the people who do it (or defend those dickheads) at every turn.

      Absolutely no reason whatsoever? I disagree. Since I can not test software for compatibility before purchase, what should I do? Pay $50 just to install something, find out it won't work, then be told that it can't be returned because it was opened? They make $50, and they don't give me anything. How is that fair? To combat that, some download warez, test the program, then unload it, buy a real copy and install it.

      Or, what about programs broken in order to try to prevent Fair Use? It is arguably not illegal to download something you already own a license to in order to use it in your preferred way, even if that violates the copy protection built into the product. There's nothing illegal about a no-cd hack of software you purchased (unless you think that the EULA is a "contract" that can't be seen before the purchase, gives nothing to the customer, but takes a lot from them).

    84. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      So, because something has been historically true, you think it is true forever? That seems to be the brunt of your argument. Or am I missing some subtle point? Things change. And, as I tried so hard to point out, it's possible that this industry is different than the ones you mentioned. BitTorrent changes things. Since you've never once responded when I brought it up, I presume you're using the Ignore It And It Will Go Away argument.

      Warez hurt software developers. There are billions of dollars of illegal software being used right now. Not tested to guarantee system compatibility. Not run just as a convenience to bypass a cd check. Just being illegaly used.

      Seriously, on the streets in China, as I mentioned before and you never commented on, you can buy almost any piece of software you can imagine. Including software that sells for thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, in the U.S. If someone buys one of those copies, instead of a legitimate copy, can't you see that the content producer is harmed?

      If someone buys an illegal copy of a DVD, can't you see that the content producer is harmed? (Which is why I brought up DeCSS.)

      I'm not claiming (and never have claimed) that the content producer will be harmed so greatly as to wither and die. But you cannot claim that they are not at all harmed. Plus, they've got the law on their side.

      Was there something else you wanted to add?

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    85. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So, because something has been historically true, you think it is true forever? That seems to be the brunt of your argument.

      Nope. My argument is that they have asserted, without proof, claims that their business will be driven out of business by new technology. They have been wrong every time, multiple times, for decades. As such, when they assert that they are being hurt, yet again, by technology, I believe, based on the numerous times they were wrong and the 0 (zero - as in never) times they've been right, that they are wrong again. When they can come up with something better than "because it is common sense" for their only "proof," then I might listen. But, they've cried "the sky is falling" every time new technology has come out, and have been wrong every time. I'd be stupid to believe them.

      But you cannot claim that they are not at all harmed.

      Yes. I can. Perhaps the few pirate copies get people to try their product who decide then to buy it when they never would have. Perhaps one pirate copy is seen by 3 people who like it and decide to buy it. Perhaps a large number of people who pirate things download a copy to test (since they can't return it), then buy the real copy that they wouldn't have bought had they not tested it.

      Can you come up with a way to measure the actual loss by the industry? No, counting pirate installs doesn't count unless you can prove that they would not have otherwise purchased the product. How many sales are lost and how many are gained? When the industry claims that there can't be an additional sale because of piracy, I know they are lying, because I've seen someone pirate something, test it, then buy it; I've seen someone see someone else's pirated copy, then decide to purchase based off that. So, as long as you claim that piracy can never ever lead to an additional sale, I'll lump you in with the other industry pundits.

      If someone buys an illegal copy of a DVD, can't you see that the content producer is harmed?

      That is not what I've been discussing. That's a case where money actually changes hands, by far the minority in current copyright infringement, and not what the new laws are being created to crack down on. They lose money because someone broke all sorts of non-copyright laws, in addition to copyright ones. I'd consider it fraud to misrepresent a product, which is what someone that sells a pirate DVD as an original is doing. Now, can you tell me the actual harm if I were to download a DVD that I'd never see otherwise?

    86. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      So, if all of that is true - then why were there over 10,000 *simultaneous* downloads of an illegal version of Doom 3, on BitTorrent?

      Everybody knows two things about id:

      1) They always release demo versions (this time, unfortunately, at a later date.)

      2) They always release the source code, at a later date.

      Over 10,000 people broke the law. By your ramblings it was just to see if it would work. But, the demo would prove that.

      Or, is it slightly more likely, these people merely felt that there was no danger of being caught?

      Is it slightly more likely, that some of these people played the game and never bought a legit copy?

      Is it slightly more likely, that one of those 10,000 people would have bought a legal copy, if the illegal one had not been available to them?

      It's all about the opportunity to commit a crime. You think it's a victimless crime. You're so convinced it's victimless that you're trying to convince me it's not even a crime. Or that it shouldn't be a crime. And that I should be happy about the free marketing. It's not your choice to give me free marketing by stealing my products.

      At least one of those 10,000 people would have bought a legit copy, if they had never had the chance to steal. They probably would have based their decision on a review, word of mouth from a friend, seeing it in action at a friend's, or from being blown away by a demo that they downloaded. But instead, they played an illegal version until they got bored.

      And then they shared it with all of their friends at a LAN party. Along with every movie they've ever rented, every song they've ever ripped, and every kind of warez you've ever imagined.

      But you think it's some marketing boon for the developers. But what's the difference, in your mind, between an illegal copy and a legal demo? Why would anyone, in your mind, break the law in this case? It makes absolutely no sense. Do you think there's some reason for it?

      There is no reason. It's all about opportunity to commit a crime. Oh, and the ability to justify it.

      You have every opportunity, and you're clearly able to justify it to yourself. Enjoy your life of crime, buddy. You're the one who is driving legislators to write more laws. Because clearly the ones we have are not effective at stopping jerks like you. They certainly haven't convinced you to stop. Now we're just going to have to force you to stop.

      And if we get a little less free marketing? Well, that's our problem, thanks.

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    87. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's all about the opportunity to commit a crime. You think it's a victimless crime. You're so convinced it's victimless that you're trying to convince me it's not even a crime. Or that it shouldn't be a crime. And that I should be happy about the free marketing. It's not your choice to give me free marketing by stealing my products.

      It currently isn't a criminal offence (thus not a crime). If someone managed to lower your wealth without committing a crime, then you may sue them. That has always been an option. However, that is inconvenient for the people that claim to have suffered a loss. They would much rather the government go out for free, find all infringers, then return the "lost" money to them. In fact, they've gone so far as to push legislation that would make it illegal to let a friend borrow a CD without even making a copy.

      But, back to your example. I believe that there is no way to tell what the gain or loss for id was. Can you prove that there was not a single person that saw a pirated copy and bought the game when they otherwise wouldn't have? No. Can I prove that everyone that downloaded it wouldn't have bought a copy anyway or did buy a copy anyway? No. So, you claim a win, and I claim a stalemate.

      It's all about opportunity to commit a crime. Oh, and the ability to justify it.

      It isn't a crime, and I'm not justifying it.

      You're the one who is driving legislators to write more laws.

      No, that's the big money behind the MPAA/RIAA. The laws currently outline what is allowed and what is not, and what the consequences are for violations. The *AA are not happy with it because it requires too much work on their part. They'd much rather get the government to change the law so that the cost of enforcement of the civil matter falls to the government, rather than the copyright holders. It isn't a matter of new laws for new problems. It is a matter of companies buying new laws from the government in order to protect their profit (and not by actually catching the pirates, as that has been going on for years, but by making the cost of enforcement move to the government).

    88. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by drew · · Score: 1

      That's just it. You purchased a licence for the product. That licence has conditions. If content providers want these conditions, they need to be upfront and not hidden in legalese, and there cannot be any "we can change this at any time" clauses (which should be illegal to begin with).

      I did not buy a license- I bought a shiny silver disk. And I did not see anywhere on any of the dozens of those shiny disks a license agreement. None of them ever said that I was not allowed to play them with my dvd player hooked up to the VCR instead of the TV. And while they may have made brief mention of the region coding on the case (I've never looked) it's definitely not prominent enough to be considered an agreeement that a user must agree to in order to use the product.

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    89. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      It currently isn't a criminal offence (thus not a crime).

      Remember earlier when you called me a liar? Well, when you say something false - that's a lie.

      It's not a criminal offense to rip a DVD with DVD Shrink, encode it with Divx, and share it with BitTorrent?

      "Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of copyrighted motion pictures, video tapes and video discs."

      "The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to 5 years in Federal prison and a fine of $250,000."

      It's not a criminal offense to hack software to have no security and share it with BitTorrent?

      That's not fair use. It's copyright infringement, and that's a criminal offense, if you do it for private financial gain, or if the total retail value is more than $1,000 in a 180-day period.

      How much retail value do you think there was in over 10,000 copies of Doom 3?

      (I'm ignoring your other comments, because they are based on the false premise that it's not a crime. It is.)

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    90. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Remember earlier when you called me a liar? Well, when you say something false - that's a lie.

      No, a false statement isn't a lie. A knowingly false statement is. I will clarify, in case there is an issue. Regarding copyright law only, there is no criminal act.

      "Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of copyrighted motion pictures, video tapes and video discs."

      Yes, you can violate copyright and get civil penalties, you can do it and get criminal penalties. This is exactly what I've been saying. You are violently agreeing with me. What's the problem?

      "The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to 5 years in Federal prison and a fine of $250,000."

      And civil copyright infringement is not investigated by the FBI. That is why some greedy copyright holders are trying to change the law. They want the FBI to do all their work for them in tracking what is currently a civil matter. Again, you are in violent agreement with me.

      It's not a criminal offense to hack software to have no security and share it with BitTorrent?

      It is not a criminal violation of copyright law.

      that's a criminal offense, if you do it for private financial gain, or if the total retail value is more than $1,000 in a 180-day period.
      How much retail value do you think there was in over 10,000 copies of Doom 3?


      Are you asserting that one person uploaded all 10,000 copies? One person would have to upload about 20 copies before it becomes criminal. Just pass it to 15 friends, disconnect, and you've not committed a criminal act. If they pass it on, that is a separate civil offense.

      506. Criminal offenses (a) Criminal Infringement. Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either (1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or (2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code.

      (I'm ignoring your other comments, because they are based on the false premise that it's not a crime. It is.)

      It is less than $1000 and not for profit, so where again is the crime? Not FBI scare quotes, but where in copyright law does it state that it is a crime?

    91. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      One person would have to upload about 20 copies before it becomes criminal.

      You know for a fact that no one did this? This seems to be the fundamental basis of your entire argument.

      Just re-read your statement: Regarding copyright law only, there is no criminal act.

      Actually, in copyright law, if you 1) do it for private financial gain, or 2) do it for more than $1,000 retail, IT IS a criminal act.

      I am violently disagreeing with you.

      Way, way back I asked: How many pirates do I have to prove are foiled by verification?

      And you answered: I don't care.

      Apparently the new answer is 20.

      It is not a criminal violation of copyright law.

      And let me fill in the blank which makes your false statement into a true statement...

      IF THE TOTAL RETAIL VALUE IS UNDER $1,000.

      That's a really freaking important part, and yet you insist on leaving that part out, even in the same post where you quote the law that I pointed out to you.

      The software I work on costs over $1,000 per copy, thanks. So, when I work on preventing piracy through software security, I'm actually helping the FBI out. Because I'm making it harder for someone to criminally infringe copyright law, and I make it less likely that the FBI will have to investigate. As an added benefit, I stop people from civil copyright infringement.

      You know, the one where I'm personally harmed.

      You know, the one that you were complaining about at the beginning of this whole argument.

      The one where I have every legal right to offer to the market software which has security in it, and yet you bitched and moaned about the fact that I'm doing everything I can to protect myself from asshole warez sites, and simple casual criminal intent.

      And then you logged on to Slashdot and blasted me for creating secure software in the first place. Thanks. That's nice of you.

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    92. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      That's a really freaking important part, and yet you insist on leaving that part out, even in the same post where you quote the law that I pointed out to you.

      I leave it out because in dealing with your example, the vast majority of sharers would not upload 100+ gigs of data necessary to exceed the $1000 level for Doom3 (your example). That you proceed to give a specific example of a consumer product, then complain because I'm using your example and not the software you write is not my problem. People that upload under 100 gigs are not criminals. Those that upload over 100 gigs are. The number of criminals to non-criminals is probably 1:100 or so (wild guess, but based off what I've seen is close enough for this discussion). My assertion is that the number of criminals is exceedingly small, much less than asserted by the industry. My assertion is that the system is not broken, and that the FBI should not be tasked in tracking down the people that uploaded 3 copies of Doom3 on bittorrent. My assertion is that the ones that upload 100+ gigs are criminals, and those few should be tracked down by the FBI. My assertion is that it is an unnecessary burden on the government to have them track down anyone that uploads or downloads any fraction of Doom3. My assertion is that it is greed and laziness on the part of the industry in trying to force the FBI to investigate such matters.

      And then you logged on to Slashdot and blasted me for creating secure software in the first place. Thanks. That's nice of you.

      Nope. I blasted software makers that create broken software in order to attempt (and fail) to prevent unauthorized copies. I blasted software makers that prevent my legal right of Fair Use. As long as you secure your software without violating those two things, then I never blasted you. Of course, if you do create software that is broken in order to prevent copying or prevents my Fair Use, then I am blasting you.

    93. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      It's actually much closer to 50 gigs, in order to upload 20 copies of Doom 3, thus exceeding $1000 of total retail value.

      the vast majority of sharers

      That's a completely different song than the one you were singing earlier.

      You made absolute statements that were false, in an attempt to strengthen your argument.

      I called you for it.

      My assertion is that the number of criminals is exceedingly small

      Actually, your earlier assertion was that there were no criminals. In fact, you made that assertion many times in this conversation.

      But getting back to what you just said, "the number of criminals is exceedingly small"... But you acknowledge that for every criminal, there are 100 people who id has a legitimate civil action against? That those 100 people have substantively harmed id, in such a way that if id were merely able to collect the evidence, a jury of their peers would find beyond a reasonable doubt that they had caused harm which warrants financial restitution, and possibly even punitive damages under tort law for egregious conduct in the form of a willful disregard for the rights of others?

      That, if the FBI was succesful in tracking down just that 1 criminal, they would undoubtedly uncover records of the actions of several of the 100 people who id has civil cause against?

      So, we're talking about potentially 99 cases of criminal wrongdoing, and 9,901 cases of something that is arguably egregious conduct under our legal definitions - all happening in a SINGLE INSTANT ("10,000 *simultaneous* downloads"), for one piece of software... and you think companies are greedy and lazy when they point out that they're being fucked, and asking hey, maybe the FBI could help us out?

      Help us track down the criminals, and give us what information you can find on the civil copyright violators?

      Well, you're probably right; the FBI is probably not the right branch of the government for them to turn to. There should probably be a new group inside the Department of Justice. Possibly something like a Cybercrime section of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.

      So, you were right. I misspoke when I invoked the name of the FBI earlier in the conversation. They should only investigate the 99 people who in a single instant violated federal criminal law.

      Somebody else should go after the other 9,901 dickheads.

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    94. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Actually, your earlier assertion was that there were no criminals. In fact, you made that assertion many times in this conversation.

      You made absolute statements that were false, in an attempt to strengthen your argument.


      Please point out again which statements are false staments I made. I did make some general comments, maybe some that said "file sharing is not illegal." I believe that to be a true statement. Sharing a single file or program once (presuming it is a "normal" file or program) is not criminal. Sharing it a few times is not criminal. Sharing it a large number of times is criminal.

      I don't recall explicitly stating that it can never be illegal to share a file an unlimited number of times. If you inferred that from my statements which were not explicit, then it is your error in intrepretation. Perhaps if you weren't so quick to attack others for posessing an opinion contrary to yours, you wouldn't make such errors.

      Let me be explicit. It is not a criminal violation of copyright law as I know it, as I've posted it, and as you've posted it to break DeCSS, rip a DVD, and share a DVD (note, there is no mention of anyone downloading it, but we can presume that there were a few people downloading it, as from what I've seen from the stats, people only allow a few uploads from their computer before they stop the upload). If you believe it is illegal, please point me to the law. Oh, and if I'm wrong, I'm not lying (since you seem to be throwing that word around willy-nilly). I believe what I've stated, and I'm not stating a known falsehood. At worst I'm mistaken, so you should learn what words mean before throwing them around.

      So, we're talking about potentially 99 cases of criminal wrongdoing, and 9,901 cases of something that is arguably egregious conduct under our legal definitions - all happening in a SINGLE INSTANT ("10,000 *simultaneous* downloads"), for one piece of software... and you think companies are greedy and lazy when they point out that they're being fucked, and asking hey, maybe the FBI could help us out?

      Yes, I thing it is a horrible misuse of public funds. If someone is harmed by a doctor, the doctor is thrown in jail for the harm they caused, but there is no reparation ordered by the judge (as there rarely is), should the FBI then investigate the doctor, sue on behalf of the private individuals, collect the money, then distribute it to the wronged people? That's not the way it works for any other non-criminal violation of law. You only appear to want it that way because it serves your personal interest best. You are obviously incapable of seeing the big picture and taking it all in objectively.

    95. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      Please point out again which statements are false staments I made.

      Many of your general statements were false, because they were too general.

      Sharing a single file or program once (presuming it is a "normal" file or program) is not criminal.

      Sharing a single $1000 program once is criminal. Your statement is too general. This entire argument, I have labored to correct your over-general (false) statements. By demonstrating a counter-example (a single $1000 program), which fulfills all of the characteristics of your over-general statement, I prove that your statement is false. I recognize the intent of your statement, but it is over-general (false).

      Stop making over-generalizations, and we can end this argument and all go home a lot sooner.

      I did make some general comments, maybe some that said "file sharing is not illegal." I believe that to be a true statement.

      Yes, it is literally true that "file sharing is not illegal," right up until the file is a copyrighted work that you do not own, or have permission to share. Then it is against the law to do it (civil law). In fact, in some instances ($1000, yadda yadda), it is even criminal.

      I don't recall explicitly stating that it can never be illegal to share a file an unlimited number of times.

      I pointed out 10,000 *simultaneous* downloads of Doom 3, and you generalized that there was no criminal copyright violation. That's awfully close to you explicitly stating that it can never be criminal to share a file an unlimited number of times. (10,000 being a rather larger number.) Later, you told me that you thought there was probably a 1:100 ratio of criminal to civil violations.

      Let me be explicit.

      What you said is mostly true - but you're leaving out the most important part:

      "by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000"

      And here again is the point in the law.

      In other words, someone merely has to share, say, 50 DVDs in a 180-day period. That's really, really not that hard to imagine, AK Marc. In fact, I'm certain that criminal copyright violation happens in significant (thousands) of offenses per year, through BitTorrent alone. I base that on the fact that BitTorrent Accounts for 35% of all Traffic on the Internet.

      Oh, and if I'm wrong, I'm not lying (since you seem to be throwing that word around willy-nilly).

      You started with the word "lying," and that's what got me so super agitated. I brought up DeCSS, and you claimed it was either a lie (because you thought that I indicated that you brought it up), or a non sequitur. We're still talking about it, so I think it's a tautology that it wasn't a non sequitur.

      At worst I'm mistaken, so you should learn what words mean before throwing them around.

      See, and we were doing so well - almost having a civil conversation - right up until you said I don't know what words mean.

      Again:

      You keep making general statements which are too general. They are over-general. They are false. I have repeatedly demonstrated to you, again, and again, and again, that your statements are over-general, and yet you keep saying them again, and again, and again. I have pointed out to you that you are mistaken, and you have even acknowledged that you were mistaken, but then gone on to again restate your general statement. Knowingly making a false statement is a lie.

      I know what the word lie means.

      You are communicating with an anal-retentive computer programmer who takes words very seriously.

      You are obviously incapable of seeing the big picture and taking it

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    96. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You keep making general statements which are too general. They are over-general. They are false.

      They are correct more than they are false. All generalities have an exception (even this one, probably). If it wasn't wrong at least some of the time, it wouldn't be a generality, it would be a fact. That you understand that there are exceptions does not mean it isn't a valid generality. All that happens is that there is an argument where I think that over 90% of P2P users do not fall under criminal, and you apparently disagree.

      I believe that if you read and reread my previous paragraph, you will eventually understand my exact and full position on the matter. I never said that the FBI should sue, and you are clouding your interpretation of what I've been saying, and you're losing the ability to see the big picture.You are saying that the FBI should (under current law, I presume) expend effort to investigate non-criminal matters on the chance they could become criminal, and if they collect evidence against non-criminals, they should persue the non-criminal infringers in some manner (whether in-house or by passing along the data to the party presumed to be harmed).

      You have also defended the moves at adding laws which I've spoken against. There have been provisions in bills which include making it illegal to loan a friend a CD or to use the Fast Forward button to skip a commercial. You seem to want more protections, in addition to just enforcement of the current laws. I want to see a reduction in the current laws and the laws better enforced. I believe that better enforcement of fewer laws will allow more freedom for the general public, while at the same time, boost revenue and protect IP for the copyright holders. It is a win-win situation. However, the corporate copyright holders don't want to give up anything, and they've been winning. They've extended copyrights, gotten the DCMA passed, and have other legislation on the way that appears destined to pass.

    97. Re:Sorry, but it doesn't work that way by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      "DMCA" by the way.

      They are correct more than they are false.

      This is a non-statement, in the purely logical sense; and as you pointed out in another article on Slashdot, "the law is precise". I don't personally believe that, but that's no excuse for not striving to be as accurate as we can be.

      I think that more than 10% of P2P users have shared more than $1000 of copyrighted material in a 180 period.

      I also believe that over 99% of P2P users have violated copyright law. (Civil.) (By the way, just so you know I'm not completely against you, I *absolutely* think that P2P software should be legal, since there are legal uses.)

      I think that closer to 50% of people who attend LAN parties have shared more than $1000 of copyrighted material in a 180 period.

      I admit that the "value of 1 song" is difficult to assess, since those things aren't generally offered for retail - but 50 MP3s shared with 20 people doesn't seem at all unlikely to me, in 180 days - possibly 2 or maybe even 3 LAN parties.

      I am saying that the FBI should (under current law) expend effort to investiage copyright violations.

      A court of law will determine if they are criminal copyright violations.

      I absolutely agree that the FBI should *try as hard as it can* to focus only on investigating cases which are extremely likely to result in criminal copyright violation, but I think it's clear that the FBI has no way of knowing if it will be criminal or not, without gathering that evidence in the first place.

      If the FBI has conducted a fully legal investigation, and has uncovered evidence of copyright violations that are actionable in a civil case - I think it's not unreasonable that they would give the evidence to the copyright holder. I know that you and I have a difference of opinion here, but that's what I think.

      I fully recognize your concern that this situation would be abused in a Big Brother sense. Keep in mind, we are talking about people who have willfully disregarded copyright law, here. But I did frame my opinion as: "the FBI should *try as hard as it can* to focus only on investigating cases which are extremely likely to result in criminal copyright violation", and I mean that. I really do.

      If you think the laws should be changed, to make that "try as hard as it can" part more strict, then I'm open to that. I don't think it makes sense to convene a grand jury before they act at all - but I think that oversight is fantastic, and I love checks and balances.

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
  62. By Passing Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bias on Slashdot shows through again.

    If this was an article about by-passing Windows authentication and accounts being shutdown the Slashdot crowd would be up in arms.

    It seems its not the act that is always wrong, only the company doing it. Such is life on Slashdot with a vocal minority.

  63. Rent to Own. Or not. by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

    Then perhapse "buy" isn't the term software companies should use from now on, since you don't own the item outright to do as you will with it. For the sake of truth in advertising, I think "Rent" is a more accurate term.

    But then, would you have bought a HL2 with the tag, "Rent Half Life 2 today!"

    Journal rant immeninent.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
    1. Re:Rent to Own. Or not. by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >Then perhapse "buy" isn't the term software
      >companies should use from now on, since you
      >don't own the item outright to do as you will
      >with it.

      Buy is of course the correct word for as long as they actually DO sell their games. The day when they do in fact start make you rent games, just like you rent other stuff, including follow laws regulating it, that day they "buy" is of course the wrong word. BUt so far I see all games available for buying in shops all over.

  64. Re:Remeber the good ol' days? by stubear · · Score: 1

    Half-life 2 is not an idea, it is an expression of an idea fixed in a tangible medium. You're free to get off your lazy ass and develop a game based in a post-apocalyptic world ravaged by aliens from another dimension and give it away for free if you wish. An idea and its expression are two very different things and the sooner you grasp this concept, the sooner you will understand copyright.

  65. How much is too much?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know I'm probably going to get flamed for this (hence, anonymous) but how much is too much to charge for a game?? I read somewhere that they put $40million into development...yes, that's a lot of money. But, I also heard they brought in over $150million the weekend it was released. Now, I know not all of that goes to Valve, but I'm willing to bet in the first week, maybe two, they made up all their development costs and were starting to make a profit. So, why on earth do they have to charge so much for it?!?!?! I know they're in this to make money, but get real...my game playing has dropped of a LOT over the years. Not just because I don't have much time for it anymore, but because it's too damn expensive too.

  66. Fair is Fair! by DigitalLau · · Score: 0

    last time i checked games are still AFFORDABLE! they are made for the teen-early 30ish crowd... no one will go broke shelling out for something they KNOW will bring them entertainment. C'mon people.. its common sense. Quit politicizing this issue... Read the small print! its there for a reason!

  67. well... by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

    gotta say it... if you want it then buy it. It's a great game and yes I do play legit over steam.

    1. Re:well... by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

      So did I, but I still got banned. Havn't got my account turned back on yet either.

      Is that justice?

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
  68. Who? by paul248 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can't seem to figure out who Valve is actually banning? If somebody has a pirated version of the game, then they don't even have a Steam account to ban in the first place, because the cracked version bypasses Steam!

    Are they only banning people who actually paid for the game and used a no-cd crack? That's just retarded; It stops the legitimate users but does nothing about the pirates.

    1. Re:Who? by Krunaldo · · Score: 0

      I think they're talking about the "hack" where you pull out your network cable half way through of the download and then plugs it in again :/. And it've been circulating rumors about that valve realesed the cracked version so they could track who where using the illegal version.

      --
      God,root what's the difference? I read slashdot, there for I errr... am stupid?
    2. Re:Who? by Krunaldo · · Score: 0

      Let me clarify (my last post had a lot of grammer and grammar errors.).
      Valve is locking out those who did the "hack" where you pulled out the ethernet/modem cable during the download. This apperently worked quite well and Valve was frustrated (With good reasons).

      I've also heard some rumors regarding Valve releasing the cracked version with a tracer in it.

      --
      God,root what's the difference? I read slashdot, there for I errr... am stupid?
    3. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is apparently some sort of trick (not really a crack) for playing the Steam version of HL2 for free, so it requires a Steam account.

    4. Re:Who? by retro128 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Precisely. I would like to know exactly what criteria Valve used to figure out who to ban. I bought the retail version and was considering installing a No-CD crack to avoid having to put the disc in when I want to play...I guess not anymore!

      Assuming I did and I got banned...I paid $60 for the game after tax, and just like that Vavle decides they can pull the rug out from under me because I don't want to have to find the damned CD when I want to play? That is utter BS. And let's remember this is the software industry, things can change overnight. Valve could close down one day (anyone remember Sierra?) and what happens then? I'm not allowed to play the game anymore? What happens if Steam gets hacked and my key gets stolen? Is their bot going to auto disable me? I respect that Valve is trying to limit piracy, as is the right of any software publisher, but Steam is going overboard. I feel I haven't paid for jack, and that Valve controls when I can play the game which I shelled out this money for.

      I had no idea how evil Steam was before I bought HL2, but you had better believe it will be the last game I buy or play that uses it or a similar activation scheme. The sad thing is I'm willing to bet that other software manufacturers will see how much money Valve is raking in because of it and adopt a similar scheme, or maybe even license Steam itself. Oh well, I've given up TV and movies, how much harder can video games be?

      At least I'll have the time to do more Linux hacking or go back to the occasional classic with DOSBox :)

      --
      -R
    5. Re:Who? by frater_corvus · · Score: 1

      I can only see one reason Valve feels they're in the right for doing this: Even if you purchased the game, you are still capable of piracy by using a no-cd crack. If you install then use the no-cd, you could then pass the game off to someone else for another install. Perhaps this causes an issue with Steam?

      Aside from that, I'm with you. If Steam gets hacked, and keys get stolen, I can only imagine how many people will get banned. At the very least, Steam is beginning to sound more like Valve has no responsibility toward their customers; as soon as you deviate from their path, you lose.

      Bah! My brother's already bought it, but I don't have to...

    6. Re:Who? by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why all of the whining about having to have the CD to play the game? How is this different than buying a GameBoy game? You have to have the GB cartridge to play the game. So, you have to have the CD to play the game. No different than GB, and I don't see hundreds of whining comments about that....

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    7. Re:Who? by dead+sun · · Score: 1
      I don't know about HL2 nor do I intend to buy it. However, I seem to recall Civ 3 not only requiring the CD, but constantly spinning it too. This made playing it on a laptop a real drain on the battery, as the CD was constantly in motion. It just isn't necessary.

      If there was some reason to actually need the CD apart from implying all your customers are criminals, maybe people wouldn't be so upset about it. Since hard disks exist, however, and games can easily be installed on them without further need of the CD, maybe it's an inconvenience. If my game boy could store dozens of games on it, but required me to put in the cart each time to play, I'd whine about the inconvenience there too. As it is, it's already a pain to bring any sizable game boy library with you.

      --
      If not now, when?
    8. Re:Who? by retro128 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's very different. The entire game is on my hard disk, and only works after I authenticate a valid key with Steam. Why the hell should I have to dig out the CD? People who bought the game directly on Steam don't have to deal with that.

      And suppose you could take all of your carts and load them into memory on your GB. How would you feel about still needing to haul the carts all over the place when the data already exists in the box?

      --
      -R
    9. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of the things I run on my PC, approximately 5% of them need the CD to run. On the things I run on my gameboy, 100% need them. I guess it comes down to expectations. Plus, on my gameboy, I have a ROM cartridge that stores 4-7 games, so I DON'T have to have the cartridge to play the game.

    10. Re:Who? by LilMikey · · Score: 1

      You can't copy games to your Gameboy. It's a technical limitation. Valves CD shit is an asshole limitation.

      --
      LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
    11. Re:Who? by justins · · Score: 1
      I feel I haven't paid for jack, and that Valve controls when I can play the game which I shelled out this money for.

      I had no idea how evil Steam was before I bought HL2, but you had better believe it will be the last game I buy or play that uses it or a similar activation scheme.

      So, I suppose you'll be avoiding every multiplayer game in the world as well, since they almost all use authenticating master servers? This is the status quo now, Steam isn't the first.

      The sad thing is I'm willing to bet that other software manufacturers will see how much money Valve is raking in because of it and adopt a similar scheme, or maybe even license Steam itself.

      Valve are making money because hl2 is a great game. They might be making more money because of their copy protection, but I suspect they might make less.

      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    12. Re:Who? by demi · · Score: 1

      If you hadn't noticed, HL2 isn't for the Gameboy. It's for PCs. Maybe some folks game on PCs instead of Gameboys because they don't like the restrictions of playing on that platform, including cartridge-juggling.

      --
      demi
    13. Re:Who? by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

      The gameboy is designed to run off cartridge 100% of the time. It will still work in 10 years time. Cheap PC CD-ROMs are not designed to be running 100% of the time, and will fail due to moving parts.

    14. Re:Who? by mark-t · · Score: 1
      Are they only banning people who actually paid for the game and used a no-cd crack? That's just retarded; It stops the legitimate users but does nothing about the pirates
      It seems to me that they are banning _everyone_ who uses the no-cd crack and banking on (probably correctly) the premise that the number of legitimate purchasers of the product that would actually be affected by this are small, at least compared with the number of pirates that this would impact. I imagine that valve expects the impact on legitimate purchasers of the game to be of small enough scope that they will be able to facilitate damage control on a case by case basis. It's entirely possible that they could be right, but it shouldn't take too long to find out how right, or how wrong, valve truly was.
    15. Re:Who? by mark-t · · Score: 1
      IMO you have a legitimate complaint.

      What it appears that Valve is banking on, however, is that cases like yours will be statistically infrequent enough that they will actually be able to do damage control with customers such as yourself on a case-by-case basis. I have no idea how they expect to accomplish it, however.

    16. Re:Who? by celerityfm · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming these people ALSO had a Steam account and perhaps the steam client searched their hard drive ala Halo2 for pirated HL2 copy and blam, BANZORED! Either that or I read in the comments on StooFoo that it was possible to get playable HL2 off of Steam and play it without paying.

      In either case, suddenly thousands of counterstrike players can no longer play counterstrike, even thought hey bought THAT legitimately. Can Valve take AWAY your legitimate game for pirating ANOTHER game?

      Hmmmm.

      --
      ...unfortunately no one can be told what The Mat^H^H^HGoatse is...they must experience it for themselves...
    17. Re:Who? by Tom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why all of the whining about having to have the CD to play the game?

      You obviously don't own a notebook and spend half of your weekends away from home. I do.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    18. Re:Who? by farnz · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Because with a GameBoy, I put the cartridge in, play the game, get fed up, change the cartridge, play a different game, ad infinitum.

      With a PC, I install the game, play the game, install another, play it, and repeat until I run out of disk space. Then I've got to work out which game I won't be playing in the near future, uninstall it, install another one, and I have to start juggling installers. If I don't want to do that, I need to open up my PC and fit a new harddrive.

      The difference? Installing the game before you play it. If GB games needed installation, I'd definitely not be interested; who wants to install a game before you can play it, just because you've uninstalled it to fit something else on? And if PC games didn't need the CD, I'd be more interested; at least I wouldn't need to carry all the CDs around.

    19. Re:Who? by justins · · Score: 1
      If somebody has a pirated version of the game, then they don't even have a Steam account to ban in the first place, because the cracked version bypasses Steam!

      You're assuming that there aren't tens of thousands of people stupid enough to have installed and registered Steam at some point in the last two years, and then to have installed a cracked copy of Half Life 2. There's no reason to think that a running copy of Steam couldn't detect an illegitimate copy of Half Life 2 running on the same machine.
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    20. Re:Who? by Ahnteis · · Score: 1

      Read the official forums. (Except they seem to be slashdotted at the moment.)

      Primarily, they banned people who had (as part of the warez process) entered a certain CD key into steam.

    21. Re:Who? by retro128 · · Score: 1

      So, I suppose you'll be avoiding every multiplayer game in the world as well, since they almost all use authenticating master servers? This is the status quo now, Steam isn't the first.

      I hear you. But Steam goes far beyond CD key authorization. It works like this - Steam acts as a repository for all of your games. When you buy a game from Valve, you put in the key, and that key is associated with your Steam account. This is done for every game, so you could potentially have hundreds of dollars invested in games you bought from Steam. But let's say you do something like run a No-CD fix on one of them. Guess what happens? Your Steam account gets disabled and you lose access to ALL of them. This does not just affect the multiplay aspect of these games - HL2 wants a Steam connection even when you play in single mode. In fact, you need a valid Steam account to install the game in the first place.

      The problem I have is that Valve can pretty much decide arbitrarily who they want to whack. Maybe someone didn't like what you had to say in a forum and you were "accidentally" added to the hit list of license violators. You will have no recourse. 20,000 people were kicked off of Steam today, but let's say 500 of those people were really legit users. Their complaints will never make it through the noise. I saw the Steam forums and they are lit up like a Christmas tree. I can only imagine what Valve's support mailboxes look like now. Affected legit users will probably a) Buy the game again, b) Fume to everyone they know about how they were screwed over by Valve, c) warez the game, d) a then b, e) b then c

      I think no matter how you slice it, it will amount to bad PR for Valve.

      I think Valve has made a big mistake trying to shift this much power to themselves. But that's me. I, for one, will not continue to be their customer.

      Valve are making money because hl2 is a great game. They might be making more money because of their copy protection, but I suspect they might make less.

      If the debacle with TurboTax sets any precedent, you could be right.

      --
      -R
    22. Re:Who? by abiessu · · Score: 1

      Very different from GB/(your favorite dedicated console)/(any other game-dedicated machine which relies explicitly on only specific media for game info)... it's a *computer*. CDs, CD drives (or DVDs/drives, floppies/drives, etc.) have limited lifespans and lower transfer rates than the harddrive (except maybe SCSI stuff... but if you have a SCSI CD or DVD drive you've probably invested in a SCSI HDD too...). The only reason I don't use 'CD-cracks' on a regular basis is that I like to be on the legal side of things... otherwise, being forced to use a particular CD in my computer to play a game when my harddrive is sufficient for storage/loading of gamefiles is quite unpalatable.

      That's the main reason I rip all my audio CDs to .ogg and only make CDs of those for backups... I've gone through two *dedicated* cd players (boombox-style) in the same time that I've had my current computer and harddrive.

      --
      Let S_n = {nst+us+vt : s,t in Z \ {0}, u,v in {-1,1}}. For all n in Z where |n| > 2, Z \ S_n is infinite... right?
    23. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have kids do you? CD's are shiny things and if they aren't secured behind ten feet of steel wont last 2 seconds in their presence.

      From experience it's best to install, patch with noCD crack and put away for safe keeping.

    24. Re:Who? by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine how they're going to damage-control it either.

      The only warez release of which I'm aware doesn't use Steam, and as such Valve can't deactivate those installs. The noCD crack is popular amongst people who are annoyed by the CD check and by those who are unable to get past the CD check due to hardware problems (SecuROM does not play nice with a lot of optical drives). The crack still requires that the user have an authenticated and unlocked installation of the game, so it's not really much of an aid for piracy -- at least, no more so than someone giving out their account information to let other people download the Steam-download version of the game.

      If Valve is banning accounts just for using the noCD crack, they are going to have a lot of justifiably irate people bitching at them, with very little damage done to pirates. I know that if my account gets banned over noCD crack use (it hasn't, and I've not heard from anyone on fileforums who reports bannination either), I will not only demand a full refund for my game, but I will openly promote the piracy of every title that Valve makes in the future.

    25. Re:Who? by justins · · Score: 1
      But let's say you do something like run a No-CD fix on one of them. Guess what happens? Your Steam account gets disabled and you lose access to ALL of them.

      I haven't been able to get through to any of the Steam forum postings so to me, this is still just innuendo to some degree.

      To clarify: I don't agree with the nocd-crack banning policy. But I don't think it will be a big issue with Steam, since the "natural" way to get Steam stuff is to buy it online. It seems to me that the second most desireable way to package a Steam game would be to make a CD with a small installer and the Steam cache files. Making it the way Vivendi did, with a requirement to have the CD in the drive, was completely illogical.

      VU and Valve brought this controversy on themselves, in that sense: if it weren't for that stupid requirement, they would still have a perfectly valid way to determine if a user was authorized to use the game, and they could have legitimately cracked down on those people without mixing in the nocd-crack people, some of whom are probably paying customers. But I still wonder how many of the people banned actually were paying customers, and how many were just people running a cracked game on a machine that happened to have Steam running, or what.

      The problem I have is that Valve can pretty much decide arbitrarily who they want to whack. Maybe someone didn't like what you had to say in a forum and you were "accidentally" added to the hit list of license violators. You will have no recourse.

      I doubt that will be a problem, honestly. My past experience with competitive gaming suggests that bans for cheating will be much more controversial and error prone. The whole topic is worrying, yes.

      I think Valve has made a big mistake trying to shift this much power to themselves. But that's me. I, for one, will not continue to be their customer.

      I'm not happy about it, but I'll probably keep buying their stuff. I'm suspending judgement until it's clear how they handle the reaction to this latest controversy. I think Steam is a great idea in general. My big hope is that this incident teaches Valve some lessons. It's a pretty big test, right up there with the code theft, and when they probably all wanted to take a vacation...

      Does anyone have any online petitions going over this?
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    26. Re:Who? by mark-t · · Score: 1
      ...if my account gets banned over noCD crack use .... I will not only demand a full refund for my game,...
      Perfectly reasonable, I would be thoroughly pissed off with Valve if I were in your position, and I'd be doing exactly the same thing.
      ... but I will openly promote the piracy of every title that Valve makes in the future.
      This, I'm afraid, is not the solution. Even if the company has done something entirely despicable, copying their works without permission is still copyright infringement and demonstrates an utter lack of respect for the law, even if your intent is simply to show your contempt for them.

      While I am certainly sympathetic to the position you are in, advocating breaking the law over something like this (it's only a game, for cryin' out loud) is not a particularly mature thing to do.

    27. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try this on for size:

      • Mod your Gameboy to have persistent storage.
      • Make a blank cartridge of better size and speed than the largest, fastest ordinary retail game cartridge.
      • Add a bootstrap program that can move game data between your large storage device and the fast memory cartridge.
      • Copy all your cartridge ROMs.
      • Put the physical cartridge devices in storage.
      • Play forevermore without juggling carts.

      With a little less cost, and a little more inconvenience, your home computer can be the large storage device, and the bootstrap program can be built into the blank cartridge. This has the added advantage of enabling play on a big screen via emulators.

      So, instead of juggling four carts, I can load four games onto one large, blank cart and do the switching in software. And I don't need any CDs, keys, or network handshakes.

      Unfortunately, this means pirates can rip warez copies off the net and play on emulators, or load up their own blank and play on actual hardware. And yet, there is no BS copy protection scheme for GB ROMs. Are they hurting because of it?

    28. Re:Who? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      BTW: Copying copyrighted works without permission isn't copyright infringement everywhere and all the time.

      If Valve without warning screws their _paying_ customers for using nocd what do they expect? Rational and mature behaviour by all of them?

      I dunno about you, but there'd could be thousands of new users of the warezed version... What else can the "disenfranchised" do?

      It's kinda ironic that the ones using the warez version are getting a better experience in some cases :). I suppose this should change for online multiplayer HL2? Does the warez version work in that scenario given the Steam+HL2 architecture/system?

      --
    29. Re:Who? by retro128 · · Score: 1
      I haven't been able to get through to any of the Steam forum postings so to me, this is still just innuendo to some degree.

      You are correct. I have not actually seen anyone say they got banned for running a No-CD crack. I've seen some guys saying they bought the game but couldn't get the code that came with the CD to work, so they used a cracked one. Ha, a questionable scenario at best. Yes, they had it coming. But all the same, I don't think I'll take the chance in running any sort of crack. Who knows if Steam does file verification?
      The problem I have is that Valve can pretty much decide arbitrarily who they want to whack. Maybe someone didn't like what you had to say in a forum and you were "accidentally" added to the hit list of license violators. You will have no recourse.

      I doubt that will be a problem, honestly. My past experience with competitive gaming suggests that bans for cheating will be much more controversial and error prone. The whole topic is worrying, yes.

      Well, I admit the example was a little extreme, but my point is where there is power there is people who will abuse it. Ordinarily it wouldn't concern me. But Steam raises the stakes...Every game you have ever bought on Steam could be taken away like that. I'm not just talking about banning from multiplay, but even single play. Regardless of how large of a problem we think abuse of the system would be, I think we both agree that it's something to think about.

      I think Valve has made a big mistake trying to shift this much power to themselves. But that's me. I, for one, will not continue to be their customer.


      I'm not happy about it, but I'll probably keep buying their stuff. I'm suspending judgement until it's clear how they handle the reaction to this latest controversy. I think Steam is a great idea in general.

      I can see the benefits Steam might have. Online software distribution has the potential of being very convenient, but it doesn't sit well with me because it gives the software publisher too much say in when you can run your software. Things like right of first sale are pretty much gone. How can you sell your game? Some bobos on Steam's forums say "Just give the person your selling the game to the account", but what if you purchased other games on Steam you don't want to give up?

      Privacy is compromised as well...Even when you run the game in single player mode, Valve knows where and when it's happening, and for how long. It's only a matter of time before this data could be used to place advertisments to sweeten the pot for publishers.

      As far as a peition goes, I doubt Valve will change their business practices based on such a thing. As for me, I'm voting with my wallet.
      --
      -R
    30. Re:Who? by justins · · Score: 1
      Things like right of first sale [wikipedia.org] are pretty much gone. How can you sell your game?

      I'm not too worried about this. I've found that selling games is pretty much a waste of time anyway. You just don't get much for them compared to what you paid. Of course, you shouldn't get much for them, since there is no way for the buyer to know whether or not you're selling them a banned CD key. That has been a problem for a while now.

      I don't view this situation as a violation of my "rights." I suppose I would if I went into it with a different set of expectations. As this stage I'm cautiously optimistic because I view the benefit of Valve's ability to lock out cheaters as outweighing the risk that they'll lock me out, accidentally or out of malice. Time will tell.

      Privacy is compromised as well...Even when you run the game in single player mode, Valve knows where and when it's happening, and for how long.

      I'll wait until the inevitable reports on Steam's function come back from people using packet sniffers before I panic too much about that. Maybe there's some stuff on that out there right now...

      Steam might just end up being my "half-life 2 launcher." I can live with that. I definitely view the whole thing as sort of an experiment at this point.

      As far as a peition goes, I doubt Valve will change their business practices based on such a thing. As for me, I'm voting with my wallet.

      I realized after I wrote that that it was a little silly - their forums are as close to a petition as they need. They seem to be pretty good about letting dissenting views be aired, from what I can tell.
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
  69. Mount ISOs in Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Virtual CD-ROM Control Panel:

    http://www.majorgeeks.com/download4402.html

    Also the latest Nero has Nero DriveImage which does the same.

    1. Re:Mount ISOs in Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This does not work with Nero ImageDrive. I ripped the first disc to .NRG format and mounted it in ImageDrive (as drive F:). HL2 won't recognize it, no error message or anything.

  70. Re:Violating the license for one locks you from al by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Let's turn this around, shall we?

    If you come to my home and steal my silverware, you may not come back. I really don't care if the last time you came over you didn't lift my wallet. Doesn't matter... you are simply not allowed in my home again.

    Of course, I know someone will point out the obvious "but" in this... so let's address it now, shall we?

    You came into my business, rented time on one of my computers and then copied licensed software from my system. You are not welcome back. I don't care if you cam in last week and didn't copy anything... I don't want you as a client. You are a risk because you can't keep your grubby little fingers where they belong -- in essence, out of my cash drawer.

  71. Perhaps innocent until proven guilty? by dark-br · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are you crazy? Do that and the TERRORISTS win!

    1. Re:Perhaps innocent until proven guilty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought we were talking about half life, not counter strike?

  72. HL2 makes people ill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad to see that Valve is so keen on cracking down on pirates that they ban paying customers as well. How about taking care of all of the (MANY!) paying customers that the game makes extremely ill? Total silence from Valve on that front...

    http://www.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php? threadid=176796&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

  73. Boo hoo.. by Chicane-UK · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've pirated a few games in my time.. and when a patch comes out and when I am no longer allowed to play it over the net because I am out of date, or they move to make some restriction that stops the juwarez monkeys from playing their game I don't bitch about it.. I accept it as the flip side to being able to play the game early or for free. Tough shit if I was too cheap to fork out the money for it!

    Kudos to Valve for having the balls to try and tackle the root cause of the problem.. combine cutting out the publisher and a pretty darn secure way of delivering games to people and we might yet actually see a reduction in game prices. They are hopefully setting the trend - combine that with not needing the CD to play the game either, and you have a winning combination IMHO. Not quite sure whats gonna happen though if my broadband net connection goes off for some reason?

    For the record I purchased the bronze package (cheapass I know.. never mind) about 10 minutes after Steam pricing packages were made available, and then at about 30 seconds past 'zero hour' when they were supposed to have enabled the HL2 authentication servers I closed and reopened Steam, unlocked HL2 and was playing in about 10 minutes.

    The game is awesome. I finished it this weekend and loved every minute of it.. those who haven't tried it thanks to some irrational fear of Steam or something really need to get over it and try it out.. you ARE missing out by not playing this game. Its the new benchmark quite frankly.

    --
    "Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
    1. Re:Boo hoo.. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "combine cutting out the publisher and a pretty darn secure way of delivering games to people and we might yet actually see a reduction in game prices."

      then why is it cheaper for me to buy the game at Costco then download it from steam?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Boo hoo.. by Ahnteis · · Score: 1

      Contracts. You think Vivendi would let them sell it cheaper (where Viv is cut out) then retail (where Viv gets most of the profits?

      You may find a few low price spots, but the general retail price is about $55.

    3. Re:Boo hoo.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a "cheapass" like you, you don't even realize your right to play the game years from now is questionable. So, this makes you a stupid "cheapass" who can't resist something shiny.

    4. Re:Boo hoo.. by Chicane-UK · · Score: 1

      Damn. My enormous £34 investment will potentially be unusable in 3 to 4 years time. I'm sure I won't lose any sleep over it.

      Can't remeber firing up any of the games I own after that period of time quite frankly.. there will always be something newer and 'shinier' I guess.

      --
      "Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
  74. Lies, damned lies! by randomaxe · · Score: 5, Funny

    People are discovering that when you buy any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really bought anything.

    Not true, not true!

    If you buy the Half Life 2 Collector's Edition, you get a shirt!

  75. All games should be free by Free_Trial_Thinking · · Score: 0

    Just wanted to voice my opinion.

  76. Boycott by Yartrebo · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I guess it doesn't effect me because I make it a policy not to install software requiring activation (such as Win XP). I don't care if there is a readily available crack or not.

    I won't even download a bootleg version, since the company benefits anyway (market share and the ability to fuck me over later).

    I do make an exception when needed for work or school, but that's a last resort after I've tried to get a waiver and I've put a best faith effort into first using someone else's copy, and if I cant, getting a bootleg version. So far this year, I have not even had to go so far as bootlegging, no less actually paying for something.

    Once I get a job and a little money, I'll be willing to pay money for a good game, but any company that engages either in copy restriction (I don't care how trivial) or activation (once again, no matter how trivial) won't get my money, and there's enough choice out there to find anothber title.

    1. Re:Boycott by Dest · · Score: 0

      Are you a moron? Do you honestly think that there are games out there without either copy restriction or activation? Every game has at least ONE of those things in it. Sorry kid.

    2. Re:Boycott by Christopheles · · Score: 0

      You mean like NetHack? Wait a minute...

  77. Commercial Pandering by dhj · · Score: 1

    "People are discovering that when you buy any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really bought anything."

    Well... As it's been pointed out the editorial comment by Michael isn't exactly the most insightful.

    However, Slashdot has to be commended for not pandering to the advertising dollar. A scathing (and only half true) comment against a company who's ad pops up right next to the article.

    Answers to the following questions would be more telling:

    Will the editorial comment stay under pressure from Valve/Sierra?

    Will Michael continue to post articles if there's pressure from Valve/Sierra?

    Why does Slashdot post all these stories (even if they're negative) about companies they run ads for? Are they simply required to get a certain number of clicks?

    --dhj

  78. Just Download It: Only takes nine days! by Tackhead · · Score: 1
    > If you have a steam account, just download the games through steam. No CD needed ever. Which is good for me, I have no idea what happened to the Half Life CD I bought 5 years ago...

    Heh. Three Slashdot articles after the one that talks about US broadband penetration at 20%, someone suggests that people "just download the games through Steam".

    Even if you have a backpack and a week's worth of supplies to walk the 120 miles to the nearest city with a CompUSA, you still have to spend a second week walking back home. But your point still applies -- with Steam, you can download the whole 4-5 gigabytes of content in as little as nine days! Don't you see how much more convenient Steam is?

    How about a solution for people who actually take care of their CDs and know where their shit is at? (I have my original HL1 CDs and the original retail box, and two CD-Rs full of patches and mods I've accumulated over the years. They're sitting on a bookshelf. The images of those CDs and CD-Rs are sitting on my fileserver. There's a backup drive at my parents' place, and it's going to get swapped/reimaged this Thanksgiving weekend.)

    My "content delivery system" has outlived dozens of "never gonna fail" companies including Origin, Infocom, and Microprose. Someday I'll add Valve to that list.

  79. Michael's whining is irrelevant by Megaweapon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You didn't "buy" the software, you bought a license to run the bits on a CD (or in the case of HL2, 5 CDs) as well as the service that Steam provides. You're free to do whatever you want with those CDs: Use them at coasters, throw them at kids, grind them up and put the powder in your coffee. This is true with HL2, MS Windows, Adobe Photoshop, and most other software out there. Whether the game was downloaded or bought on CD isn't really important.

    --
    I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
    1. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Lisandro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fine, but the thing is you don't know that until you open the damn box. This is the root of the problem. You go purchasing a game, you purchase a game, come back home having purchased a game and find out you actually got a licence agreement instead.

      Again, this is fine on Steam. It's not on a boxed game.

    2. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      You didn't "buy" the software, you bought a license to run the bits on a CD (or in the case of HL2, 5 CDs) as well as the service that Steam provides.

      Speak for youself. I buy software, not licenses. When you buy a book, are you really buying a license to read words on the page? If that sounded stupid, think how it must sound to tell me I didn't buy something at the cash register.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    3. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Megaweapon · · Score: 1

      Is there anyone dumb enough to think that a game purchased at the local Best Buy or wherever is actually "their software"? If you don't know what you are possibly buying, DON'T BUY IT. This goes for everything, not just software.

      --
      I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
    4. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

      You're free to do whatever you want with those CDs: Use them at coasters, throw them at kids, grind them up and put the powder in your coffee. This is true with HL2, MS Windows, Adobe Photoshop, and most other software out there. Whether the game was downloaded or bought on CD isn't really important.

      Am I free to copy that cd ? (whether for my own use or not).

    5. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see him whining. I see him pointing out the cold hard facts. I see everybody else whining.

    6. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      scratch that I thought you were talking about somebody else. my mistake.

    7. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that has got to be the most retarded defense ive read yet.

      Average joe isnt going to be all "savy" and uber smart like you. average joe most likely doesnt understand the EULA.

    8. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Average joe isn't using cd cracks either. So your point is moot.

    9. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Come on, you're kidding me? Well of course they will think that! When you buy a book, do you expect it to be yours?

    10. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you actually think it is legal to use the content of the book for anything you want? Can you just make photocopies of the book and give them out or sell them? Can you just use whole sections of text of this book you bought in any way you want? Somehow I doubt it.

    11. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Megaweapon · · Score: 1

      I don't have my HL2 box in front of me, but I'm guessing it says somewhere on the outside "By using this software you agree to the license contained within" or something like that. If that does exist on the box, then "average joe" has no right to complain. If you can't read the license in the box, then don't buy the product if you don't think you'd agree with it in the first place. What is so hard about that?

      --
      I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
    12. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      >>Speak for youself. I buy software, not licenses.

      Appearantly your spending money but have no idea what you're buying...

    13. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by digitallife · · Score: 1

      Then I must be free to stick it in a drive and let the drive do whatever it wants with it, right? Right?!

      Oops, sorry, you actually AREN'T allowed to do whatever you want with that cd, even if it all stays on your own property (physically and network wise). Furthermore, I did buy lmited rights to use the game, but can't find out about those rights until AFTER I purchased the it?! And then can't easily return it, if at all? Or lets say I do agree with the EULA and then install it using a different cd key than the one that came on the box, and then the dissallow me to play the game anymore because they didn't like the cdkey!

      I for one tend to think Michaels statement was right on par.

    14. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great point.

    15. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Megaweapon · · Score: 1

      As offered here, IF the box mentions any sort of "By using this software..." kind of message on the outside of the box then the buyer is at fault. I simply don't have my HL2 box in front of me at the moment.

      --
      I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
    16. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Babbster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can prettify it all you want. The bottom line is that there ARE people who bought the game and are unable to play it because Valve has decided to ban them based on the fact that they don't want to put in the CD-ROM every time they play the game. You're welcome to proselytize for the strict EULA advocates, but this is the kind of thing that discourages PC gaming. People spend long periods of time installing multiple gigs of data on their PC and then the asshat publishers/developers force you to have the CD-ROM handy anyway. Then, Valve uses their "Steam Power" to screw over people who don't want to follow a really stupid rule - note that they didn't just re-patch to evade the crack but instead prevented even legitimate players from using the game. Every time someone pulls something like this it's going to disillusion a PC gamer and they're going to be that much less likely to buy the next game.

    17. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Copyright does not preclude ownership!

      If I buy a book I can't copy it and give it away, but I can do anything else I want with it, such as rewrite parts of it (or even the whole thing) or translate it into a different language, because I own it. By all rights, I should be able to do that with software too!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    18. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by ttldkns · · Score: 1

      When you buy a book, are you really buying a license to read words on the page?

      technically though, arent you? you cant legally do whatever you want with it. You cant legally copy it on a copier and give the copy to someone else. Before it was just too impractical to do and manufacturers had no real way of enforcing this.

      in the same way you can legally copy half-life or any other game. But you can do what you like to the physical media, just like you can do with a book.

      --
      How many computers are too many?
    19. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just stated the very reason why I no longer buy PC games.

    20. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by ADRA · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You own the media, nobody's taking that away from you, its yours. There aren't FBI swooping down on you to confiscate that 'property' of yours.

      As for books, once again its the media that you own. If you illegally reproduce that media, then you can expect to be punished.

      For those downloading and installing cracks, etc.. then expect for your account to be banned. If you mod your satilite digital box, expect to get banned, if you uncap your cable modem, expect to get banned.

      I am use that you can view every one of these service's EULA's before you buy the them. Hell, I bet that if you ask, they'd even mail a copy to your door.

      --
      Bye!
    21. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      Yes, you can own something and still have laws regarding how you use it. In the case of books, the physical book is yours, but you are not legally allowed to reproduce it because of copywrite laws.

      To extend the analogy - if I buy a game, it can be illegal to copy it, but I should be allowed to play it, 'cause I paid for it and its mine.

    22. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Danse · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't have my HL2 box in front of me, but I'm guessing it says somewhere on the outside "By using this software you agree to the license contained within" or something like that. If that does exist on the box, then "average joe" has no right to complain.

      First of all, I half-expected you to be right about them putting some kind of disclaimer on the box, but I just checked my box. Nothing on it mentions anything about a EULA. Not even in the itty-bitty print at the bottom.

      Second, it goes completely counter to traditional contract-law that you can assume that a person agrees to a contract that they haven't had the opportunity to read. There's no "well you should have known the terms ahead of time". That doesn't fly. How can I know the terms if I can't read the EULA?

      If you can't read the license in the box, then don't buy the product if you don't think you'd agree with it in the first place. What is so hard about that?

      Again, if you haven't had the opportunity to read the EULA, then there's no way to know whether you would agree to it or not. This isn't Vegas. We're not playing roulette. This is about law, and that's something that you shouldn't have to guess about. It's either written there for you to read, and thus enforceable, or it's not, and thus not enforceable. That's the bottom line.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    23. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      technically though, arent you? you cant legally do whatever you want with it.

      There's this thing called copyright. If I don't step on its toes, I can do whatever I choose with my book or game. Valve can write a license if they like, but I don't have to accept it.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    24. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by jackelfish · · Score: 1

      By all rights, should you be able to walk down the street and throw a brick through any window you see fit. Your "rights" are spelled out by society as a whole and the law states that you purchase a license to run software and do not own the code. Therefore you can not do anything you want with it.

      --
      "When Nature Calls We All Shall Drown" Johan Edlund
    25. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Lisandro · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're missing the picture here. My example was a scenario where you buy a book, get home to read it, and find out you can only legally read it from 8 to 10am, on Sundays, and only if it's raining. No one is discussing the copyrighted media contained in the book.

      You buy a book, you should get a book, and not a license agreement. You buy a game (which is being sold to you as a game, and not as a licence) and you should get precisely that as well.

    26. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Danse · · Score: 1

      Appearantly your spending money but have no idea what you're buying...

      Actually, it depends on where you live and what the EULA says. Some or all of the EULA may not even be enforceable. Thus you end up with copyright law protecting the software, which is as it should be IMHO.


      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    27. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You're one of the biggest jerks I've seen on slashdot. All of your comments have been derogatory. I figured you should have one directed at you, asshole.

      Cheers!

    28. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Danse · · Score: 1

      But you can do what you like to the physical media, just like you can do with a book.

      A book is not just physical media, it is also the information printed on that media. So, by that logic, it should be perfectly ok for me to install the software, download a crack to make it playable, and then play all I want. I bought the game, just like I bought the book. I should be able to make normal use of both, as long as I'm not distributing copies.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    29. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by stanmann · · Score: 1

      BUT you can use that media in any way you choose, I can read a book aloud, backwards, or standing on my head on a street corner downtown(as long as I'm not violating local ordinances) and the publisher can't stop me, I can rip out pages and staple them to my walls, I can make paper airplanes, THE ONLY THING I CAN'T LEGALLY DO is copy the book. SOFTWARE IS THE SAME. Publishers would like to disagree, but they can't.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    30. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Orthanc_duo · · Score: 1

      I do have the box in front of me (Collectors Edition) and it doesn't say anything of the sort.

    31. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Orthanc_duo · · Score: 1

      If you brought software, then you would have the rite to copy, modify and distribute as you like.

      All the software you "buy" is actually buying a licence to use it. The licence is normally transferable (you can resell it as long as you don't keep a copy). The same applies to books CD's paintings, basically any kind of intelectual property, but in those cases the licence is more standard, so you don't read a EULA every time. You can read the book, you can resell it, but you can't publish your own edition.

    32. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have my HL2 box in front of me, but I'm guessing it says somewhere on the outside "By using this software you agree to the license contained within" or something like that. If that does exist on the box, then "average joe" has no right to complain.

      I'd like to see them enforce that sort of vague agreement in court, then.

    33. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      lol... it is just so amusing to see all the warez kiddies so upset over this...

    34. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      You're buying the media, but not the words. The ownership of the words contained therein remain with someone else. You cannot sell them as your own, though you can sell the media. There is an implied agreement between purchaser (you) and seller (ultimately the copyright holder) that you will not break copyright law and use it inappropriately.

      When you buy software, you are buying licenses to use the software. This is most easily seen at the corporate level, where one copy of the media is bought and then 5 or 10 or 10,000 licenses to use it are bought. Even the GPL (GNU General Public License) refers to granting permission (via the license) for you to modify the software, provided you adhere to certain requirements.

      The only way you are can truly "buy software" is to purchase the ownership rights of the software. Short of that, you do buy licenses, as stipulated by the license agreements to which you agree when you install the software.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    35. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I beg to differ. I dont know a single person who isn't using nocd cracks on any game with cd copy protection. The thought that anyone will keep all their game cd's out and ready to use is silly. Now half-life 2 doesnt' require a cd to play, so thats a mute point. My friend bought the dvd version. I watched him play, great game, but the constant network activity I watched on the router when loading, saving, starting the game was scary. I decided not to buy it.

    36. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i would guess that anyone short of a lawyer isn't going to understand half the legalese they have in a eula.

      so it isn't just average joe that isn't going to understand the eula.

    37. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's an apples-to-oranges comparison that you're making. The parent was talking about doing whatever he feels like with his own property, and you're talking about damaging someone else's home by throwing a brick through the window!

      Have you ever made notes in a textbook for future reference? Copyright law doesn't prohibit you from doing so. It's there to ensure that the author retains distribution rights for her work. Ultimately those rights are reassigned to publishers these days, but I hope you're getting the picture here.

      Copyright means you can do whatever the hell you feel like doing with the thing you bought off the shelf as long as you aren't making copies for other people (outside of the scope of fair rights uses), as that is *distribution*, which is what copyright is primarily about. Control of distribution. You can sell your copy of a book to someone else if you hate it or you don't want it anymore. What makes software so special that you should have to have a LICENSE to do the same things?

    38. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the term 'First Sale' not mean anything to ANYONE at Slashdot?

      How about the fact that EULAs are NOT legal contracts? That the only *real* protection on software is Copyright law (which is *real* protection, it already exists to keep you from redistributing).

      Seriously, did I fall asleep and wake up in a world where what I buy in a box over the counter (no contract signed) I don't own?

      Get off the 'IP' mindset. Yes, IP exists (insofar as it is defined by law) but don't let them fool you into believing that you don't *OWN* the CDs you buy. Sure, you say 'you own the cds but not the bits' but that's just a stupid statement. How can I own a physical item and not own the little ridges and pits on the physical item?

      Attention Sheep: Buy some software, reverse engineer it, don't ever run the installer or click 'I agree' to anything. It's your legal right to, so long as you do not redistribute.

      (Yes, the above is illegal under the DMCA, but what happens to those of us who don't live in the USA?)

    39. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      This just made me think about music. Doesn't the music industry crack down on people who publicly perform their works without paying extra for the right to do so? Even if for example they've already purchased the CD? There's a group that sues restraunts for having music playing over the in-restraunt speakers and not paying a tremendous amount for it. I can't think of what they're called though. I keep wanting to say the ASPCA but I know that's not right. ;-) Anyhow, it just made me think of that.

    40. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by CatOne · · Score: 1

      No, you buy LICENSES.

      Read the agreement. It says, in very plain terms, SOFTWARE IS LICENSED, NOT SOLD. Which means you have purchased a license to run the software. And when you run the installer, almost always you have to click through to AGREE to this. The fact that there's a CD in the box which allows it to install is a convenience to you -- but it could just as easily be a link to a URL where you could download it.

      You may SAY you buy software and not licenses, but the contract says plainly that you're buying a license, so you are in fact incorrect.

    41. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1
      That's quite a bit of convoluted logic going on there. The message simply says that there's an EULA in the box, it doesn't say what that EULA is. Extending this, you can possibly claim from this that because practically all software comes with a license agreement, joe average has enough information to decide not to buy any software ever because he might not agree with the license.

      It is all very simple, if there is a big EULA attached to a bit of software it either needs to be printed outside of the box, or be obtained as a seperate sheet in the box (that can be read without abiding the EULA), or should have a url with the full EULA on the box. Anything else should make the EULA void as there's no way to know what's in it. Being bound by contracts that you cannot access without being bound by the contract itself should simply be unlawful. That this is not the case already is mindboggling, as the vendor/producer has plenty of opportunity to let the buyer read the contract before buying. Current practice really smells like fraud.

    42. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      Possibly off-topic but, the three Blizzard games I have here (Warcraft III, StarCraft Diablo II) have warnings on the boxes that you will need to agree to a licence.

      I wonder if any of companies do the same thing?

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    43. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      No I shouldn't, since I don't own the window. However, I most definitely should be allowed to throw a brick through my own window.

      I realize I can't do anything I want with the software, but that doesn't mean there's nothing I can do with it other than what the copyright holder allows me to do.

      What do you think would happen if an author came after me if I edited my copy of his book for my own amusement? Or translated it into a different language (for my own use)? Or stopped it from becoming unusable by copying it from an old, disintegrating copy to a new one? What would happen is that he'd be laughed out of court!

      Now, why should software have different, special privilages? Why can't I edit my copy (i.e., change the source code) for my own amusement? Why can't I translate it into a different language (i.e., reimplement it in Scheme or something) for my own use? Why can't I stop it from becoming unusable (i.e., port it from the original obsolete platform to a new one)?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    44. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Billly+Gates · · Score: 4, Informative

      As much as Microsoft and the other big software companies would like you to believe, EULA's are non legally binding documents so in essence you did purchase the product.

      You need a notary to witness you sign it or a laywer present for a real contract document.

      Unless you specifically sign the document in writing with a notary or Lawyer present as a witness its non valid.

      No one has ever took a software company to court over this its currently a gray area.

      Big businesses who buy corporate licenses actually have lawyers and notaries present so the licenses there are valid.

      Just because the CD is copyrighted does not mean you own your purchase.

      Most places like CompUSA will charge you a 15% restocking fee or will refuse to let you return it since the package is opened.

      You may want to read the news with retailers refusing returns if you return items frequently. That is another penalty that will happen as a result.

    45. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by lowrydr310 · · Score: 1
      I'm completely lost here, as I'm not familiar with Steam. I bought the original Half-Life and played it a long time. I also played Counter-Strike, but one day I went to play and it told me I needed Steam to run it, so I stopped playing and never bothered to install it.

      All the software I ever purchased has worked the same. I buy a box with a CD or two (or five) and some books, then I install the software on my machine and run it whenever I want.

      If I walked into BestBuy tonight and bought Half-Life 2, what would be different than what I'm used to? Are the CDs useless? Perhaps I have a dialup connection. Will I have to wait two days for something to download before I can play? What about this crap of HL2 connecting to a server when each level loads? What if don't ever hook my machine up to the internet after the initial registration?

    46. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      That reminds me.

      I wonder if I could stamp an envelope with some text on the outside saying by opening the letter you agree to the license inside and give it to my ex.

      Inside the envelope is a document giving all her property and money to me. Same principle right?

    47. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      Possibly off-topic but, the three Blizzard games I have here (Warcraft III, StarCraft Diablo II) have warnings on the boxes that you will need to agree to a licence.

      I wonder if any other companies do the same thing?

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    48. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Also under Valve's own words of only buying a right to play the game, in essence they can not ban you from steam.

      If you bought the cd then you purchased a right to play the game in which they are denying you.

      It seems there is a double standard on what is software and who owns it depending on its use which favors the software industry.

    49. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by PriceIke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does it say on the box that you must have a working internet connection to play the game? Just curious.

      How would the game authenticate itself without said internet connection? And is the game playable without authentication?

      --
      It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
    50. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Sorry Sandra, but the law infact contradicts your view of the situation. The law is very clear on the matter of consumer rights of copyrighted works and the validity of contracts where no explicit acceptance occurs.

      All you are doing is perpetuating corporate propaganda from those what would like to change the state of things for their own personal benefit.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    51. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by jackelfish · · Score: 1

      Hardly apples to oranges. According to the law, the software is not yours and therefore you can not do as you wish with it. The CD, manual and cardboard box are physical entities and are yours to do with as you wish. According to the law, the book is yours and you can write in it, tear out the pages or use it to heat your house. The key difference here is that the ideas are not yours and you can not use them as you wish, without the authors permission. Software is not a physical thing, neither are the words in a book as they flow into your head through your eyes. You buy a book to read, that does not mean that you can rent it out after you are finished. This is where the idea of property becomes blured and why if the world were a perfect place and people did not copy software, or books, or movies, or music we would not have ELUAs or DRM, or photocopiers and printers that do not copy money.

      --
      "When Nature Calls We All Shall Drown" Johan Edlund
    52. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Kehvarl · · Score: 0

      You actually aren't bound by the EULA just by purchasing the software and starting the install process so you can read it. you -are- bound by it after you click "I Agree," and you can't do that without purchasing the box with the software, opening the box (and thus making it unreturnable to the store in most cases), and starting the install process.

      If you were to read the EULA and disagree, then it should be possible for you to contact the publusher and indicate your disagreement. They would then, in all likelihood, provide you with an address to which ship the product, and then they would, again in all likelihood, issue you a refund for the cost of the item (they may require proof of purchase first).

      This process is probably legal under the current contract law.

    53. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't realize that warez ppl don't care one bit about this. There always will be a way to crack a game, and it will always be easy to download it and apply it. Valve pulled that shit off with steam, fine, wait 1 week and some workaround will be found for the pirates to play again.

      The only people that are upset is people who want to BUY their games, but only get a license that can get cancelled on a whim by the publisher. And morons like you who support those practice only makes it worse... And the day they decide to cancel your account, you will realize that it is too late to protest, and maybe you should have done it before it affects your little person...

    54. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by stanmann · · Score: 1
      No I shouldn't, since I don't own the window. However, I most definitely should be allowed to throw a brick through my own window.
      and neither the manufacturer of the brick or window can prohibit you from this use.
      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    55. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Appearantly your spending money but have no idea what you're buying...

      Seriously, have you ever seen an advertisment for ANY software sold in retail stores that says: "Get your own license for XXX today!". No, of course not. You see: "But XXX today!" Even on the manufactures web sites, they say: Buy it now! Honestly, software companies really can't claim that they are selling licensing when people try to return, resell or otherwise do something that the publisher doesn't like, and at the same time advertise that you can buy the game.
    56. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by badasscat · · Score: 1

      As offered here, IF the box mentions any sort of "By using this software..." kind of message on the outside of the box then the buyer is at fault.

      Not necessarily. Federal law says any information that's "material" to a consumer's buying decision must be "clear and conspicuous".

      Here is an article that talks about this - the relevant part is about 2/3 the way down.

      '"The FTC would not comment on our readers' fine print. However, "Consumers shouldn't have to use a magnifying glass to read important terms and conditions of any offer, " says Timothy J. Muris, FTC chairman. "Burying important terms in mouseprint is illegal, unethical, and ultimately bad business." He pledged to take action against offenders.'

      I would say that most consumers, buying a box containing pretty much anything, would think when they pony up their money that they are buying not just the box but also the contents of the box. It would seem to me, then, that the license terms, or at least the fact that there is a license, is "material" information that's necessary for consumers to make an informed purchase decision. Therefore, if that information is not clearly and conspicuously displayed on the box, the consumer would have legal recourse if they decided they did not agree to the license upon installing the game and could not get their money back immediately.

      From what I understand from other posts, this information is not clear and conspicuous on the box, and therefore Valve is in violation of federal law.

      Anyone who's downloaded the game via Steam remember if the EULA is displayed before or after providing your CC#? Or if, at least, there's some sort of checkbox saying you agree to the linked terms and conditions before clicking the submit button? If not, seems to me that would be a violation of law as well.

      I don't know how or if this would affect these 20,000 people who had their accounts shut off (it probably wouldn't), but it would affect somebody who bought the game and then decided they didn't like the license afterwards. Valve needs to put this info on the box. They also need to say the product requires activation on the box. I know other software publishers don't do this, but as this is a fairly new concept I just don't think any companies have been sued for it yet. But they will be eventually, as it's definitely material information.

      (I know EULA's themselves have been challenged and have been upheld in courts - that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about providing customers with information prior to purchase informing them of both the existence of a EULA and the requirement of product activation. They can still be required to agree to the EULA upon installing the product.)

      There may be other laws Valve is violating with the 20,000 accounts they've disabled, though. They can't, for example, take away products you've legally purchased because you stole a different product. That would be equivalent to the RIAA wiping your hard drive remotely because they found one illegal MP3 on it. Or the police confiscating your legally purchased Corvette and Mustang because the 350Z on your lot was listed in their database as stolen.

      I don't know exactly what their EULA says, if there's some clause in there that says violation of the license for one product is equivalent to violation of the license for all products you own. I honestly doubt there is, but even if there is I'm not sure it'd hold up in court. No EULA can overturn federal, state, or local law. All a EULA can do is say "this is the law and this is how we're applying it to this product". They can't make up their own laws in a EULA. So if consumer laws protect customers from having products confiscated that have nothing to do with a crime that's been committed, as many states do, then the EULA is not going to be able to override that.

    57. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you haven't read the steam forums where people are whining about a mom/dad/cousin/mailman using a crack on their computer and them being innocent. Valve didn't just up and decide to piss off 20,000 people, they made a smart decision. If your company noticed that 20,000 people broke their usage agreement (by trying to steal/infringe copyright/whatever) wouldn't you be negligent for not taking action? Valve has support and has invited people to contact them, sure it'll take time to get back to them but these people who are cut off DID violate the Steam TOS.

    58. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The key difference here is that the ideas are not yours and you can not use them as you wish, without the authors permission.

      You. Are. Dumb. Tell me that I can read a book but I can't quote funny passages among my friends. Tell me that I can read a book on building a house but can't ever actually build a house. Tell me more fucking lies you idiot.

      The author has the right to be secure knowing their work will not be copied and redistributed. Beyond that, the author has next to no control. Which is fine. Why should the author worry, so long as no redistribution takes place?

      You buy a book to read, that does not mean that you can rent it out after you are finished.

      Now you are trying to blur the lines of reality. You can take that book and you can re-sell it. No, you can't make yourself a copy before you re-sell it. BFD. You can lend it (probably not for profit) as the book is your PROPERTY. Someone else can read it, absorb that knowledge, and then build a fucking house themselves, if that's what the book is about.

      Jeez, I have to wonder what world you're from. If you think a person should have total control over their ideas, then that person should never ever ever put their words to paper. Words published are ideas spread.

    59. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Yes, you cannot perform the works publicly, but you can perform them privately in your home, or privately in public(using headphones for example)ASCAP.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    60. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did read them, and this is exactly my point. These people are kids(KIDS FFS! Will somebody think of the children!) who DID purchase the game, and for some reason monkeyed around with the crack. Be it that they did it because they can, because their cousin forced them to, because they had trouble with something, or, god forbid, just because they are kids, we will never know. Meanwhile, the people who didn't purchase the game are slightly annoyed that they have to wait a week or two to play HL2 again. The kids who own the game though, for which the 50$ needed to buy it was maybe 3 months allowance or even their christmas gift in advance for the year, they are hosed.

      So in retrospect, the pirates don't lose anything except 1-2 weeks of play, the customers lose their money.

      This is the thing. Valve would be completely right to take action, that is disable the infringing cd keys. Disabling legit cd keys of ppl just because they happened to enter an illegal one at some point IS going too far, and it should make you jump in your seat in indignation instead of supporting it.

    61. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by demi · · Score: 1
      Fine, but the thing is you don't know that until you open the damn box. This is the root of the problem.

      I'm not sure that it is. I don't know that I'd feel or think any different if the EULA was printed on the outside of the box. Just like those signs that read "Enter at your own risk" I don't think the EULA constitutes a contract, however much the publisher wants you to think it does; I think they are offering something for sale that you have the right to use, whatever the EULA says.

      --
      demi
    62. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Ithika · · Score: 1
      According to hallflife2.net, which styles itself as "the definitive source for Half Life 2", the requirements for the game are as follows:

      Minimum Requirements

      • 1.2 GHz Processor
      • 256MB RAM
      • DirectX 7 level graphics card
      • Windows 2000/XP/ME/98
      Recommended System
      • 2.4 GHz Processor
      • 512MB RAM
      • DirectX 9 level graphics card
      • Windows 2000/XP
      So the answer to that would be a big fat no. Unless the box says anything different then a) Micheal was 100% relevant with his editorial comment; b) Valve/Vivendi (whoever's behind the draconian copy protection/spyware mechanisms) have been very underhand in their dealings with the public; and c) there are going to be a lot of people out there who don't have an Internet connection and find, when they get the box home, they don't have a game either!
    63. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by maximilln · · Score: 1

      you bought a license to run the bits on a CD

      Will you trolls give up on this "licensing" thing already? It's a fancy word for a rental. Valve is renting the game to you. The only reason why trolls want to use the fancy license jargon is so they can campaign for a federal offense rather than breach of a rental contract.

      Piss off trolls. The whole concept of licensing intellectual property is hogwash meant to feed the attorneys. Either you sell it, or you don't.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    64. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      No sort of legal contract can be agreed to without seeing it. Full stop.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    65. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by CodeMonkey4Hire · · Score: 1

      Not at all. She has to be able to read the agreement or it can't be binding. The EULA we are talking about is more like those checks you get in the mail where on the back it says "if you cash this check then we 0wn you." Kind of like that check I got yesterday for $5000.75 that if you cash it turns into a loan with 22% interest! I promptly ripped it up, thereby not accepting their agreement. Besides how would you [legally] even know if she had opened it?

      --

      Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
    66. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      Wow, you got that all almost completely wrong.

      When you buy software, you are buying licenses to use the software.

      That's what the software companies want you to think, but unless you're signing a contract (or are in a state where laws have been passed making EULAs enforceable), when you buy software, you are buying a product & can do what the law allows you to do with any product you buy. That includes reverse engineering and/or applying cracks to the product that you have purchased, since you never signed a contract saying that you couldn't.

      Of course, without a contract, copyright law prohibits you from giving a copy of the information contained in your product to anyone else, but it doesn't say anything about what else you can do with or to your own product.

      Even the GPL (GNU General Public License) refers to granting permission (via the license) for you to modify the software, provided you adhere to certain requirements.

      Wrong again. The GPL grants permission for you to _redistribute_ the software, as long as you adhere to the requirements. You can use & modify the software all you want without agreeing to the GPL, but if you don't agree to the GPL's terms, then under normal copyright law, you are not allowed to redistribute the product.

    67. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by farnz · · Score: 1
      Also, here in the UK we have laws against unfair contract terms; even if a software supplier convinced a court that an EULA was a valid contract, they'd still have to show that either:
      1. I had the chance to negotiate the contract terms without pressure, and chose not to do so (so no "I Agree" buttons unless I can edit the text).
      2. Had a reasonable man been put in my position, then given the chance to negotiate contract terms, they would have accepted the contract as-is.
    68. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      You don't understand.

      When a person buys something, they then own it. A contract changing that would need to be entered into (i.e. signed, with witnesses) before the sale took place. If there's an EULA in a box of software, it just some more paper that the buyer owns - not a legally binding contract.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    69. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Read the agreement. It says, in very plain terms, SOFTWARE IS LICENSED, NOT SOLD. Which means you have purchased a license to run the software.

      What agreement? Point me to an EULA that has passed msuter in a court of law. I buy the software for cash. When I open up the package and it blathers on about licensing, it isn't offering me anything, as I already have the software. I then click buttons until it works.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    70. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1
      Your "rights" are spelled out by society as a whole and the law states that you purchase a license to run software and do not own the code.

      Ummm...no it doesn't, unless you've signed a contract limiting your own rights to do what you want with something you've purchased, or if you're living in one of the states that has passed laws that make EULAs enforceable. If you're not affected by either of these things, then you can do anything you want with/to your product as long as you don't violate copyright law.

    71. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      What law is this? I'm pretty sure no such law actualy exists.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    72. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      ASCAP. That sounds about right. I like ASPCA better though. ;-)

    73. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by stanmann · · Score: 1

      you can even AFAICT, use small speakers in public if your intent is NOT performance, ie a small "transistor" radio. Or you could read the book aloud on a bus. Standing on a box with a megaphone might be prohibited, but softly reading aloud to oneself or a small child is implicitly permitted.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    74. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Drachemorder · · Score: 1
      Possibly off-topic but, the three Blizzard games I have here (Warcraft III, StarCraft Diablo II) have warnings on the boxes that you will need to agree to a licence.

      I wonder if any of companies do the same thing?

      Yes, I've seen the warning on other games as well. I think I saw it on an EA Sports game, or perhaps one of the Total War games.

    75. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by qeveren · · Score: 1

      I assure you that the box has no such message printed on the outside of it.

      The closest it comes is stating that an Internet connection is required for play. Nothing more.

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    76. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh DAMN!

      He straight up said your point was MOOT!

      That's gotta BURN!!!

    77. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Contracts are subject to the law. If a contract provision contravenes the law, then that portion (and if poorly written, perhaps the entire contract) is invalid. If the license states that you cannot reverse-engineer it, then you are legally prohibited from doing so, unless the law allows for it (which I believe it does for certain purposes, but not for all).

      The EULA is the contract. Software companies are largely nervous about testing the validity of click-through licenses, because there's no signature on the bottom line. Existing software license violation prosecutions are almost entirely based on large-scale purchases where there is a signature on the contract because these are far easier to win. I'm not sure there are any states where EULAs are specifically stated to be invalid; I can't imagine any company selling their software in those states.

      The GPL grants permission for you to _redistribute_ the software, as long as you adhere to the requirements. You can use & modify the software all you want without agreeing to the GPL, but if you don't agree to the GPL's terms, then under normal copyright law, you are not allowed to redistribute the product.

      That's what I said. 'You can modify the software, provided you adhere to certain requirements.' Spelling out for you what I thought was clearly implied, those requirements include providing information on which files have changed, naming the original author(s), and making available the source code if you intend to redistribute it. Those requirements do not apply if you do not intend to redistribute it.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    78. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, lets say that there is a section in the EULA that says you must leace SecureRom on the system to play the game. However, you don't agree to that and get a crack to remove it (so you don't need the fragile CD in the drive, or can use a copy). You are now banned.

      The EULA may not be legally enforceable, but you are still banned. Take lot of work to get un-banned.

      Similarly, reselling. If there is no deactivation, someone using your old game won't be able to run it.

      Nice, eh?

    79. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by bnenning · · Score: 1

      If you brought software, then you would have the rite to copy, modify and distribute as you like.

      Not at all. The books that I buy are mine. I own them, but I can't copy and redistribute them because I don't own the *copyright*.

      The same applies to books CD's paintings, basically any kind of intelectual property, but in those cases the licence is more standard, so you don't read a EULA every time. You can read the book, you can resell it, but you can't publish your own edition.

      Again, that has nothing to do with licenses, only with copyright law. If I buy a hammer, I can't hit someone on the head with it because of laws against assault and battery. That doesn't mean the hammer isn't mine or that I only have a "license to use" it.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    80. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by bnenning · · Score: 1

      Point me to an EULA that has passed msuter in a court of law.

      Unfortunately, in ProCD v. Zeidenberg it was ruled that the EULA terms were enforceable. In nearly all cases EULAs make a mockery of contracts and consumers rights, so I'm hoping that ruling can be overturned somehow.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    81. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Satertek · · Score: 1

      Vivendi is the one you should be mad at. The required the CD to be in the drive, and they made the boxed copies. It would have good of them to put a notice about online authentication and Steam on the box.

    82. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by |/|/||| · · Score: 1
      Exactly.

      I don't license software, I buy it. Maybe the publisher thinks I'm licensing it, but that's their own delusion.

      Valve thinks that they can sell me a book will a homing beacon and a self destruct device in it. Sorry, I'll just skip the game. I would have bought it, too - I've actually been anticipating HL2 for years. Oh well, maybe they'll fix it.

      --
      [javac] 100 errors
    83. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by |/|/||| · · Score: 1
      I don't consider EULAs to be contracts. If I did, I probably wouldn't accept them. As it is, I don't bother to read them at all.

      I buy software. If a piece of software could only be "licensed" under a real contract, then it would really have to be worth my while. If the publisher wants me to sign away some of my rights to the software before I can use it, then I won't buy it unless there is no other alternative.

      Yes, I realize that the publisher already considers the EULA to take away some of my rights, but if they want them they'll have to be more forceful than that. Valve is applying some technological firepower to that end, and as a result I won't ever buy their product. :(

      --
      [javac] 100 errors
    84. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Megaweapon · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but the general point to part of this thread is to simply say that michael's editorializing was unnecessary and stupid. Apart from some idiots that may not realize what the difference is between owning and licensing is, if Valve is violating the law then get the law after them, else they have every right to kick pirates off of their network.

      --
      I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
    85. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Megaweapon · · Score: 1

      You buy a book, you can read it, loan it to a friend, tear it up, or shread it and eat it for fiber intake. It's your book. Duh. However, you can't take the text in the book and re-print another book with your name on it. That's copyright violation. The game CD is yours. You can do with the physical media what you will. You can't however redistribute it particuarly a cracked version. I don't get what the big fuss is: Valve wants to boot pirates and michael tosses some mindless editorializing in the article writeup.

      --
      I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
    86. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by sekicho · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but you're wrong. A signature is not necessary for a binding contract. A binding contract does not even have to be written. A contract can be made through e-mail, or over the phone, or between stalls in a men's room, and it's valid as long as it meets the legal criteria (that is, someone offers something for exchange, someone else takes it, and something is given in return). This is one of the first things you learn in law school (assuming contracts is a first semester course).

      The real issue is whether an EULA is part of the terms of the contract to buy the software, since the consumer doesn't find out about it until the deal is (apparently) concluded. There have been many cases over, for instance, terms placed inside computer boxes, or exculpatory clauses on the back of parking lot receipts and stadium tickets.

      Courts have been divided over this issue: more conservative judges have ruled that EULA-type clauses are binding if the consumer does not return the software, while other judges have ruled that the EULA is not part of the contract and is therefore not enforcable in court.

      However, the fact that the EULA is not signed and notarized does NOT mean that it is not a contract. Signing and notarizing only makes it easier to prove that the contract existed if a problem has to be litigated (it's also mandatory, by statute, for some transactions such as real estate deals).

      Companies only get away with including EULA's because consumers rarely have the time, money, or expertise to challenge them.

    87. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Megaweapon · · Score: 1

      If there is no available EULA to read for some software you are thinking of buying, then you don't buy the software if you don't want to risk disagreeing with the EULA. Simple as that. Now, if they are violating existing laws or you think there should be a law for this, then go contact law enforcement or your local corrupt politician. I actually don't like the return policies for software products at most stores, so I'm not about to buy software that I'm thinking I would have a problem with the licensing for.

      --
      I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
    88. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Megaweapon · · Score: 1

      Again, if you haven't had the opportunity to read the EULA, then there's no way to know whether you would agree to it or not.

      Exactly! Don't buy the product. If Valve is breaking a law then go contact your state's Attorney General or someone, but people shouldn't act like they have some right to violate a ELUA simply because they couldn't read it when they bought some software product.

      --
      I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
    89. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by maximilln · · Score: 1

      Don't buy the product

      A perfect argument in a perfect world. Since the world is imperfect, and the falsely engineered success will sway the opinions of otherwise logical people, it is necessary to campaign against these things beyond boycotts.

      but people shouldn't act like they have some right to violate a ELUA simply because they couldn't read it when they bought some software product

      Who said EULAs had a right to dictate any terms? Terms of sale are negotiated at the counter. After the sale I, as the consumer, own it. Any court rulings which say otherwise are flawed and should be overturned.

      FACE REALITY: If you make a product which is easily copied then people will copy it without asking you first. Wake up tomorrow and there are no copyright laws. Right, wrong, or indifferent we simply do not waste taxpayer money chasing these concepts. Deal with it. You have every right to quit making products.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    90. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      You're mistaking packaging with content. The original book is as much yours as is your shiny new game CD. The access to the content is where the issue is.

      You buy the book, you get to read the content. You buy the CD, you find out you actually got a license to play the game in it, if the company that sold it to you sees it fit.

    91. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Danse · · Score: 1

      If I didn't agree to the EULA, and how could I since I can't read it and the box doesn't even mention that it exists, then I'm not bound by it. It's that simple. I can say that by reading this post you agree to give me all your money. That doesn't make it enforceable.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    92. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Whether you consider EULAs to be contracts is irrelevant. The law may say otherwise, and the courts are the deciding arbiter. If they are found to be binding, then you've accepted all of the limitations, rights, and responsibilities that have been legally assigned to you when you accepted those contracts.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    93. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by CyberKnet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I once had this book that had a lock on the outside of it. Every time you wanted to open the book, you had to insert this dumb little key. It was like a diary or something.

      One day I had this bright idea to use my scissors (sp: dmca violating device) to cut the lock off so I didnt have to insert that dumb key all the time to open it. Imagine my surprise when I notice that the ink on the paper had all disappeared!

      0h nos! My w3rdz 4re b33n st0l3n!

      Now I cant read the book, it's as good as a doorstop. I called the publisher, and they said "Hey, man, you only bought a license to read the book IF you use the key to open it! Even if you glue the lock back on, you still lose, space cadet!".

      But they didnt count that you couldn't see that it was a license until you unlocked it the first time, and there on the first page was "By opening this book, you have agreed that..." ... nobody would take the book back cause it was opened.

      It was really sad... I dont think I'll ever get over it.

      --
      Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
    94. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      So I could go to a public mens bathroom stall and write a legal agreement claiming I own all their money and assests by them opening the bathroom door?

      I mean get real?

      How can you be sure that I agreed to the contract? If I did not review it and agree to it and there is proof then it is not binding.

      I am disappointed that a recent court ruling went in favor of an EULA. I was under the impression Microsoft made them up to trick people into thinking their are buying contracts in order for Microsoft to flex its muscle.

      Still I agree the courts are mixed and personally do not see how this is binding.

      Companies use EULA's to cover their asses. In business people actually have a real legal document signed by the software companies for massive licensing. That I could understand.

      But what Valve is doing is borderline illegal and highly unethical.

      You should own software just like you own your car. WHats next? You only bought a right to drive it? After all your car is copyrighted right?

      People should own what they buy and this BS has gone too far.

    95. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Megaweapon · · Score: 1

      No, the aparent problem is the availability of the EULA. The software code isn't "yours" any more than the code to MS Windows is "yours" when you install XP or whatever.

      --
      I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
    96. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Megaweapon · · Score: 1

      I'm more than happy to face reality: Reality is copyright law. Guess what: I'm not a big fan of how it is implemented either, but that doesn't make it any less real.

      "Wake up tomorrow and there are no copyright laws."

      What are you smoking? Copyright will live for a long time, despite what a bunch of geeks on a nerd blog wish.

      --
      I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
    97. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Megaweapon · · Score: 1

      You may not be bound to the EULA when you buy it. You are bound to it when you install it. Until the laws change then that's the fact. Guess what, I'm more anti-EULA then you might think, but I also live in reality, and that reality makes it clear that the current law makes certain things so, and just becuase I don't agree with them doesn't make my possible desires to do what I want legal.

      --
      I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
    98. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      For those downloading and installing cracks, etc.. then expect for your account to be banned.

      If you write in the margins of the book, should the publisher come to your house and take away the book? Downloading and installing cracks aren't illegal. So the company is banning you from using something you bought, possibly using terms not disclosed until you bought it, to prevent you from doing legal things with property you own.

    99. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Fryboy · · Score: 1

      Does it say on the box that you must have a working internet connection to play the game?
      Yes.

      And is the game playable without authentication?

      No.

    100. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >You may not be bound to the EULA when you buy it.
      >You are bound to it when you install it.

      The "problem" is that after you have bought it, no one can force you into agreeing to something that is yours. By preventing you to use something you have bought if you don't agree to a bunch of things, they are trying to do so. Imagine if buy a coffee machine and when you get home and want to plug it in, there is a piece of paper claiming that by using the coffee machine you agree to a bunch of stuff, including that you don't own it at all, just have a license to use it and it is still theirs. In addition you can only use coffee they aprove. WOuld that be acpetable? Of course not!

    101. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >You're buying the media, but not the words.

      Says who? What you do buy is a copy of the book and the words in it.

      >The ownership of the words contained therein
      >remain with someone else.

      The COPYRIGHT to the is hold by someone else. That does not mean I own a specific copy of them. Ownership of copyright is completely separated from owning individual copies of the work.

      >You cannot sell them as your own, though you can
      >sell the media.

      I can sell MY copy of the work I have bought. This exception to distribution rights of copyright is handled somewhat different by different countries copyright laws. I believe in USA it goes under the first sale doctrine for example.

      >There is an implied agreement between purchaser
      >(you) and seller (ultimately the copyright
      >holder) that you will not break copyright law and
      >use it inappropriately.

      Huh? It is the nature of laws that you can't break them, has nothing to do with you and the dealer, you can make up whatever deal you want, laws still apply.

      >The only way you are can truly "buy software" is
      > to purchase the ownership rights of the
      >software.

      You are confusing owning the copyright with owning the specific copyies of the copyrighted work. It is two separate things.

    102. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >No, you buy LICENSES.

      >Read the agreement. It says, in very plain terms,
      >SOFTWARE IS LICENSED, NOT SOLD.

      What agreement? Did you make any such agreement in the shop? If not, how can it cover your purchase? It is a contract forced onto you after you have bought something that basically tries to reovke the purchase you have made.

      >And when you run the installer, almost always you
      >have to click through to AGREE to this.

      If it DID cover thepurchase for some magical reason, why would you ever have to agree to it (again)? You are using the agreement as the reason for why you need to agree to it to start with. Before you agree to it, it is irrelevant what it says, hence it can't regulate the nessecity to agree to it.

    103. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Babbster · · Score: 1
      Is Vivendi responsible for maintenance of the Steam system? (That was rhetorical - they're not.) If not for Valve's damned Steam, Vivendi would have put out Half-Life 2 WITHOUT online CD-key verification (at least until trying to join an online match).

      While I'm aware it will make no difference, I've decided to forego what I'm sure would be the pleasure of playing Half-Life 2 on the PC. I've done so because I consider Steam to be a pox (verified by this incident). It's one thing to be stuck with Windows XP's online verification (which I also dislike) because that OS is necessary for my purposes. But a game with the same kind of oppression I can live without. I might give the game a chance when it reaches consoles (yes, Xbox Live has its restrictions but I know that when I buy a game I'll be able to play it until I no longer have a working console). While it won't be in its best graphical form, it'll still be better than installing Valve's crapfest on my PC.

    104. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Dumb people are entitled to use the things they purchase too.

      I reject the license agreement on its face.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    105. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that you are free to copy, but not redistribute. Of course, by copying you are probably violating DMCA, so it wouldn't be legal.

    106. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Pofy · · Score: 1

      Why the obsession with what is printed on the box? Does text printed on something you buy automatically turns into a binding contract? Should I look under my car next time I buy one to see if there is some text there I agree to by buying thr car? What about me buying something over the net, or phoning or recieving it as a gift. Perhaps it differes by country but I have yet to see a law in a country that says any text printed onto something you buy is also automatically a contract you agree to.

    107. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >No, the aparent problem is the availability of
      >the EULA. The software code isn't "yours" any
      >more than the code to MS Windows is "yours" when
      >you install XP or whatever.

      You are confusing ownership of the copyright of thw work with ownership of individual copies of the work. One can own specific copies without owning the copyright. When you buy software, you buy a specific copy and of ocurse not the copyright, no one claims that. You can then do whatever you want with your copy, including using it, playing it, reading it or whatever it is you do with it. You can't do anything that copyright law forbids though, but that is making new copies, distributing them, making public performances and such. Use is NOT such a restricted act.

    108. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >If you brought software, then you would have the
      >rite to copy, modify and distribute as you like.

      You, as so many others, are confusing owning and buying the copyright to a work and owning and buying individula copies of the work. To be able to do the things you mentioned, you need to own the copyright. For everything else, you do not, you just have to own (or even have access) to an individual copy.

    109. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >According to the law, the software is not yours
      >and therefore you can not do as you wish with
      >it.

      What laws? Copyright laws for certain does not say so. You are confusing owning the copyright to owning copies. Owning the copyright, gives you a few exclusive rights of which creating new copies, distributing them and making public performances are the main ones. For that you need to own the copyright. For everything else (including use, read, play, whatever), you do NOT need to own the copyright or even have the permision of the copyright owner, you just need to own an individual copy (or have access to one).

    110. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Licenses, contracts and other types of agreements aren't part of copyright law. Besides, the Adobe vs. Softman clearly states that software is sold (i.e you claim title of ownership) not licensed.

    111. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is already against contract law, don't you get it? There is no consideration[1], therefore the EULA is not a valid contract.

      [1] I pay money at the counter in the store, and in consideration I get a computer video game (that it's playable is implicitt). Then I go home, start installing and face the EULA. What is my consideration this time? I've already gotten a playable computer video game. What more are the they offering me? Nothing? Then why would I part with my rights?

    112. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by Satertek · · Score: 1

      Online authentication works perfectly for me, having a CD check (which is unneeded with Steam), is very annoying.

    113. Re:Michael's whining is irrelevant by CatOne · · Score: 1

      You're always free to break it, and if they deactivate your account, contest that fact in court.

      Just like if you get a traffic ticket, you're free to contest that in court.

      To say the license is "just a piece of paper..." well that's a bit naieve. But you go keep thinking that way. Did you insist that Gore won in 2000 as well?

  80. Circumventing copyprotection is often white-hat by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Before the DMCA, I did it all the time. I do not own a big harddrive for no reason. One of the reasons to have it is that I can do a full install of all the games I get (though these days most games require a full install). I want to install it, put the CD back in the box, and not worry about it. It seems really stupid to me to have to give it a CD so it can do a little check just to let me play. Hence, I'd crack the game so that it would just run.

    Of course that's not legal anymore, than's to the DMCA, but it still is in the rest of the world and you can see why peopel would want to do it. I don't really care that people also use cracks for illegal purposes, something shouldn't be illegal just because it has an illegal use. MOST things that have legal uses also have illegal uses.

    1. Re:Circumventing copyprotection is often white-hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      "MOST things that have legal uses also have illegal uses."

      So true. In fact, I think one would be hard pressed to come up with something that does not have illegal uses.

      For example:
      a pen - stabbing someone in the eye with the pen;
      mayonnaise - drowning a person by holding their head in a five gallon vat of mayonnaise.

    2. Re:Circumventing copyprotection is often white-hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In related news, United Airlines have announced that passengers will no longer be permitted to bring five-gallon vats of mayonnaise onto airplanes. "They were over the hand-baggage limit anyway," a spokeswoman said, "and the risk of terrorist drownings has forced us to crack down."

    3. Re:Circumventing copyprotection is often white-hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didnt think of that. i will sue the mayo people and switch to mustard!

  81. CD-cheat? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I was actually planning to buy it, even with all the crap about Steam, until I read this:

    The number of people who actually had bought HL2 and used the CD key cheat

    CD key cheat? You mean, disabling the CD check? Otherwise I don't know what the hell they're talking about, but if I read this right you can't even disable the CD check. If that's the case, I'm definitely not buying this game, if I play it at all I'll be playing single player only, because I'll be playing a copy. It's not right to control what I am allowed to do with my own game if it doesn't involve cheating. If the only mechanism you have for controlling cheating is ensuring that the binary is not tampered with, your cheating prevention system is inadequate in any case.

    Now, if I read that wrong, the "valve spokesman" is still a moron, because "cd cheat" doesn't mean anything.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:CD-cheat? by Tebriel · · Score: 1

      No, he was referring to using a pirated key with a legit copy.

      --
      The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
    2. Re:CD-cheat? by demi · · Score: 1

      I believe your interpretation is correct--the so-called "cheat" here is to circumvent the requirement that the HL2 game be in the drive. Now, in my opinion everyone who bought the game would pretty much want that. What if the physical CDs get damaged? What if in a couple of years you want to play on a laptop, which has a CD drive sometimes and an extra battery sometimes? Etc.

      --
      demi
    3. Re:CD-cheat? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In that case someone should tell him that those are called "keygens" (aka key generators, for anyone reading this that doesn't speak leet.) Not "CD cheats". Unless, of course, you're talking about legitimate codes being used by someone other than their rightful owner.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:CD-cheat? by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      The game does not require the CD in the computer to play.

    5. Re:CD-cheat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you bought it, it does.

    6. Re:CD-cheat? by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      I bought it and it doesn't require a CD. Then again I bought it off steam. Once your registered on steam though, there is no reason for you ever needing a CD again.

    7. Re:CD-cheat? by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      I bought it from steam and it doesn't.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    8. Re:CD-cheat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you downloaded it off the website, like many did, you still bought it. Downloaded copies do not need the CD loaded.

    9. Re:CD-cheat? by Wescotte · · Score: 1

      The game does not require the CD in the computer to play.

      If you purchased the retail version at your local software dealer then yes it requires a HL2 cd in the drive when you startup the game but a steam purchased copy does not. Very annoying because you still have to login to steam to play the damn thing. So far I'm pretty sure if you have an active internet connection you must login to steam to play even the single player version. Now, I'm on a cable modem so typing in a PW to play a game isn't a huge deal but forcing me to have the CD in at the same time just plain annoys me.

    10. Re:CD-cheat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you have a Steam account you can download H-L 2 to any PC you want, burn back-up copies, etc.

    11. Re:CD-cheat? by notsoanonymouscoward · · Score: 1

      Then you would have downloaded and installed via steam, which has no cd, and thus no cd copy protection. I don't understand how / why a legit user would want / need to use a keygen anyway...

      --
      I ate my sig.
    12. Re:CD-cheat? by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      re-install it via steam should let you not use the CD.

  82. Re:Violating the license for one locks you from al by d.hawk · · Score: 1

    The moral of this story, stealing is wrong. If you steal something from a store, the dont just take that back from you, or make you pay for it...you pay a lot more in court fees to get out of it, or you go to jail....

    again, whats the problem?

  83. Cleared one thing... by dutt · · Score: 1

    At least we now know that the accusations against Valave, for putting out Warez spyware versions of their own game isn't true.
    Phew, let's all take a deep breath. Now that we got that cleared...
    For those of you people getting your accounts shut down and now crying about it... It was coming your way!
    I think Valve did the right thing.

  84. Couldn't complain to Valve by ThePolkapunk · · Score: 1

    I tried to post my complaints about this to Valve on the forums, but it kept on pausing to load every time I turned the corner.

    --
    Dear diary: Today I stuffed some dolls full of dead rats I put in the blender.
  85. Re:Violating the license for one locks you from al by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Violating the license for one locks you from all?

    Just like you wouldn't be allowed to return to Wal-Mart if you shoplifted from it.

    Why aren't they just blocking those users from Half-Life 2 instead of revoking (shall we say "stealing" since they like to mis-use the word too) ligitemately purchased licenses for other products too?

    Hmm, it'd be nice if stealing tangible objects worked that way too. Steal a TV and get caught, and all they do is take the TV back and say "Have a nice day!". Heaven forbid we might actually get punished for using software we stole

    Additionally... there is no possible way to lose access to hundreds of dollars of software through Steam. If you buy the silver package of Half-Life 2 you get HL 2 in addition to every other game available through Steam.

  86. How does it work? by pr0nbot · · Score: 1

    Can anyone post a summary of:

    . what the activation looks like (i.e. what does the user see?)
    . how it works behind the scenes (some kind of key exchange to decrypt vital files?)
    . how the cracks try to get around it

    I've not been following this, and searching for "half life 2 crack" gets me only to dubious warez sites.

    1. Re:How does it work? by Shadwhawk · · Score: 1

      The activation is essentially transparent. You connect to Steam, you double-click Half-Life 2, and it says 'Unlocking content' or something. Then you get to play. This happens just once per installation of the game.
      What's going on is Steam decrypts the game's files (which are encrypted whether you download them or get them on the retail discs).
      As far as I can tell, the 'crack' in the article is actually just a key that someone distributed. There were some 20,000 registrations with that key before Valve shut it down. All the complaints here about no-CD cracks and Steam cracks are seemingly irrelevant to the actual article.

    2. Re:How does it work? by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

      Good job sir, a fine troll.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
  87. Ownership != Activation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People are discovering that when you buy any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really bought anything.

    Actually, even if you buy a product that isn't subject to "activation" you don't own it. The EULA of every commercial product specifies that you've merely puchased a license to run the software on your system.

    Face it, whenever you buy software "you haven't really bought anything." Activation simply allows companies to enforce this prinicple when people breach the license.

    1. Re:Ownership != Activation by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

      I refuse to accept that, and I'll continue living my life ignoring anything that says otherwise.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
  88. ehm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I call bullshit.
    The warez version circumvents the need to connect to Steam in the first place! So they are banning the pirates from something they dont need.

    Hmm perhaps they deleted your account if you tried to run the pirate version of HL2 while having the real Steam running. In that case, you can just create another account - they are free.

  89. if activation is required, then.... by MoFoQ · · Score: 2, Informative

    if activation is required, then why annoy end-users, aka the source of cash-flow for future projects with an ineffective method of protection such as SecuROM. Hell, a majority of those so-called protection schemes are the cause of so many incompatibilities and game crashes.

    Besides, it's probably for Valve for them to drop SecuROM as it's pointless and it costs them money (I believe a percentage of their profits is taken for it's use). If activation is required, why bother and pay for a third-party protection scheme when your in-house developed method works especially when the third-party method can annoy users AND potentially cause bugs?

    Annoying loyal, paying customers is like the BestBuy economics; it'll hurt you in the long run more than it'll help you in any parallel universe.

    1. Re:if activation is required, then.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that it turns out that Valve is doing SecuROM only due to VUG's influence.

      I really don't see them needing the security blanket of no-copy protection on a game which (as they've proved) they can authenticate every copy but the truly ripped ones.

    2. Re:if activation is required, then.... by deesine · · Score: 1


      Congratulations, I'm sure you've just discovered a problem that Valve was completely unaware of: that using some anit-piracy measures annoy paying customers.

      Is it possible that they are aware and decided to implement said measures anyway?

      How "loyal" are customers that side with thieves on protection v.s. convenience issues?

      --
      damaged by dogma
    3. Re:if activation is required, then.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Walmart will not put games without physical copy protection on their shelves. Discussion over.

    4. Re:if activation is required, then.... by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      In a nutshell, because you can still play the game in offline mode.

      It's very easy for you to go around to 100 computers, install HL2 off the DVD, active it, put STEAM in offline mode, then use the no-cd crack.

      Without the no-cd crack, it's much more difficult for you to give the game out to all your friends.

      You could still put your steam account on all their computers, then download hl2 to each of them, and put it in offline mode (downloads dont require the cd). But I think the mass quantity of data you have to download is probably sufficient deterrent to doing this en masse.

    5. Re:if activation is required, then.... by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

      convenience!? if a game doesn't work primarily because of this protection, what choice do the paying customers have if there's a no return on software policy and you can't tell if it'll work on your system unless you try it (catch-22)?

      and apparently, my questioning why valve even bothered to use protection equates to valve not being aware of it. Like adding 2 and 2 and getting 400.

    6. Re:if activation is required, then.... by MoFoQ · · Score: 1
      Without the no-cd crack, it's much more difficult for you to give the game out to all your friends.


      you'll still have to authenticate it.

      And besides, the downloaded version can be "backed up"
    7. Re:if activation is required, then.... by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

      Walmart?! I thought HL2 was too violent for Walmart. I thought it's been slashdotted before that Walmart and really violent games didn't go together.

      Besides, it's Walmart.

      "Physical copy protection"? You mean like Bruno the bouncer? He'll beat the living sh-not (shit and snot) out of you if you try to copy and distribute? Still sounds better than SecuROM, as long as Bruno doesn't interfere with the game itself.

    8. Re:if activation is required, then.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thieves? Where? Is somebody missing their disc? Find another way to "protect" you shit. Don't fuck with paying customers if you expect any loyalty. And quit your whining about the few leaks in your money pipe.

  90. Great Journalism there. by RocketScientist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You said "People are discovering that when you buy any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really bought anything." OK, let's play this game "You bought a product license, you haven't really bought anything". That's not a true statement: You buy the right to use the product, which is the good you paid for. It may not be the good you THOUGHT you paid for, but then again, you do read the end-user licenses, right? All product activation does is enforce the license. Oops...you don't want license enforcement. That's fine. Find another game then. The market will decide if this technology is a good idea or not.

    Umm...more likely, people are discovering when they steal a product with product activation, they haven't stolen anything useful. And later, when they try to cheat playing Counter-Strike, they'll find they can't play anymore. All in all, I don't see the problem here. I quit playing CS a long time ago because of the repeated wallhacks and other cheats, even though I found the game very entertaining. Part of the license compliance that's enforced by Steam is also enforcing anti-cheat measures. I'm 100% in favor of features that keep the playing field honest. And if it gives the guys at Valve more money, well, as far as I'm concerned they've earned it.

    Unlike the vast majority of the people here who don't like Steam, I actually do believe in giving people money for what they produce. I think people deserve to be compensated for their work. I don't think you have the right to deprive people who want compensation for their work of that compensation. And I think the "but I don't like swapping CD's" argument is thin, at best, and more likely it's an outright lie. It's a stupid argument all the way around. If you want to listen to a CD while you play the game, CD-ROM drives are what, $20? Here's a nickel, kid, buy a real computer.

    1. Re:Great Journalism there. by Maul · · Score: 1

      Actually, CD swapping is quite annoying. It isn't annoying enough for me to go out and grab no-cd cracks, since I only have two major games installed right now. For those people who have a large library of games, I can see swapping CDs as a huge annoyance.

      In the past, I used software that allows you to mount an "image" of a CD stored on your HD to play the CD version of Baldur's Gate (which I fully and legally purchased), since that game contained 6 discs. Nowadays, many games will refuse to run if they detect that sort of software installed on your PC.

      I agree that it is "well within the rights" of the game's maker to do these things under the EULA to prevent piracy, but it is quite annoying to be treated like a criminal when you try to play a game you spent $50 on.

      --

      "You spoony bard!" -Tellah

    2. Re:Great Journalism there. by RocketScientist · · Score: 1

      In addition, if all you want to do is avoid cd swapping, then buy the game through Steam and you won't have a problem. If you buy the game online, it doesn't require CD Key validation.

    3. Re:Great Journalism there. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Unlike the vast majority of the people here who don't like Steam, I actually do believe in giving people money for what they produce.

      People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Where did you get this power of ESP you claim to have?

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    4. Re:Great Journalism there. by Godeke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would agree with many of your statements. I have not bought Half Life 2 and will not buy it because of a prior experience with activation based gaming. I dropped a small amount to Real when they came out with Real Arcade. I downloaded a small number of games and played them off and on. Finally, the computer failed and I replaced it. Tossed the old drive in the new machine and found the games didn't work. Called Real and they told me to get bent (short form). Turned out that the games are hardware locked and replacing your hardware invalidated all game purchases. (This was near the product launch, have no idea if it is still so daconian.

      So yes: you "bought" a license. Live with the terms. And vote with your wallet, hopefully *before* you get burned.

      In my opinion, however, the posters statement you quote is a true statement. You didn't buy anything, you *rented* it, and there is a big difference between buying and renting. People should be aware of that difference. A sticker on the box of HL2 that says "you can play this game until: (we go out of business|decide you can't|want to force an upgraded version on you)" would make that a bit more clear.

      --
      Sig under construction since 1998.
    5. Re:Great Journalism there. by demi · · Score: 1
      People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

      That's great. Is that a quote or original? If original, can I quote you?

      --
      demi
    6. Re:Great Journalism there. by justins · · Score: 1
      A sticker on the box of HL2 that says "you can play this game until: (we go out of business|decide you can't|want to force an upgraded version on you)" would make that a bit more clear.

      "You can use this software until we say you can't" is actually a standard term in software EULAs, it's quite explicit. It is usually expressed along the lines of "either party may terminate this contract at any time."
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    7. Re:Great Journalism there. by farnz · · Score: 1

      As it happens, I've been in positions where my only internet access is by mobile phone (at extortionate rates); how do I convert a CD purchase to a Steam purchase without redownloading all the files?

    8. Re:Great Journalism there. by RocketScientist · · Score: 1

      Re-download when you have cheap access and set Steam to offline mode.

    9. Re:Great Journalism there. by farnz · · Score: 1

      So, how do I do that without cheap (unfirewalled) access for 3 years? As an innocent consumer, I'd assume that I could buy the CD, then authenticate with Steam in such a way that I didn't need the CD again. What am I missing?

    10. Re:Great Journalism there. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      I don't know where I saw it, but I didn't make it up myself.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    11. Re:Great Journalism there. by cliffski · · Score: 1

      Ah a sane post at last. I work as a game developer. I know what its like to see your games on emule, and people posting serial codes for a game you worked years to create. Half lfie 2 cost around $40 million dollars to make. Thats a serious investment, and valve are 100% justified in doing what it takes to make sure people who buy the game actually pay for the damned thing.
      As for all this bullshit about "what if i want to play the game is 30 years time and valve go under... whine moan". Get real... will va;ve still be here in 6 months time?
      YES
      will you have gotten your $50 of entertainment from the product by then?
      YES
      HL2 is one of the best games I've played since video games were invented.If your not buying it because you dislike the legalese in some contract, your just cutting off your nose to spite your face.
      Buy the game and quit whineing. If anyone is to blame, its the goddam warez dicks who make this shit neccesary.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    12. Re:Great Journalism there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but then again, you do read the end-user licenses, right?"

      Don't typically read the eula before i buy it, since I CAN'T.

    13. Re:Great Journalism there. by Snaller · · Score: 1

      You said "People are discovering that when you buy any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really bought anything." OK, let's play this game "You bought a product license, you haven't really bought anything". That's not a true statement: You buy the right to use the product, which is the good you paid for.

      This is not a "good" you bought.

      It may not be the good you THOUGHT you paid for, but then again, you do read the end-user licenses, right?

      They don't show it to you in the stores.

      All product activation does is enforce the license. Oops...you don't want license enforcement. That's fine. Find another game then. The market will decide if this technology is a good idea or not.


      The market has decided: 99% think that EULA's are nonsense that are not legally valid and don't agree to anything.

      Unlike the vast majority of the people here who don't like Steam, I actually do believe in giving people money for what they produce. I think people deserve to be compensated for their work.

      Well, i don't think they have a right to get paid over and over and over and over and over and over again for at job done ONCE - if steam was designed such way that each time a copy was sold they reduced the price a bit then perhaps we were on our way to something fair, but as it is - only imoral.

      And I think the "but I don't like swapping CD's" argument is thin, at best, and more likely it's an outright lie.

      That's probably because you lie yourself all the time, liars tend to think everybody lies.

      It's a stupid argument all the way around.

      No, its just an argument you do agree with(Windows seems to freeze everytime it has to spin on the CD to see whats in it, so there is a good reason there as well.)

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    14. Re:Great Journalism there. by kevinadi · · Score: 1

      I have no plan on buying anything from Valve ever again. Simply because their paranoia is getting on my nerves and getting ME to be paranoia about what they install in my computer as well. Games are for entertainment and I don't particularly find reading EULAS or whatnot is entertaining. EULAS are supposed to be common sense, in the theme of I can't pirate this game, I can't keep a copy of it when I sold it, etc. Reading the fine prints before I buy anything is not my idea of a good time. We got the lawyers that we pay lots of money to do that task for us.

      I do believe in giving the producers their money. They definitely earned it. But making ME have to go through such bullshit just feels like a schoolkid lending their toys to you while they look at you with suspicious gaze and with a huge bully standing behind them ready to puch you at the slightest hint. That's not fun for me and to many people.

      As a result of this activation bullshit I stopped playing PC games completely and grabbed a console instead (my xbox and PS2 are not modded, however, so I'm not pirating anything)

    15. Re:Great Journalism there. by Godeke · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm aware of that clause... however it used to mean "we can withdraw support from a product at any time and you can't do anything about it". For example, when a company end of lives a product, that clause prevents them from being sued for lack of support, updates, etc. However, I can pull out my old CDs and install any patched I downloaded and have the last version released of almost any package.

      Except those with activation. Because... there is nobody to activate it. Now if you are a corporation and buy activation based software, you can hammer out a end of life agreement (that is the foundation of contract law: two parties reaching an agreement). As an individual with no negotiation available on the supposed "contract", the EULA enforces an unconscionable provision.

      It will be interesting once a case actually reaches the courts where many consumers are jacked by the untimely death of a company. Something of the magnatude of Intuit going under suddenly leaving all those with Quicken locked out of their financial data. Somehow I don't see the courts buying "we can just up and lock people out" even if the EULA says they can.

      --
      Sig under construction since 1998.
    16. Re:Great Journalism there. by RocketScientist · · Score: 1

      They don't show it to you in the stores.

      Have you looked for an end-user license agreement in a store? Nope. You haven't. Or at least not well. Copied from the Best Buy website:

      Do you offer End User License Agreements on software?

      Do you have information on software End User License Agreements ("EULA")?

      The use of software is often subject to the manufacturer's EULA. If you would like more information about a particular software EULA and its terms, please contact the manufacturer or see its website for details or contact us at:

      Attn: Software End User License Agreement Request Customer Care, BestBuy.com P.O. Box 949 Minneapolis, MN 55440 1-888-BEST BUY (237-8289)

      If you go to bestbuy.com and click on "Software End User License Agreements" at the bottom of the page you'll get that document. So they are available in stores by calling an 800 number or by mail. Or, as mentioned, on the website of the vendor.

      The market has decided: 99% think that EULA's are nonsense that are not legally valid and don't agree to anything.

      The market will decide whether EULA enforcment is good or bad based on how it spends money. Since there has been no rapid decline in the purchase of software with this kind of registration (Windows XP and Office 2003 are flying of the shelves, and so is Half-life 2), I'd suggest that your point is bogus. The market has responded, and it doesn't care, because the market, (you know, the people that actually spend money for products instead of acquiring them illegally) doesn't have a problem with confirmation. The only people who seem to be having problems with EULA enforcement are the folks who don't pay for the software, and they really aren't part of the market. Fortunately, for people in the software business, customers don't decide if the EULA is "nonsense" or not, that's a matter for judges to decide.

      Well, i don't think they have a right to get paid over and over and over and over and over and over again for at job done ONCE

      So, let's see. If someone has a toll bridge, they shouldn't charge the same amount to everyone. They only did the work of building the bridge one time, so they shouldn't be able to leverage that investment to make money over time. They should actually charge less to each person who crosses the bridge. Of course, in order to pay for the bridge the first person to cross would need to pay about a million dollars, so nobody would ever use the bridge, but hey, at least it's not "imoral".

      The next-to-last bit is a stupid ad-hominem attack that doesn't bear responding to. Plus it doesn't make a lot of sense.

      Half-life 2 doesn't freeze when it needs to spin the CD, because it only spins the CD at game startup.
    17. Re:Great Journalism there. by justins · · Score: 1
      Yes, I'm aware of that clause... however it used to mean "we can withdraw support from a product at any time and you can't do anything about it".

      No, it didn't. It's legal meaning has always been that the contract can be ended at any time, and you could lose your "right to use" for the software. It's not a well tested clause, of course...

      that is the foundation of contract law: two parties reaching an agreement

      Well, yes, and that's one reason why EULAs are such a joke anyhow.

      It will be interesting once a case actually reaches the courts where many consumers are jacked by the untimely death of a company. Something of the magnatude of Intuit going under suddenly leaving all those with Quicken locked out of their financial data. Somehow I don't see the courts buying "we can just up and lock people out" even if the EULA says they can.

      Yes, it will be interesting. But what recourse do you have against a dead company in any case? In that regard I agree with those who are skeptical about Steam. The difference is that I'm willing to take the risk. I don't deny that it's a risk.
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    18. Re:Great Journalism there. by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Have you looked for an end-user license agreement in a store?

      Looking would do no good since there are none in the stores. And for it to be a contract one should be presented with at the point of purchase.

      The market will decide whether EULA enforcment is good or bad based on how it spends money.

      No - the market takes into consideration what it can do, that what they are allowed to do under some law. Most everybody know they can get a nocd crack on the internet or from friends and so they ignore the attempts at copyright protection. If they *couldn't* get those, then there would have been an uproar.

      The only people who seem to be having problems with EULA enforcement are the folks who don't pay for the software, and they really aren't part of the market.

      Usupported postulation.

      So, let's see. If someone has a toll bridge, [snip]

      No lets not see - this is essentially strawman argumentation: Just invent something else and attack that. It is not relevant.

      Half-life 2 doesn't freeze when it needs to spin the CD[snip]

      Irrelevant since I didn't mention Half-Life 2

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  91. And since everyone is a lawyer by Vicegrip · · Score: 1

    It's obvious that no one should have trouble understanding the increasingly mind-numbing legalese that make up license agreements.

    The complexity of the legalese doesn't excuse copyright violation, but it is a huge credibility problem for license agreements in my mind. It is impossible for the average person to completely understand the litany of complexe license agreements that so much commercial software contains these days.

    People have so much paper work shoved under their nose these days that it's not feasible for someone to have both the money and time to get a lawyer to review every single purchase they make.

    My opinion is that its time for license agreements to be standardized and for that standard required for a license agreement to be valid. People should be able to understand what they can and can't do without having to melt their brain reading through hundreds of pages of legalese.

    At the very least, if someone can produce a receipt for the purchase of the software, Valve owes it to them to unblock their account.

    --
    Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
  92. Inherant problems with things like Steam. by Maul · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Not to say there aren't positives, but there are a few inherant problems with things like Steam.

    1. Abuse. Hypothetically, let us say that some members of "Clan Uber" are actually friends with people in Valve. Someone online says some mean things about Clan Uber, and then mysteriously finds their Steam account banned the next time they are online.

    Don't think this would happen? If you've ever played Ragnarok Online, this sort of thing happens all the time. There are a few guilds that have formed friendships with the GM staff, and people have been banned mysteriously from the game after "crossing" members of these guilds.

    2. False positives. In their gusto to fight pirates, it is entirely feasable that Valve may make a mistake here and there and leave legit customers banned from Steam.

    3. End of Service. Many people assume that if Valve sees themselves about to go out of business, a patch would be released for HL2 to make it playable without Steam. However, they are in no way obligated to do so. If Valve (and thus Steam) ever shut down, it is possible that all copies of HL2 would be rendered unplayable.

    --

    "You spoony bard!" -Tellah

  93. Valve is like the Combine in the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reading thru the Steam forums, I found that valve's actions are similar to the evil nemesis, the combine, in half-life 2.

    Microsoft must be jealous on Steam. Too bad Steam only works for Valve's games.

    What a great way to control cheating, piracy & keep your users on a life-line.

  94. Reverse engineering online authentication by petersam · · Score: 1
    Already in this thread people are claiming that there are cracked versions of HL2 that do not require you to be online to authenticate to Steam in order to play (ever). But your reverse engineering online service idea brings up an interesting point.

    While I'm perfectly in favor of Valve's actions here, I know that the ability to run software on your PC will never be stopped by activation or other such features. Even if they encrypt the binaries separately for every user and digitally sign them and send each purchaser a dongle to decrypt the data on the fly, eventually the data is going to be in memory and executed by a general purpose CPU and GPU. If you were enterprising enough, you could capture the data and recreate the unencrypted binary and hexedit to your heart's content. Even a trusted computer will have untrusted parts like memory and a CPU running the OS of your choice.

    Activation and other security schemes will slow down hackers, but not stop them. And once one person solves the problem, its out there for the world to copy.
    A more interesting hack is to figure out how to fool the authentication servers of an online service, whether it be EQII or something less massively multiplayer. If their protocol is good or they implement two-factor authentication, this might be really hard.

  95. Re:Violating the license for one locks you from al by ivan256 · · Score: 1

    If you try to shoplift something from Sears and get caught, you have to pony up 8x the price of the item you were stealing to avoid charges.


    Or you could go to jail like the law says. Sears wouldn't get to dictate your punishment. But then, shoplifting is a criminal act and copyright infringement is civil, not criminal, so you're comparing apples to oranges anyway.

    The days of stealing are over. ... You were the one who initiated an act of thievery first.

    I don't intend on playing this game pirated or otherwise, so I haven't "stolen" anything, but the people who purchased other games through Steam had a license for them; a contract with Valve allowing use. Unless the license for those older titles says something about the license being terminated if you violate theoretical future license for products that didn't exist at the time there's a good chance that Valve is violating their contract with these users on the older titles, no matter what they did or tried to do with Half-Life 2.

    Pay your way and if you get screwed, don't start whining about your treatment.

    First of all, read that. I don't think it means what you meant to say.

    Secondly, we don't live in a society where people or corporations can take the law into their own hands. No matter how wronged Valve is be software pirates, their remedies should be determined by the the legal authorities we have for exactly this purpose. Just because they are capable of imposing penalties on these software pirates outside of thwarting their efforts doesn't make it right.

  96. What happens when Valve goes out of business? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then you are screwed. You buy a new system, you install and try to activate, but the server is no longer in service. So much for your fancy game.

    It's like GM saying, sorry, you can't drive your car anymore.

    1. Re:What happens when Valve goes out of business? by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      Or you go to gamecopyworld.com, download the patch, then play the game.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    2. Re:What happens when Valve goes out of business? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Steam were around forever nobody who bought the game would really care much. I'm sure there will be a CD hack released sooner or later that is undetectable by Steam.

      And when Steam evaporates, go find a validation crack and keep on playing since nobody's around to sue you for it.

      Simple as that.

      I plan on buying the game soon. And I pirate plenty of games. Here's to Valve for forcing me to live a clean life.

  97. No lemon law in Minnesota by shuz · · Score: 4, Informative

    In Minnesota you have 3 days to return any item, in it original purchased condition, to the place of purchase and recieve a 100% refund. One exception to this rule that I know of opened software cannot be returned in Minnesota under any circumstances.

    --
    There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
    1. Re:No lemon law in Minnesota by oberondarksoul · · Score: 1

      What if the software is physically unusuable? Surely then, if opened, you should be able to return it? As it would be impossible to determine before you open the packaging whether a disc is usable (for example, ~10% of the first run of US Dreamcast games would crash the console), you'd have to open it to determine this...

      --
      And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
    2. Re:No lemon law in Minnesota by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're confusing a product return with a product exchange. I've never heard of a store unwilling to replace defective media--most will not, however, accept a return.

    3. Re:No lemon law in Minnesota by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can return opened media (DVD, video-game, etc) in MN for an exact copy of the original media.... done this with Tetris Worlds at Best Buy three times now...

    4. Re:No lemon law in Minnesota by SparafucileMan · · Score: 1

      "There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principal" is not true. Church-Turing thesis says that there is a universal machine that can simulate any other machine, not "physical object". The physical objects constitute the "real numbers", which is uncountable....so 99.999999...% of all objects can never be simulated by a machine. Your quote is actually the exact opposite of what the Thesis says.

    5. Re:No lemon law in Minnesota by xstonedogx · · Score: 1

      A return is different than an exchange. A return means you give the product back and you get your money back. An exchange means you give the product back, and they give you a new one (or sometimes store credit so you can get what you want).

      Most places seem to have a policy that they accept returns on software only if they are unopened. If they are opened, they accept exchanges on the same title only.

      That means if you buy Bubble Bobble, open it, and realize it sucks, you can't exchange it for Phantasy Star Online.

      I think the idea is that you can't take the software home, copy it, and then return it for cash or exchange it for a different title (which you also copy and exchange). I doubt it's effective at limiting piracy, but it sure helps crappy titles bring in cash.

    6. Re:No lemon law in Minnesota by AviLazar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And the state law backs this up? You guys got p0wn3d by the corps. Check up on that (if you haven't already) - but don't listen to a store salesman (obviously). Also, I suggest purchasing with a credit card. They don't give a rats ass about the law - they just tell the store to accept the return or never be able to use Visa, MasterCard, AMEX or whatever card you used... Very effective that pressure from the big guy.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    7. Re:No lemon law in Minnesota by -kertrats- · · Score: 5, Informative

      I live in Minnesota, and you actually can return opened software here, but you must trade it in for a new copy of the same product; no cash refunds.

      --
      The Braying and Neighing of Barnyard Animals Follows.
    8. Re:No lemon law in Minnesota by NamShubCMX · · Score: 1

      So you can disagree to the EULA again?

      --
      We've always been at war with Eurasia.
    9. Re:No lemon law in Minnesota by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      One exception to this rule that I know of opened software cannot be returned in Minnesota under any circumstances.

      I'd never buy software in Minnesota, then. It's a stupid law, but most slashdotters can't say they didn't know about it. Caveat emptor.

    10. Re:No lemon law in Minnesota by eltoyoboyo · · Score: 1

      Parent post was interesting enough to do some web research:
      Minnesota does indeed have a lemon law on _automobile_ purchases. The MN Attorney General web site had more information on consumer laws. specifically states that '...that there is no three day "cooling-off" law when you buy a car...'

      The Minnesota law for the three day "cooling off" period applies to In home purchases by door to door salespeople.

      I can find nothing specific about 3 day return for anything, including or excluding software in Minnesota. (Although, Down In The Valley record stores reports that Body Jewelry cannot be returned per MN state law.)

      I worked for a software supplier in Minnesota and our policy was that the software was yours as soon as you signed the contractual purchase agreement. Opened or not, we would not take it back. Services performed could always be disputed, but we never ever took back software, even with MN State contracts.

      I find that most retail stores have a far more liberal return policy like Best Buy a Minnesota Corporation.

      --
      Have you Meta Moderated t
    11. Re:No lemon law in Minnesota by freakmn · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is that some people, like myself, live an hour and a half from the next state over. It is a great inconvienience to go to the next state to pick up some stupid game, though the alternative is also inconvienient...

      I had Best Buy sell me an opened game (Somehow missing the clear sealing stickers), and when I read reviews about how terrible the game is (Magic the Gathering: Battlegrounds), I attempted to return it. The customer service person told me that it was "illegal" for Best Buy to sell it to me. I left the store, and I avoid the store as much as possible. I will always get some relative that knows that I like tech stuff, and give me a Best Buy Gift Certificate, and I will have to enter that store again, but I'll just blow it on their "Loss Leaders" ;)

      --
      warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
    12. Re:No lemon law in Minnesota by |/|/||| · · Score: 1
      You're assuming that space and time are not quantized, which is a big assumption. The Church-Turing thesis does not say that you can simulate any physical machine, but if you assume a discrete universe then you can deduce that it is possible.

      --
      [javac] 100 errors
    13. Re:No lemon law in Minnesota by Gadzinka · · Score: 1

      There are places (like Poland, where I live) where you can cancel any transaction, if it was made outside of the company's quarters, within 10 days, without a reason, with full refund, box opened or not. So obviously this includes everything you buy online, over the phone or even in front of the shop (as opposed to inside the shop).

      Just check your local consumer protection organisation.

      Robert

      --
      Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
    14. Re:No lemon law in Minnesota by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is that some people, like myself, live an hour and a half from the next state over.

      I live nearly three hours from the next state over, I don't see how that's relevant.

      It is a great inconvienience to go to the next state to pick up some stupid game, though the alternative is also inconvienient...

      So don't buy the stupid game in the first place. If no one wants to sell you a product on terms which are acceptable to you, you don't let yourself get ripped off, you just don't buy the product. It's not like computer games are a necessity. You can live a perfectly normal life without buying any software at all. I can count on one hand the number of times I've bought software, and in each of those cases it still wasn't anywhere near a necessity.

      You choose to buy software from someone you don't trust, you take your chances. I won't cry for you if you got ripped off.

    15. Re:No lemon law in Minnesota by tomasito · · Score: 1

      Most stores will exchange defective software for the same title. But then again, YMMV.

    16. Re:No lemon law in Minnesota by Boronx · · Score: 1

      What could be more countable than physical objects? It's what counting was made for.

    17. Re:No lemon law in Minnesota by freakmn · · Score: 1

      I did not mean that in a complaining sense, nor do I purchase software all that often. I do play games (in the little free time I currently have), but I also understand that it is not a necessity. Now, if I am in a situation that I must purchase software, I simply buy it online, from a company I trust (usually GoGamer. I've had to deal with their return policy, due to a packing error, and I am happy with how it turned out.

      But, more on topic, I had my previous post to relate how that particular law does inconvienience people. In my situation it happened to be a game, but many people purchase office suites and operating systems that require activation. I have had software required for my school, and I know people who have required software to work at home. I think they should be able to easily do so, and return it, if they happened to purchase the wrong item. I also think that there should not be a law on the books mandating a return policy for privately owned stores. The whole thing is ridiculous!

      --
      warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
    18. Re:No lemon law in Minnesota by |/|/||| · · Score: 1
      The real question is whether the number of possible distances between two physical objects can be counted. Can space be sliced into infinitely thin partitions? Much of our model of the universe assumes that it can, but these are the same pieces that keep causing us problems.

      There was an interesting SciAm article a few issues back titled "Atoms of Space and Time" that was pretty interesting, if you get a chance to read it. There are some interesting models of the universe that describe space and time as discrete. One giant quantum computer, in a way.

      --
      [javac] 100 errors
    19. Re:No lemon law in Minnesota by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1

      think the idea is that you can't take the software home, copy it, and then return it for cash

      They use all this copy protection nonsense like Securom and Safedisc, and still deny us our consumer rights. Which means one of two things.

      1) The law is there to fuck the consumer, not provide "protection" from copying.

      or

      2) They're admitting this copy protection crap doesn't work.

    20. Re:No lemon law in Minnesota by karniv0re · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's why when you get the exchanged software, you can just go back the next day and return it unopened. This trick has been around for a while.

    21. Re:No lemon law in Minnesota by TeraCo · · Score: 1

      Sure, but what makes you think Valve cares about Polish law. If you buy it online via Steam, they are following the laws of the state where Valve live, not where you live.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    22. Re:No lemon law in Minnesota by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How to "steal" games from bestbuy.

      Buy game. $59.95

      Copy game.

      Dig a gouge across the cd with a knife.

      Return the game as defective.

      Recieve unopened copy.

      Post game on ebay.

      $55!!! never opened!!!!

      You now paid less than 5 bucks for a game.
      Do it right and you can even make money.
      Ebay buyers are stupid.

      Deal straight with everyone.
      Get lots of great feedback. Start a scam using your great reviews. Screw 50 people out of 50 bucks.

      free $2500.

      Piracy is fun.

    23. Re:No lemon law in Minnesota by Bitsy+Boffin · · Score: 2, Funny


      That means if you buy Bubble Bobble, open it, and realize it sucks, you can't exchange it for Phantasy Star Online.

      That's a pretty bad example there, nobody can say Bubble Bobble sucks, not honestly.

      --
      NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
    24. Re:No lemon law in Minnesota by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      I tend to agree with you, but I'm not that big on buying software in the first place. In almost every case you can either find a free version or find a copy somewhere (read pirate one). In my opinion software should be free, so I'm not as disturbed by the laws trying to enforce copyright as by the copyright laws themselves.

    25. Re:No lemon law in Minnesota by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In normal consumer sale law, it is always the law of the country where the consumer resides, at least as long as the consumer didn't go to a different country to buy the item.

      Business to business sales are different, corps can agree to whatever countrys laws they want to.

    26. Re:No lemon law in Minnesota by TeraCo · · Score: 1
      Right, you can sue them in wherever, but what compels them to show up and then follow the judgement?

      A: Nothing.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    27. Re:No lemon law in Minnesota by SparafucileMan · · Score: 1

      There's no such thing as a continious universe. Go ahead, prove it. I dare you. You can't because no proof exists or ever will, as Godel and Turing and Church et. al have all proved. Another way to think of it is that you cannot have a continious universe because you cannot measure a continious universe and therefore you can't actually deduce that anything is in the universe. What is measureable is what is provable is what is knowable. Anything else is nonsense.

  98. Re:Violating the license for one locks you from al by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Just like you wouldn't be allowed to return to Wal-Mart if you shoplifted from it."

    No, that's like Walmart coming to your house and taking everything you've ever bought from WalMart in the past.

  99. TurboTax by dr_db · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I saw the other reply getting modded into the dirt, and decided to reply here :-)

    Up in Canada, the product is QuickTax (same company). I was trying to print out some tax returns for a exparte court visit (exparte meaning does not require proper service). So I find out late Friday afternoon that it's going to be a Monday morning epsisode in court, and I require tax returns. I have all my tax returns on cd, not printed, because, hey, I own the software.

    I got 1999 printed, but not 2000, 2001 or 2002. Why? Because I had installed the software on an older, now dead and gone machine, previously when I did the original fucking returns. So their 'activation' detected that it was a new machine and prevented me from installing and printing out my returns. I attempted to call their amazing technical support, but because it was out of tax season, it was 9-5 Monday to Friday, or in my time zone, 10-6. So basically, they expect someone to make personal calls from work.

    I ended up calling Revenue Canada and having someone pick up summary returns while I delayed in court. Thank you Intuit, for worrying that I might be trying to redo a 3 year old tax return. If you are going to disable shit, allow people to at least PRINT OUT WHAT THEY ALREADY HAVE and kill the ability to make a new return, or something more useful than that. And it would be nice if you would reply to emails too.

    I use XP, simply because it came with my laptop. I do not use Office XP or later, or other software that requires *activation* unless I can now absolutely avoid it. After all, how are you supposed to ensure the company you are buying from will remain in business in case you need to reinstall. And for all you linux zealots that are going to attack me on the using Windows statement - piss off. I develop software for the predominant platform so I can feed my kids.

    1. Re:TurboTax by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

      I went through this same crap.

      I needed some tax documents from an older year. That year I had downloaded the program from the internet, but I no longer had a copy of it. I asked to download a new copy, but they want to charge me $10. WTF?

      So tell me again, what exactly have I bought?

    2. Re:TurboTax by PriceIke · · Score: 1

      I hear you, man. Almost the same thing happened to me with QuickBooks. Any software that requires "activation" (i.e. permission from the software developer MCP) is not true software .. it's like a dumb terminal slaved to a mainframe. You "bought" nothing, you are just renting the ability to use the software for an undisclosed period of time. Not the same thing and that is not the language software resellers use when they "sell" you software.

      --
      It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
    3. Re:TurboTax by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Now just think what'll happen when QuickTax is obsolete enough not to run anymore!

      Which is of course why in a sane world, all software should be forced to be open-source (but not necessarily Free).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:TurboTax by peragrin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Save yourself now.
      Either purchase or steal the full version of Adobe Acrobat, or any other software that allows you to print PDF's.

      All of my tax returns get printed to PDF's then to paper as nessecary. I don't normally keep the paper copies around for more than a year, but it's easy to keep an encrypted zip file contianing those precious documents.

      People laugh at PDF's but they are really convient, and can be read over long periods of time without dealing with MSFT's change the format per minor version games.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    5. Re:TurboTax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You damn windows lusers just keep on breeding

    6. Re:TurboTax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just jealous. Linux nerds would breed more if women would come within a 20' radius of them.

    7. Re:TurboTax by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      That won't be a problem. Intuit is known for their backward compatability. In fact, the latest and greatest Intuit product (i.e. Quicken) will run the data files from the ORIGINAL version (in this case Quicken). I have had Quicken for many years (over a decade) and have gone through 4 upgrades - and each one was seamless (as far as getting my data over).
      As for product "owning" and "licensing" - when was the last time a company actually gave "ownership" of a software product? I think by giving "ownership" they lose things like protection of IP -- meaning if you "own" the source code to Quicken - you can modify it, sell it, abuse it, rape it, etc...If you "license" it well then you can't w/o violating the license.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    8. Re:TurboTax by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Oh, I agree that it very probably won't be a problem, but are you absolutely sure? In other words, do you have a legally-binding contract with Intuit that states that they will support their product until the end of time? Do you have any guarantee that they won't suddenly go bankrupt and get bought out by someone who doesn't care about your data and your backwards compatibility?

      Are the Quicken data files in a proprietary, non-human-readable format?

      Also, regarding ownership vs. licensing, I was talking about owning my copy of the thing, not owning the copyright of the thing. There is (or should be, at least) middle ground between being allowed to do anything including copy, and being completely at the mercy of the copyright holder.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    9. Re:TurboTax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      In Window, just create a fake postscript printer that prints to a file, and you can view and print the document using any postscript viewing program, such as ghostscript.

    10. Re:TurboTax by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      There is no gaurentee of "until the end of time" but there is a reasonable amount of service to expect from the company. If Intuit goes out of business (and they do not get bought out or picked up by another company) then you are hosed for getting FUTURE updates. If your product is new enough - then stand in line and hope to get some cash. But they do gaurentee that their material is backward compatible. Generally, when a company thats bankrupt gets bought out - the buyers want the customers with the IP so they will honor the contracts (and many times they have no choice but to honor the contracts if they buy it).

      I am pretty sure you can open up all quicken data files in notepad and you will see your data. Now if you have a lot of data this would be painstaking - but nothing a good excel sheet couldnt figure out? This you would have to verify but I do know you can import Quicken files into other financial products..

      Until electronic IP laws improve companies are forced to use existing laws which may not be seamless. But why do you want to "own" the product? Other then just saying "i own this product" who cares? As long as you can use it - and chances are you can use it w/o any problems. I am just curious as to what the big deal is.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    11. Re:TurboTax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      PDF Creator will do a nice job converting to PDFs, it will be just like using a printer. Set up is easy and the price is right (its free).

      You can also tweak a PS printer, Ghostscript, and Ghostview to do a kick-ass job, converting to PDFs. If properly configured, you can get better compresion levels compared to Adobe's Acrobat.

    12. Re:TurboTax by dubious9 · · Score: 1

      And for all you linux zealots that are going to attack me on the using Windows statement - piss off. I develop software for the predominant platform so I can feed my kids.

      While running windows is perfectly valid, sane, and simple choice, there is no reason to have run any version of Microsoft Office. There are several high quality commercial variants like Word Perfect and free versions like OpenOffice.org. However I'd bet that the next version of the OS from Microsoft will incorporate *activation* very deeply given the success that Valve has had. What will you do then?

      --
      Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
    13. Re:TurboTax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er... Windows XP (their current OS) does incorporate *activation*. If you don't do it within 120 days, your system is rendered unusable.

    14. Re:TurboTax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And for all you linux zealots that are going to attack me on the using Windows statement - piss off. I develop software for the predominant platform so I can feed my kids.

      That was totally unnecessary. Just the fact that you might be affected by someone's comment that you shouldn't be using Windows shows that you feel bad for it yourself, or is a reflection on what this forum has become (or both).
      You use whatever software you want for whatever reason you want and noone has anything to say to that. I run Windows for my desktops and Linux on my server. Tool for the job and all that stuff.

    15. Re:TurboTax by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I want to own the product because ownership implies that I can do anything (within the limits of copyright law) with it that I please. Owning it should mean that I have the source code, which allows me the possibility to keep the program up-to-date and working correctly myself.

      If you think that sounds unreasonable, compare it to anything else you own: Can't I perform maintenance on my car, and even hot-rod it? Moreover, can't I write in the margins or cross things out of my books?

      In fact, books are the best analogy. You own your copy of the book, so you can do whatever you want with it -- heck, you can even sell it! The fact that you can't copy it does not diminish your ownership of it. So then the question becomes this: Why should software be any different?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    16. Re:TurboTax by JW+Troll · · Score: 1

      Perhaps all you lack is the crack for your product. My father had the same predicament, and I found some very useful resources online - try http://astalavista.box.sk and http://andr.net

      --
      just like the humble blood clot... turboporsche@telus.net
    17. Re:TurboTax by dr_db · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I would say both. I *love* the games on Windows, but the ones I play (ut2k4 mainly) are usually available on Linux. As someone else pointed out, I could use different office suites - but I program sometimes in office - so I am stuck. I just have not had the golod luck with the delphi clx as I have had with the vcl product.

      I have been flamed badly before for mentioning I use windows software, and I find it annoying. I also drive an older ford aerostar with the 4 liter motor, and while I like it - outrageously fast, I don't lambast people who drive, say, gm or toyota.

      To be honest, computers have become really dull and boring to me after working with them for 20 years. Linux never worked well on my older machines - or more specifically, X86 didn't work well. I don't have coin to spend on another box right now, but I do kinda hope that mabye that spark of enthusiasm will rub off onto me. Otherwise, I might as well be a mechanical assembler again.

    18. Re:TurboTax by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Ah, you want the source code. Well the thing with the source code - some companies don't want you to have their code. Maybe they just came up with a new way to render 3D images that they want to keep as much of a secret as possible to gain a market edge.

      It is not unreasonable to say that you want to mod the source code yourself - but I understand and firmly believe it to be reasonable for the code to remain closed source. And to be honest - the moment the source becomes open to customers - its open to the net....and people can then get around problems like license keys even easier.
      The car analogy does not work. When I mod my car - it is my car; when I sell my car it becomes ONE other owners car (potentially more if you sell it to say a family)....however, when I receive the source for code - I can distribute it freely on the net (as is already done with programs today). It is much easier to copy digital media and distribute it (in its "original format") then it is for a tangeable object like a book, car, painting, etc.

      Your desire to own the code, however, does not override the companies desire to license it to you. There is nothing wrong with their desires. It is their invention, their choice....if you do not like it - do not buy it.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    19. Re:TurboTax by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I understand that, but I'm just not a fan of applying technical "solutions" to social problems. Moreover, if a significant percentage of society commits copyright infringment, doesn't that mean that there's a possibility that it's morally acceptable?

      Also, with "don't like it, don't buy it" -- I usually don't.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    20. Re:TurboTax by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      I would love to have our social problems fixed in a social manner (as opposed to being forced by some external source) - but the fact of it is - if people can get something for free at a relatively low chance of getting in trouble - they will take it. For example: I might be willing to d/l XYZ game from the Internet knowing that I will most likely not get caught. I am a WHOLE lot less likely to walk into a store and grab the box off the shelf. I am sure if a survay was done of people who used peer-peer software - most would say they have never shoplift because it is wrong and they were scared of getting caught. So is online theft anymore moral then physical theft? Have you ever d/l'd a pdf version of a brand new book? If so - why not just go to the store and take it off the shelf? At least then you will have a nicely bound book.

      And as you said, if you don't like the terms of something - just don't buy it (or return it in the case were you don't see the terms until after the package is opened.)

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  100. /. effect :) by n0tWorthy · · Score: 1
    the site now says:

    There seems to have been a slight problem with the database. Please try again by pressing the refresh button in your browser.

    An E-Mail has been dispatched to our Technical Staff, who you can also contact if the problem persists. We apologise for any inconvenience.

    --
    "Be kind, for everyone you meet is facing a great battle." - Philo of Alexandria -
  101. All right, fine: What's the solution? by jayhawk88 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People are discovering that when you buy any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really bought anything.

    What the hell do you expect them to do then Michael? Is Valve just supposed to put up with tens of thousands of people playing their game without paying for it? So does this mean I can find some way to hack the Slashdot premium membership database and just start giving away premium memberships to whomever wants one? Would that be OK with you?

    I understand that activation probably isn't the best method to handle this problem, but right now what's the better solution? This isn't some enterprise-level database you can just open source and start charging for support. Nobody needs a maintenance contract for HL2. A company like Valve has to try and keep their product from being blatently stolen.

    1. Re:All right, fine: What's the solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With any copyrighted product, there is a certain amount of unauthorized copying. Rather than eliminating customers' first sale rights, companies should simply factor those lost sales into their business model from the beginning. If something won't be profitable due to copying, don't produce it in the first place.

    2. Re:All right, fine: What's the solution? by kindbud · · Score: 0, Troll

      What the hell do you expect them to do then Michael? Is Valve just supposed to put up with tens of thousands of people playing their game without paying for it?

      For me, the solution is simple. They are offering an ephemeral product, not a tangible one. Charge less. Around $10, I'd buy it, and not give a crap about any de-activation technology Valve wants to use. For ten bucks, it's no big deal. But for fifty bucks, I expect to be able to play the damn thing whenever and wherever I want, whether Valve still operates Steam or not, and whether I have a network connection, or not.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    3. Re:All right, fine: What's the solution? by mutterc · · Score: 1
      There's a bigger potential problem here, and I'm sure others have brought this up when WinXP came out: The vendor can now force you to upgrade. They simply shut off the activation servers and - boom - now the software you bought is a useless coaster.

      Sure, <big business apologist>they can put whatever T's&C's on the product they like, you can just use other software, etc.</apologist> but what happens when most / all software uses these methods? (If something's profit-enhancing, even if it's consumer-unfriendly, the need for infinite growth will pressure it into service eventually).

      Hopefully FOSS will stay legal; that's my #2 motiviation for using it - not having to deal with crazy licensing schemes. (#1 is quality...)

    4. Re:All right, fine: What's the solution? by justins · · Score: 1
      For me, the solution is simple. They are offering an ephemeral product, not a tangible one.They are offering an ephemeral product, not a tangible one. Charge less. Around $10, I'd buy it, and not give a crap about any de-activation technology Valve wants to use. For ten bucks, it's no big deal. But for fifty bucks, I expect to be able to play the damn thing whenever and wherever I want, whether Valve still operates Steam or not, and whether I have a network connection, or not.

      In order for this to be a consistent position, you'd have to only pay for software in source code form, since any binary you buy is going to be targeted to a specific (and "ephemeral") processor and operating system.

      I think you've got the right idea, though. If a person doesn't like what they're getting for their money, they shouldn't buy the thing. I suppose there is a counterargument to be made against stuff like Windows XP's activation, since it's a crucial program and they have monopoly on the desktop OS. No such argument can be made for first person shooters...
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    5. Re:All right, fine: What's the solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be a chump. Every pirate says "I woulda bought it if they didn't charge so much". And every one is FOS.

    6. Re:All right, fine: What's the solution? by kindbud · · Score: 1

      In order for this to be a consistent position, you'd have to only pay for software in source code form, since any binary you buy is going to be targeted to a specific (and "ephemeral") processor and operating system.

      Not really. I still play Prince of Persia 2 in a virtual DOS machine. I still play Tribes 1 with a Voodoo driver emulator. This is under Windows 2000. I could also play these games under Linux using the same technology. I see no reason to believe that I won't be able to play them for as long as I am interested in doing so.

      I think you've got the right idea, though. If a person doesn't like what they're getting for their money, they shouldn't buy the thing.

      And I didn't. I want to play HL2, I liked the original and some of the spinoffs, and I'm sure I'd like this one too. But Valve are charging too much for what they are offering, so as much as I'd like it, I have to pass until the price comes down. Maybe in a year or so, when HL2 is ten bucks in the bargain bin....

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    7. Re:All right, fine: What's the solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no truer words have ever been spoken

    8. Re:All right, fine: What's the solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. I'll bet plenty of pirates would say "I wouldn't buy it no matter what they charge, ergo it's not a lost sale".

    9. Re:All right, fine: What's the solution? by stanmann · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not so, I bought diablo 1 when it broke $10, Diablo 2 when it broke $10, LoD when it broke $15(on sale), Everquest evolution when it broke 20, Everquest GoD when it broke 10,Wolfenstein 3d when it broke 15, HL1(platinum/gold/whatever) when it broke 30.

      NOTE: Some of these games I played before I bought them some I did not.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    10. Re:All right, fine: What's the solution? by damiam · · Score: 0, Troll
      A company like Valve has to try and keep their product from being blatently stolen

      They could find a lot of better ways. Pirated versions exist (or will exist) that bypass Steam entirely. These tactics delay widespread piracy by a few days; they don't prevent it. One way to stop people from stealing your product is to stop screwing your customers.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    11. Re:All right, fine: What's the solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Valve just supposed to put up with tens of thousands of people playing their game without paying for it?

      Yes, they are since it doesn't cost them anything.

      They should focus on treating their paying customers with respect and maybe they would have more them.

    12. Re:All right, fine: What's the solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, so they "stop screwing their customers." They lift any kind of copy protection mechanism. They drop the price to $5. And then what happens when 200,000 people sign in on their game server, and they've only accounted for about 20,000 units sold? It suddenly becomes incredibly unprofitable for Valve to make this game.

      Apply this to all the game companies. Will there be any left?

    13. Re:All right, fine: What's the solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Is Valve just supposed to put up with tens of thousands of people playing their game without paying for it?

      Yes, they are since it doesn't cost them anything."

      Sorry, but you're wrong there. All games are made as investments on the assumption that people will buy the game. Publishers put up millions of dollars, the developers make the game, and then, at the very end, they sell it, and hope to make back the money they put in.

      Think of it like an apartment building - you go to the bank, get a loan, and open up an apartment building in your town. Now, you have a few paying renters, and a few people who just move in and refuse to pay rent. Do you ignore the people who aren't paying, and just focus on those that are? No! You need to rent out as many apartments as possible in order to pay back the bank loan. So you call the police and kick out the non-payers.

      This is basically all that they're doing with the account banning - kicking out the people who haren't payed in order to try and make back their investment.

    14. Re:All right, fine: What's the solution? by sinikal · · Score: 0

      What the hell do you expect them to do then Michael? Is Valve just supposed to put up with tens of thousands of people playing their game without paying for it? So does this mean I can find some way to hack the Slashdot premium membership database and just start giving away premium memberships to whomever wants one? Would that be OK with you

      Well what if /. decided to keep ads displayed to premium members while logged in? What if they decided to ban you, as a premium member, when you used adblock on firefox to get rid of the banners?

    15. Re:All right, fine: What's the solution? by Snaller · · Score: 1

      "People are discovering that when you buy any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really bought anything. "

      What the hell do you expect them to do then Michael?


      Just use CD keys and get over it - Nobody ever cracked ID's Quake 3 servers - it was too hard.


      Is Valve just supposed to put up with tens of thousands of people playing their game without paying for it?


      1. People have cracked it and are playing
      2. They get more money than they deserve as it is, so stop being so damn greedy.

      So does this mean I can find some way to hack the Slashdot premium membership database and just start giving away premium memberships to whomever wants one? Would that be OK with you?


      Though you are right, a case could be made for him being a hypocrite ;)

      A company like Valve has to try and keep their product from being blatently stolen.


      You can't steal digital products. You can only steal something you actually touch.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    16. Re:All right, fine: What's the solution? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Ok, so suppose that only 20,000 people log into the game server, and every one of those is accounted for in sales. Have they made any more money? Is it suddenly more profitable as a result?

      Now, online play actually does have some cause to exclude pirated copies - after all, they incur expense in running the servers and don't get any money from the game sales. If somebody copies a game and plays it offline, the publisher doens't lose a dime (they just don't make a dime either).

      Fixing the online play issue is simple - just charge 50 cents/month to use their servers, and possibly allow others to set up their own free servers (which cost Valve nothing). Then whether using a pirated copy or not, the company doesn't lose on bandwidth costs.

      I doubt that copy protection leads to increased sales. I favor OSS to avoid pirating software. I do buy some softare as well. I used to shell out money every year for Turbotax. I do not shell out money for it anymore - because of their activation approach and the denial of the first-sale doctrine (it is perfectly legal to prepare a single tax return and then sell the software to a friend for half-price when you're done if you delete your install).

      In any case, I'm sure somebody will have HL2 flawlessly cracked in a few weeks (if not already), and in the end all this onerous copy-protection will just end up inconveniencing the people who paid for the software. I doubt it will affect sales much at all...

    17. Re:All right, fine: What's the solution? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Think of it like an apartment building - you go to the bank, get a loan, and open up an apartment building in your town. Now, you have a few paying renters, and a few people who just move in and refuse to pay rent. Do you ignore the people who aren't paying, and just focus on those that are? No! You need to rent out as many apartments as possible in order to pay back the bank loan. So you call the police and kick out the non-payers.

      Bad analogy. Imagine an apartment building with no upkeep costs (just initial construction), and which has an infinite number of rooms.

      Under these circumstances, they should indeed just ignore those who refuse to pay rent - as long as there is significant benefit to paying rent people will continue to do so.

      The reason that deadbeats are a problem with physical property is that it is a limited resource. A deadbeat ties up a room and consumes resources without generating return. In the software world, a pirate consumes no resources at all, and doesn't tie up anything.

      The fact is that Valve needs to sell x copies of HL2 to justify their investment. I doubt they'll sell many additional copies as a result of the copy protection. If anything, by making pirated copies more convenient to use, they might reduce sales...

  102. HaXoRs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Teh Haxors g0t PWNED!!!! w00t!

  103. Valve pissed me off by screwdriver · · Score: 2, Informative

    I bought my copy through steam and now I have to connect to steam every time I want to play. If their server is down or my net connection dies then I can't play. This is complete BS! There are pirated copies of the game in circulation which indicates that their copy protection is nothing more than a major PITA to their customers. I'm sure I am not alone in thinking that I should not have to ask mommy (i.e. their game servers) permission to play a game I own! What if this sort of activation scheme extends beyond games? Imagine having to ask Microsoft if you can use your computer each time you boot it. As soon as I can get a crack for this nonsense, I will.

    1. Re:Valve pissed me off by Shadwhawk · · Score: 1
      If their server is down or my net connection dies then I can't play.

      Yes, you can. Steam has an offline mode for these very reasons.

    2. Re:Valve pissed me off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bought my copy through steam and now I have to connect to steam every time I want to play. If their server is down or my net connection dies then I can't play. This is complete BS!

      Hi! I'm too fucking stupid and impatient to read the online documention and find that I can in fact play the game offline so instead I come on slashdot and vent.

      There are pirated copies of the game in circulation which indicates that their copy protection is nothing more than a major PITA to their customers.

      Ummmmm... maybe it indicates that some dorks think paying for stuff is a PITA?

      I'm sure I am not alone in thinking that I should not have to ask mommy (i.e. their game servers) permission to play a game I own!

      Yeah little whiny lame-ass punks like you always think stupid shit like that. Lots more of us wish that you did have to ask your mommy for permission to play and furthermore we wish that she'd say no. It is quite apparent your mommy doesn't take an interest in your online activities and doesn't wonder why you have a box of Kleenix brand tissues next to the computer and surely has no idea about the potty mouth you have when some "OMG u fuckin haxx0r" blows your fool head off as you stand out in the open typing profane insults at the "wallhaxxing autosniper n00b" that killed you in the last round as you did the exact same thing.

      Seeing as your mommy doesn't regulate you better we will just have to be satisfied with Valve's authentication that bans you when you try haxxoring to make up for your abject lack of hand-eye coordination, poor reaction time, and inability to think more than 0.2 seconds into the future.

  104. I don't agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the boxen at my house and office are now Linux except for that belonging to my wife who clings to Win 98. Why? Because of the really really retarded activation that came with the original version of XP. You couldn't even sneeze at it without getting a new code. No way am I going to pay money to get messed around that way.

    If you can avoid it, don't buy anything that requires activation. If enough people do that, the vendors will get the message.

  105. Just brings back the old adage... by AndyBassTbn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Those who would do good don't need laws to force them; those who would do evil will do so regardless of the law.

    That being said, I hope to make it clear that I feel software piracy is wrong. However, Steam/Valve is doing itself a great disservice, seeing as how people who want to pirate their software will find a way to no matter what they do to enforce their licensing. Windows XP should stand as a good example - how long was it before the activation was cracked? Answer: days at most. When pirate keys were banned, we had SP1 cracks.

    So what happens when the activation software shuts down the OS/game/whatever on a non cracked version? It often shuts down a legit user who simply changed hardware or the like.

    So, we have a situation which puts the old wine of my original quote into the new modern wineskin - those who pay for software don't need activation to make them do so, and those who don't pay for software will circumvent any activation schemes in place.

    And, as is the case in both examples, only the law -abiding citizen is left restricted by the laws/copy protections intended for the non-law-abiding sort.

    Now, does this necessarily make laws/copyguards unnecessary? No, I'm not that naive. These are generally designed as a method of discouraging people from casually "changing camps," on top of providing recourse against those who do break the rules.

    I suppose my real point here is that the only losers here are those in the right; those in the wrong have nothing to lose. Therefore, I don't see how such draconian methods will help Valve in the long run.

    --
    I hope the land around you yields, a crop like all the other fields, and then your waiting might make sense...
  106. Ew ... Astroturfing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, that's some fast typing! You weren't waiting for this story to show up, were ya?

    There's nothing icky about the wording of the parent post. There's nothing icky about DRM. Nope, nothing icky at all about Steam.

    Honestly Gabe, do you really believe this is going to cut down on piracy one bit? The crackers will just be that much more determined to steal your game. That's not to say I don't share your desire to protect your property, but I sure don't care for your methods.

  107. Re:Violating the license for one locks you from al by ivan256 · · Score: 0

    Heaven forbid we might actually get punished for using software we stole

    Please read my other reply in this thread.

    I don't have any problem with people being punished for breaking the law, but we have a system for determining what those punishments are, and it's not Valve's job to take the law into their own hands and punish users outside of that system.

  108. hmm by hypergreatthing · · Score: 1
    I do have somewhat of a problem about this. While i don't agree with copyright infringements, i don't agree with Steam at all. I bought a copy of half-life. I play counter-strike. I wasn't very happy when i had to register my cd-key for half-life with an email just to play it. In fact, i was upset when my account was suddenly disabled. No warning, no anything. I checked the Steam webpage and it had some crap about being able to suspend acconuts for a year if they catch you cheating (hacking) in counterstrike.

    Even though i wasn't hacking, they suspended my account. Not only could i not play any game (halflife singleplayer or otherwise) without steam anymore, there was no recourse (sent email out to them, no response at all) in order to try and get it resolved. I had to create another account with a friend of mine's cd key (was on his shelf for quite some time). I bought the damn game and they somehow reserved the right to prevent me from playing it.

    Now how many of those "Pirates" had actually bought half-life and had active accounts under steam? Now they lose the ability to play it. I certainly won't be buying half-life 2 or anything else from valve until they learn that when they sell something they don't have the right to stop me from using it unless they'll give me a refund.

  109. The danger is all on Steam by Kyrka · · Score: 1

    Pending clarification of the statement "VERY small", I would think Steam is perhaps placing their revenue stream at risk. In nearly all cases, I expect folks who purchased the game used a credit card. If a significant number of the 20K turn out to actually be in that "VERY small" category, they can (as I CERTAINLY would) contact their bank, and reverse the charges. (This practice, not SSL encryption and what have you I would argue, is the only reason folks trust using a CC on line anyway.)
    The all too important question to ask from the sidelines is, "Was this a knee-jerk reaction on the part of Steam?" If so... they may find themselves (20K * purchase price) poorer in the morning. If not, probably no big deal. I should also mention that I myself haven't purchased said product, and know very little about what is going on. Let us hope, for Steam's sake, that they are in the right. To add gasoline to the fire, however, I would also admonish all who paid good $$$ and cannot now play do precisely what I suggested above.

  110. This stuff makes me laugh... by kennycoder · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...because on 17'th of january (next day after hl2 release) there were couple of home made releases of HL2 that didn't even need inet connection to play hl2, working 100% 0.k. It had couple of problems with AI which where solved adding ai_disable 0 in autoexec.conf.

    Anyway if I buy this game ill still play pritaed copy because i don't like the idea of playing SP game that requires internet connection and CD inside my drive that makes more noise than diesel cars. I have doom3 special edition and i play "RELOAdED" group warez release because it came out before i could buy the game in stores. Buying some game is like a "thank you,i like your product" to the software group. Warez makes lots of sence.. imagine you buy the game and you don't like it, but you have already paid 50 EUROs or so. Yes i know there are demos but wait.. doom3's demo was released like 1 month after retail game and hl2 doesn't have a demo too..

    Well anyways all this banning and steam stuff doesn't work agaist piracy.. now all this guys that got banned will download cracked versions and will keep playing as they did before and will "hate" valve / steam even more. There is no way to fight piracy, it will always exist.

    --
    Fucking a fat girl is like riding a scooter... it's fun 'til someone sees you.
  111. Re:Violating the license for one locks you from al by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shoplifting is prosecuted by the individual or organization, not by the state or federal government. Thus, it is within a shop's rights to say "we won't prosecute if you'll pay us X".

  112. Licenses as old as the hills, people by beemishboy · · Score: 0

    You may not like or agree with them, but software licenses have been around for a long, long time.

    You buy a license to use that product. If you violate those terms, that's your fault. It seems sometimes that people think that they have unlimited "rights" for some reason. I have a cd in my hand, therefore I own this software. It does make intuitive sense, but it really has rarely been that way. The same goes with music.

    Think about it. You are writing a song or making software that costs a lot to produce and market and so forth. My confusion with just copying software and music comes with the extreme use of "fair use". Okay, so I can share my music with a couple billion of my closest friends. Where does that put the people who are feeding their families - software developers, musicians, artists, recording engineers, etc?

    I know this is a rant and will probably get flamed for this, but I am a software developer who lives in west LA with good friends who are musicians and recording engineers. I really don't like the antiquated use of licenses by the RIAA and others, but I do think that a system of some sort has to be in place.

  113. Grey Area?? read my logic by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 1

    this is a real GREY area i guess for me. if someone tries to pirate HL2 , they got caught, so their account was disabled. its hard to say where the line here crosses the grey area into the black or the white. i think eventually there should be some sort of implementation to allow the valid games with the valid keys to be played but disable the other games that you pirated, copied, etc etc. on the other hand they want to crack down on the people who pirate period, so disable them all together. perhaps this is the way to go to send a message that pirating software will not be tolerated. i agree with this but when i talked about the grey area, i was talking about possible hearings in the court. of course with Valve i am sure it would take a something like a class action to get the ball rolling in the courts.

  114. Re:Violating the license for one locks you from al by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you steal something from a store, the dont just take that back from you, or make you pay for it...you pay a lot more in court fees to get out of it, or you go to jail....

    again, whats the problem?


    The problem is that when you go to jail you're sent there by a judge through a system of checks and balances. That's a big difference from having some random company punish you. Just because they've written their software in such a way that allows them to do something like this doesn't actually give them the authority.

  115. EULAs have been accepted by David+Jensen · · Score: 1

    EULAs have won in court, so have handshakes. Contracts do not have to be very formal, but consumer protection statutes do protect consumers from some of the most outrageous requests of a EULA. In this case, consumer protection statutes will generally require the company to allow all innocent owners of the game who were turned off because their number was used improperly to have their money back or turn their accounts back on.

    1. Re:EULAs have been accepted by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      This is very interesting. Do you have some links for court challenged EULAs? I'm not being an asshole here, i'm geniunely interested.

  116. Re:Violating the license for one locks you from al by ivan256 · · Score: 1

    And it's your right to say "I don't think your proposed settlement is fair. Prosecute me and let my punishment be determined by a judge." That's really not an option in this situation though.

  117. More Subtle? by don_carnage · · Score: 1

    It would be interesting if they made the game un-playable for those who downloaded a pirated copy. Perhaps change textures around or make the monsters invincible. :^D

    1. Re:More Subtle? by flibuste · · Score: 1
      That is actually a good idea. Nothing's more frustrating than spending hours being an idiot trying to crack some game, think you've succeeded and then something breaks off or acts wierdly..

      Yes I bought HL2 - And I actually don't find it entertaining at all.

    2. Re:More Subtle? by don_carnage · · Score: 1

      Yes I bought HL2 - And I actually don't find it entertaining at all.

      Really? Send it to me! :^D Of course, I would be seen as a pirate because your key has already been installed on your machine. Guess there's no resale value...

    3. Re:More Subtle? by flibuste · · Score: 1

      How do I extract my downloaded copy with the CD key and send it to you? Aside from the fact that it prevents me from installing/de-installing the game, I guess this prevents any CD-Key hijacking.

      And I thought I was in control of my 'puter...

  118. Posting should be clearer! by superskippy · · Score: 1

    I think you should have included the words "Half Life 2" somewhere in it. That way we could all work out what you were on about with out reading the comments. The posting as written relied on you knowing who Valve were. Although this is news for nerds, you have to be a particular type of nerd to understand this posting as it is!

  119. Are you one of those people ... by arhar · · Score: 1

    ... that screamed when tapes started replacing LP's, and then CD's replaced tapes? I remember reading an article by a proud owner of ZX Spectrum (for those that don't know, a computer that used cassette tapes to store information) and boasted how well was he taking care of his tapes and that new floppy drive technology is inconvinient, and basically "thankyouverymuch, I'll stick to my tapes".

    Were you that guy?

    Like it or not, CD's are being replaced left and right by better, more convinient things as our society progresses. You can choose to evolve or risk becoming obsolete.

    1. Re:Are you one of those people ... by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      For some people, getting a better bandwith connection means moving to a new home in a new city. This isn't like just buying a simple appliance here.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    2. Re:Are you one of those people ... by nospmiS+remoH · · Score: 1

      Here is a scenario then...

      1) I buy HL 2 CD and install, register, activate ...
      2) 6 Months later, my CD drive dies.
      3) CD's are "obsolite" so I decide not to waste money on a new drive. Or I just don't want to foot another $40 for a new drive.
      4) HL 2 doesn't work.
      5) Try to use the CD "hack" to fix HL 2.
      6) No more HL 2 for me. Ever.
      7) Complain on Slashdot and am told that I am a big baby and everyone knows that I am really just stealing the game and that if I didn't agree with the rules I shouldn't have spent the money and that I am just supporting this kind of thing.

      --
      !hoD
    3. Re:Are you one of those people ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember reading an article by a proud owner of ZX Spectrum (for those that don't know, a computer that used cassette tapes to store information) and boasted how well was he taking care of his tapes and that new floppy drive technology is inconvinient, and basically "thankyouverymuch, I'll stick to my tapes".

      Can you provide the context of that article? More specifically, was it referring to floppy disk systems for the Spectrum?

      Bear in mind that the most "common" floppy system for the Spectrum was the nonstandard 3" (*not* 3.5") drive included in the Spectrum +3 (along with most of Amstrad's other non-PC disc-based computers.... I heard that Amstrad got a whole load of those drives cheap, which explains a lot).

      Well, that got a whole load of commercial support, didn't it? And weren't the blank discs quite expensive?

      "Are you one of those people..."
      who had already chucked away all their tapes and replaced them with a Sinclair Microdrive (*)when *that* came out?

      (*) Loop-of-tape-based system (available for the Spectrum, and built into Sinclair's flop "32-bit" QL), faster than cassettes, slower (but cheaper) than floppies at its time of release, but never took off.

    4. Re:Are you one of those people ... by numark · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that Valve should feel responsible to rectify the situation when you willingly decide to have a computer without a CD drive? They told you that you needed the drive to play the game. You willingly chose not to meet the stated requirements for the game, and somehow you feel entitled to do things that are against a license that you agreed to when you installed the program? I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense.

      --
      Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
  120. Two turnoffs by ballpoint · · Score: 1

    I tried to buy HL2 through Steam today.

    The first bummer: trying to be holier than the pope they added VAT tax to the $59 (because I'm located in Europe), for a total of $72. The heck, I said. Dollars aren't worth shit today anyway.

    Second bummer: after asking full address details it refused my perfectly valid credit card. This makes me feel rather uneasy, as they now have all my details, including CCV, without a valid transaction.

    That's more than enough to turn me off. I'll try to live without HL2 for a while, if not forever. I've still got to finish Doom III.

    --
    Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
  121. Activation Is Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem with this "activation" scheme is that it directly affects the rights of legitimate customers.

    I *bought* my copy of HL2. Yet, I had to wait 2 hours to get it activated because of the unbelievably poor implementation of Steam, and I have to connect to Valve every time I start it. It's sending God only knows what information to Valve, which I have no control over. That annoys me. Why should my rights as a paying, legitimate customer be eroded in this way? Because of software piracy? I couldn't care less about software piracy, it doesn't apply to me, I pay for the software.

    I saw somewhere a post stating Valve had invested $40 million in developing HL2. Clearly, they're poverty stricken then. My heart bleeds. Whilst I don't advocate pirating software ( if you use it, then buy it ), the rights of the user^H^H^H^H*paying customer* have basically eroded away to nothing, activation is the final step to full on Naziware.

    When you buy a car, you don't expect to have to phone the dealer to ask permission every time you go out for a drive in it.

  122. memories by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of the time my brother's hard drive broke down and I had to explain it to the 'authorities' at MS in order to get XP 'activated' again.

    --
    Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
    1. Re:memories by man_ls · · Score: 1

      Every time I've had to reactivate my copies of anything, it's as simple as "yeah, I'm installing Office on my laptop now too." or "I reformatted" or (in my case) I'm an Action Pack subscriber, so I'm authorized to more activations than the autochecker knows about.

      Quite simple, really.

    2. Re:memories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      "This reminds me of the time my brother's hard drive broke down and I had to explain it to the 'authorities' at MS in order to get XP 'activated' again."

      I'm very surprised that there's not been an XP activation crack since SP2.

  123. I can guarentee this will cost them sales. by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
    I belong to a Science Fiction club. We have over half a dozen computers in a gaming room at out club house. For very good reasons, we have no Internet connection for them. (Think of kids downloading warez, porn and trojans for a start.) They love HL, but we'll never have HL2 because of this. How about people who want to run it on laptops away from a network connection? How about people with poor connections, or who want to pass the time waiting for their DSL to be fixed? Clearly the company doesn't give a damn about them and doesn't care about all the potential sales they're pissing away by forcing you to be on-line to play a single-player game.

    Maybe if enough of us who are getting screwed started a letter writing campaign and made it clear to Valve how much money they're throwing down the toilet by being so restrictive, they'll bow down, kiss the holy bottom line and change their policy.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
    1. Re:I can guarentee this will cost them sales. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have over half a dozen computers in a gaming room at out club house.


      Yes I am sure you were going to buy legal copies for all dozen computers. Valve only lost another bunch of kids pirating the game.

    2. Re:I can guarentee this will cost them sales. by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      We're a registered non-profit corporation. We have to be careful. We don't allow any pirated software on our systems. If a CD is required, we have an original CD. If we only have one, then only one computer can use it at any time, and that's not a problem for us. I notice, however, that you ignore all the other cases I mentioned of people being screwed by this. I guess you don't care about them either.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
  124. Re:Remeber the good ol' days? by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

    He'd also be free to wait for copyright to expire, assuming that he will live for another 200 years. And assuming that companies didn't cheat even those ridiculously long protections by wanting to use contractesque restrictions when it suits them, and then go ahead and use copyrightesque when that suits them, and denying the limitations of either when it doesn't suit them. So, I say that he should get off his lazy ass, and help crack it in a way that they can't defeat.

  125. whine, whine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are all a bunch of whiners. Its been known for a long time that those cracks were a phishing scheme... so what did you expect? Buy it, crack it yourself, or steal a box from the store. Don't come online and make a fool out of yourself. All these watery EULA complaints just dilute the real tech issues like software patents, etc.

  126. Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many fps did you get in this fps?

  127. Diablo 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one (that i noticed) made the comparison to Diablo 2. Diablo 1 had to be one of the most pirated games in a long time (def. the most pirated online RPG)...so they started locking things down in diablo 2.

    You could still play without battle.net using your pirated copy...but without a valid, unique CD-KEY the online play (and the heart of the game) wasn't available. So...people bought D2.

    Same thing happened with the cheats and dupes (tho it took em a while and several rounds) but accounts were deleted and CD-KEYs banned. The cheaters and pirates cried and the legit, honest users cheered for a gaming enviornment free of the scum that usually ruins things for every else.

    Also, I want to point out that no one has BOUGHT HL2. You purchased a license to use it. While you might not LIKE that...software has been licensed for YEARS and YEARS and the licensing DOES, in fact, stand up in court. They can pretty much terminate your license at any time and for any reason they put in the EULA. Are you due back your purchase price? Perhaps...but regardless of that they can still say 'you can't use this software anymore'.

    I don't like it...because a company can go out of business and basically sell their product AND their userbase but it's how licensing works.

    Oh, and the biggest reason for licensing software is actually liability. If you BUY something, it must have a guarantee of usability. The company that sells it can be held responsible for damages if it fails (think back to the tire debacle a couple years ago with ford). If they LICENSE something to you...you're just permitted to USE it based on your agreement (EULA) where they can limit or revolk your guarantee of usability.

    Immagine if M$ *SOLD* windows? Every time a server crashed a company could sue for damages...

    We brought this upon ourselves by suing big business :-/

  128. What does this actually mean?? by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    Can anyone explain what the CD key cheat actually does? is it a key gen or is it some way of cheating or does it let you play without a CD or something? If its a key gen, why would someone buy the product and then use that? if its to stop CD checking then can't you just mount the CD on a virtual drive? If its for cheating and you've broken the EULA by cheating then you should have read the EULA (although i think thats bullshit and tricking people into 'signing' agreements that no-one reads is dishonest, its still law in most countries).

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  129. Re:e-mail by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

    gmail filters most of it. This address re-sends to another address with another filter.

    Spambots aren't a problem. I only see one or two messages a day of spam.

    --
    Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  130. Uh huh... by HexRei · · Score: 1

    The Steam Forums have been swamped with people now claiming they are unable to play, many claiming they have had their accounts disabled for no reason.

    Because I'm sure most software pirates would go to the forum and instead post remorsefully about how they tried to the steal HL2 and Valve caught em and they got what they deserved. Right.

    It's possible that some legit folks got canned, but I bought the game and my account is still active.
    I'd be interested in hearing the methods they used to catch people.

  131. You don't need an EULA for music CDs and movie DVD by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

    Uhh, there's no EULA for CDs and DVDs, yet you have the right to view them.

    How is software any different? Why does using software require a "license" in addition to posessing a copy?

    Whoever thought up this greedy business model really should be slapped across the face. Was it Bill Gates?

    I maintain that software should be like music CDs and movie DVDs: If you posess a copy, you can use it however you want; you just can't copy it and distribute the copies.

    -Z

  132. Heh. Getting 0wn3d sucks, huh? by gosand · · Score: 1
    Even if there were a few people who were inconvenienced by this, it sounds like Valve turned the tables a bit. I am guessing that the majority of those who were busted were people trying to run cracked copies of the game.

    I think that this is a separate issue than Steam blowing goats. I don't have HL2, I am waiting. I almost got a new video card a YEAR ago in anticipation of the game, now I am very glad I didn't. If Steam sucks because it inconveniences legit users, then Valve needs to answer for it. But if they nail people who are trying to get away with playing it illegally, I am all for it. The real question is, is one the result of the other?

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  133. VALVE IS AN ENTITY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This really has nothing to do with the current discussion, it instead has to do with a small grammatical pet peeve of mine. Valve, is a company. It is one thing. It is an entity. Grammatically, this means that it is a singular singular noun, meaning that the phrase "Valve have disabled" is grammatically incorrect. Valve HAS disabled, NOT have disabled. This type of singular vs. plural confusion happens often in articles written about companies. A company, a band, a group is referred to as if it were a singular person. It is singular, not plural.

    1. Re:VALVE IS AN ENTITY by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      But in the British English, the company is a plural entity:

      Microsft have annouced blah blah blah.

      I puzzled over this for ages back in the day, a British computer gamer mag had an ad with the copy:

      PSION HAVE PROBLEMS

      It took me for freaking ever to get it into my head what that was supposed to mean.

      Sure, one company is one entity, but it's made up of more than one individual, so in the British variant it is treated as a plural.

      Here we might say "The Feds have arrested so and so" but to use your company analogy, The Feds are one entity... see it's kind of a gray area.

  134. Re:Violating the license for one locks you from al by ivan256 · · Score: 1

    You came into my business, rented time on one of my computers and then copied licensed software from my system. You are not welcome back. I don't care if you cam in last week and didn't copy anything... I don't want you as a client.

    They didn't come in and "rent time." They bought a license to use something within the terms of that agreement. It doesn't matter if you don't want that person as a client. You took their money and enterd into a contractual agreement with them. Until they violate that agreement or you have the agreement terminated by a court you have to live up to your end of it wether you like it or not. This is all about who interprets and enforces the law. Is it our legal system, or is it individuals and companies?

    Imagine if all software were sold this way. If whichever company was in charge decided you did something they didn't like, or you broke some law outside of the scope of your agreement with them they would essentialy be allowed to deny you the ability to use any software again without paying for it a second time. We could take this analogy to extremes and start talking about why we don't use capital punishemnt for all crimes, even the most petty....

    Valve should have recourse against software pirates, but they shouldn't be the judge, jury and executioner.

  135. michael's at it again by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

    People are discovering that when you buy any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really bought anything.

    And Slashdot editors are discovering that when you tack your thoughts onto a story as part of the story submission itself, you aren't subject to the moderations of the public the same way you would be if you posted a comment like everyone else has to.

    Okay, not all of them. Just michael. And he's known that for a while.

    Editing != editorializing.

  136. Pay? Isn't everything good, free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love how the "I'm complaining that it sucks, and they won't get my money - what a bad idea" posts are getting modded up and the "I've paid, I've got no problems, screw you pirates" posts are not modded at all.

    Pirates: Screw you.

    Games are made by developers who are mostly at the mercy of cutthroat publishers because ASSHATS that don't pay for the game are cutting into the abilitiy for a developer to make any money off their product.

    Good for Valve. I have always paid for my games. To hear you pirates getting the shaft gives me a chuckle, you freeloading pricks.

    Maybe quality developers, such as looking Looking Glass Studios would still be around if half you pricks stopped stealing and PAID credit where credit is DUE.

    We have a predmoninace of mega publsihers squeezing out shit product, and the quality studios being forces into compromises.

    And this, you dickheads is your fault.

  137. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You insensitive clod!!!!
    THIS is the FP, now STFU!!!

  138. Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, since HL2 is such a short game, all the deactivated account owners had already finished playing the game and don't really care.

  139. alt.binaries.cd.image.games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    alt.binaries.cd.image.games has a steamcrack as well as the "nosteam" uploaded version.

  140. I asked Vivendi about this; they banned my account by kt0157 · · Score: 2
    Vivendi do not want any discussion on this CD issue. I got an angry and abusve email from the forum moderator, who went on to claim that the issue was a "touchy one". He tried to get my Valve forum account shut too.

    The message here is don't trust Vivendi or Valve. Return the product to the store for a refund (in the EU the distance selling regulations mandate this for Internet sales). Then wait until the dust settles. In the event that Valve and Vivendi continue to hate customers more than they hate each other then just give up. It's only a game, after all.

    K.

  141. boycott them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly like what is done to RIAA, MPAA and Microsoft, just boycott them and don't use their products. That's the worst punishment for them. Don't fall in love with a game like that.

  142. I love this reading this thread by 21st+Century+Peon · · Score: 1

    ...with the G-Man staring at me from the side banner ad, and the exhortation "BUY NOW" blinking away. I did buy it, and it's grand. Best £10 I've spent in a long time (thanks to Sainsbury's putting it on the shelves the night before release, and forgetting to update the barcode database).

    --
    "Knowledge, sir, should be free to all!"
    ~Harcourt Fenton Mudd
  143. Pirates by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

    have fun with your dongled games that don't work. I'll be playing the new version of Pirates!

  144. From the militant OSS community, let me just say.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I develop software for the predominant platform so I can feed my kids.

    Let them eat polycarbonate.

  145. GONNA BE ALOT OF DEFECTIVE MEDIA EXCHANGES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    20000 huh? Oh darn i think the media is defective, i want an exchange for another. bring it on. Valve gonna have a SUPER HUGE RMA rate this season.

    besides the whole game has been cracked and is out on the 'nova and other torrents. does microsoft xbox live and steam get together these days? seems like they both be in on some of this tomfoolery.

  146. Arrrrgh! Car Analogies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Michael rented the car and drove it off-road and is shocked that the rental car company is taking the car back"

    This is also a bad analogy. Most rental agreements I've signed in the past are pretty explicit about not going off-road. And unlike this case, they state it up front on the funny bit of paper that you *have* to sign before you're given the keys.

    If we're going to stick with the car analogy, might a better one be something along the lines of having a spare key cut for your own purposes, then finding out that $car_company disabled your car and locked the doors because you did so?

    Maybe we'll just drop the car analogy altogether. They really do suck... :)

  147. Off topic: Re:You're wrong. by GlassUser · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Flash ads on slashdot? Am I just now noticing them or something?

    I guess. I don't have that security-hole-ridden piece of nonstandard junk installed here, so it means fewer ads for me any way. :)

    1. Re:Off topic: Re:You're wrong. by realdpk · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yeah, I used to have "click to play" on my machine but I forget why I removed it. The flashblock or other extension just sucks (it loads the flash, and then stops it), and prefbar isn't stopping flash any more either.

      If I weren't a Homestar Runner junky I'd probably remove it entirely.

    2. Re:Off topic: Re:You're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      admuncher
      www.admuncher.com > *

  148. New Ownership by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the new world. What you buy today, what the products are today are "services" not the actual total ownership of said product that you hold in your hand.
    When you buy food you are not purchasing the actual ownership of the ingredients and chemical makeup of the food. You don't own that nabisco symbol on the box you just "bought." You purchased the service and experience the company provides through the taste and/or nutritional value (or lack thereof) of their product.

  149. Stop your whining by gabriel29 · · Score: 1

    We all know software piracy is rampant. And it is seems a bit disingenuous to sit there and bitch over a company trying to make a legitimate buck. If software piracy was not such a problem and so pervasive, then such seemingly draconian methods wouldn't be neccissaray. But here in the real world it is. Furthermore, for those of you crying over being locked out of steam because you tried pirating HL2, get a life. You play with fire, you get burnt. Maybe next time you'll think better of it. Frankly many of you out there seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. It seems somewhat ridiculous to expect a company to spend enormous time, effort and resources to create a game, which has a relatively short shelf life, and not to vigilantly protect that investment. So if you don't want to have to jump through hoops to play your games, don't engage it software piracy and make sure your friends aren't either. Otherwise stop your damn whining!!!

    1. Re:Stop your whining by u16084 · · Score: 1

      Whining? As others have mentioned, If i purchase a game or what ever, first thing "I" do is seek out a NO CD "patch" 2AM - when you have an urge to kill something, you dont wanna look for the damn cd in your desk. And that gets me banned? Steam is out of control. Whats next a monthly fee thats required to play a game that you purchased?

      --
      -- I Dont Deserve A Sig I Have Bad Karma
    2. Re:Stop your whining by gabriel29 · · Score: 1

      So you use a tool to circumvent the copy protection on product and aren't happy with the outcome. Stop your whining!! Don't use tools that used for software piracy! You think Valve is going go and find out your just lazy and aren't trying to steal from them? Stop and think for a second.

    3. Re:Stop your whining by u16084 · · Score: 1

      "Tool For Piracy?" Screwdriver is a tool - But it can be used to break open a lock ... so that would make it a tool for breaking in? Cmon...

      --
      -- I Dont Deserve A Sig I Have Bad Karma
    4. Re:Stop your whining by gabriel29 · · Score: 1

      Comparing a no-cd crack and a screwdriver is a bit of a strech. There are many legitimate uses for a screwdrive there are no legitmate uses for a crack. A crack's only use is to circumvent legitmate copyright protection.

    5. Re:Stop your whining by deesine · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess the first thing you'll be doing after (hopefully before) purchasing a game is: Finding out if using a NoCD crack is going to get you banned.

      Is that so bad? Valve has decided that running such a crack places you in the banned category. Simple solution, don't run the crack and keep your CD handy. Directing your angst against Valve instead of the thieves who've forced this situation in the first place is illogical and whinny. If you don't like it, DON'T BUY THE GAME.

      After reading so many "My game I should be able to do what I want" posts, you'd think gamers here have no clue as to the size of the piracy problem.

      We ALL want to be able to buy software and then run/tweak/crack it sans consequences. The reality is that a HUGE percentage of people want to play without paying, so publishers/developers employ anti-piracy tactics.You would do the same thing if you ran a software gaming company.

      The only thing Valve seems guilty of is not alerting purchasers to the consequences of using NoCD cracks.

      --
      damaged by dogma
    6. Re:Stop your whining by u16084 · · Score: 1

      Ok, Then I will agree with you. We all tend to agree that piracy is a big problem. But using a NOCD patch doesnt actually mean piracy, but thats a whole different discussion. Valve has put some "fear" into purchasing the game, following the remarks on their forums, how meny of those 20,0000 banned accounts were banned because VALVE's authentication schemes? But oh well. Should of read the fine print eh?

      --
      -- I Dont Deserve A Sig I Have Bad Karma
    7. Re:Stop your whining by Templewood · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nope.. That's 100% False... Software Industry Hype with a double helping..

      NO-CD Crack/Patches DO have valid uses:

      1) Prevent wear and tear on hardware and cd media. After all the companies are more than willing to replace your CD if it get's scratched beyond use.. NOT.. Granted some will replace a broke/damaged CD.. for a fee.. but they don't have to.

      2) Convinience... The ability to use your lone drive to play audio CD's while playing a game, perhaps you just don't wanna hear the ingame sounds/music.. and would rather kill terrorists to the sounds of "Flight of the Valkeries", or "Anarky in the UK"...

      3) Playing your legally purchased game. Suprisingly enough, some people are unaware that SecurROM 2/3 & 5 (HL2 uses 5), is incompatible with certain CD-R/RW / DVD-R/RW drives, and as such prevents legally purchased versions from runing. A No-CD patch is currently the only way to play the HL2 game you purchased with your money. (Liscense or Direct ownership arguement not withstanding).

      SO no No-CD patches are NOT only for Piracy.

      I know I've used a No-CD patch on all my The Sims games (Purchased @ retail for over $200 total), and I've had little to no trouble with the game, or any of it's expansions. Morrowind tech support even told people to go get the unofficial no-cd patch to fix problems with their game, until they could release a official patch that removed the CD protection checks, because it was AFFECTING their LEGAL CUSTOMERS use of the product they purchased.

      So please before you make blanket idiotic statements, please check your facts, and learn that the Hype the software industry puts out is just that Hype, to make them look better, while they trample on your fair use and consumer rights (What you don't think your elected congressman had YOUR best interests in mind when they (those that did), voted for the DMCA do you?)

    8. Re:Stop your whining by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      A crack's only use is to circumvent legitmate copyright protection.

      Or to make a game work because SecuROM/SafeDisc doesn't play nice with your particular optical drive.

      Or to prevent a compromising of system security for those CD check methods that require full Administrator rights.

      And tell me how not wanting to put the disc in the drive to play a game that I have legally purcahsed is not "legitimate".

    9. Re:Stop your whining by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      Is that so bad? Valve has decided that running such a crack places you in the banned category. Simple solution, don't run the crack and keep your CD handy.

      That's very good advice for the people who use the crack because SecuROM won't play nice with their DVD-RW drive.

      And I'm sure that Valve is in the right for this, even though I could find nothing in the game's EULA that forbids the use of noCD cracks.

    10. Re:Stop your whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a blanket idotic statement, its a fact of life. There is software piracy, so companies use mesures to stop software piracy. Do you really expect valve to go out a see if your using a no-cd crack for "legitamate" purposes? That's a unrealistic expectation.
      You are circumventing their methods for protecting their IP. It is perfectly reasonable for valve to assume the worst. The other alternative is idiotic.

    11. Re:Stop your whining by gabriel29 · · Score: 1

      No one is perfect. Piracy is a fact of life. If you don't like having to jump though hoops, piss and moan at the people out there that make this sort of thing neccessary! What would you suggest valve do? Stick their heads in the sand and be robbed blind?

    12. Re:Stop your whining by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      They have Steam, which is effective enough at piracy prevention. Yes, HL2 was warezed the day of its release. Funny how the SecuROM workaround wasn't out for another four days after that.

      The SecuROM protection clearly did absolutely nothing whatsoever to stop piracy. Steam is a decent piracy prevention tool, even if it isn't perfect, but it's clearly good enough that SecuROM doesn't add anything useful whatsoever.

    13. Re:Stop your whining by gabriel29 · · Score: 1

      Truth be told, there is no fool-proof security. It's a matter of making it annoying enough to most people that they won't try. If you really want to steal something and you have the time, money and resoursces, for the most part, you can do it. Security is a cat and mouse game that never ends. Just because someone got around it doesn't invalidate it. Its a fact of life as well.

    14. Re:Stop your whining by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      And my point here is that SecuROM did not make piracy of the game any more annoying. The warez released, released by EMPORiO, did not require that anyone crack the SecuROM protection on the retail box set.

      The noCD workaround that was released on Saturday doesn't make pirating the game easier. It still requires a valid Steam account, and it still requires that the installed game be "unlocked" through Steam before it can be played. The SecuROM protection is nothing more than a hinderance to a number of legitimate buyers who found that their optical disc readers weren't playing nice to the CD check hack that Vivendi had foisted upon them. Pirates had been playing the game without any such troubles since the day of its release.

  150. Re:Violating the license for one locks you from al by Poseidon88 · · Score: 1

    Sure it is. If your Steam account is closed by Valve, you could take them to court over it. You'd probably lose, though, unless you could prove they were in the wrong.

  151. Can someone explain Steam to me?! by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

    I own a copy of HL2. I have not opened it yet. I'm thinking about returning it depending on the answers I get here.

    Do I have to install Steam to run HL2? Does Steam allow you to install the game onto more than one computer? If I have to buy one copy for each computer, I'm certainly returning it. I know they have the right to limit it one use per machine or one use per person, but I won't accept those terms. I'd rather have my money back.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    1. Re:Can someone explain Steam to me?! by Qrlx · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, you have to install Steam to run HL2.

      Yes, steam allows you to install the game onto more than one computer.

      Yes, you can only play on one computer at a time.

      Think of it as a Microsoft Passport for online gaming.

      When you log into Steam you create a unique account, and you enter the CD keys for HL2 or Coutnerstrike or whatever. Then, when you go to the cybercafe or what have you, and log onto Steam there, you have access to all the tiles you've registered CD keys for.

      In some ways it's a great idea, in other ways it's not so great. For instance, you can buy HL2 right from Valve over the Steam thingie. The downside of this is the time it takes to download 5 CDs worth of content. As many people are complaining, it really messes up the pacing of the game if you get to play for a few minutes, then have to take a break while the next batch of content loads.

      But the bright side is: No Vivendi. No need for bricks and mortar. Pure electronic publishing. Of course for the bright side to really shine you'd think they would charge maybe $10 or $20 less since surely they save that much by cutting out the middleman...

      Anyway, I own the original Half-Life and I tried playing it on Steam. (This was after completely installing the full 5 CDs of Half Life Platinum Pack or whatever.) Now, the annoying thing was... loading content. Even on the dang train ride in the beginning of the game, it had to pause and download the next level. I said, this is dumb, I have the CDs, why is it downloading stuff? So I ditched Steam and played the Old-Fashioned Way. Though it's a mess, I'm not sure if I was playing the most up-to-date HL because it seems like some of the patches are steam-only... but I'm not gonna download a whole game via Steam when I've just installed it all on my hard drive and Steam is too dumb to use the files I already have. (Checksum anyone?)

      From what I can tell the most benefit comes from Steam if you are a big Counterstrike player and you go to lots of cybercafes and are such a junky that you play at work, grandma's house, etc. You buy the game once and when you log into Steam it doesn't matter if you're at the computer lab or at home or wherever.

      For the average home user, who plays games on one PC at home, steam doesn't really offer a lot, and the fact that it automatically starts and hangs out in the System Notification Area when you boot is kind of insulting as well.

      Just my two cents. Two cents I still have, since I am playing the warez version of Half-Life 2. :)

      Oops, I just realized my Steam account is the same name as my Slashdot account. Oh well, not like I was planning on using Steam anyways. ;)

    2. Re:Can someone explain Steam to me?! by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      If I can install on multiple computers, I guess that's fair. I'm annoyed that I need an internet connection to play the game. But not enough to return it.

      Thanks for your help!

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    3. Re:Can someone explain Steam to me?! by Shadwhawk · · Score: 1

      You don't need an internet connection to run the game. You need one to ACTIVATE it. Once HL2 is activated, you can run it offline as often as you like.
      In fact, I think this fact alone will let you easily play both copies simultaneously in Offline mode. You won't be able to play both copies online at once, though, and I'm not sure how they'd react on a non-internet-connected LAN.

    4. Re:Can someone explain Steam to me?! by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      Thanks for clearing that up too. Others were saying that you have to verify every time you play the game.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  152. Re:You don't need an EULA for music CDs and movie by Dorothy+86 · · Score: 1
    The EULA isn't for the media... it's for the content..

    Ya know in the olden days when that big "FBI" thing would come on the screen when you watched a VHS tape? ever read it? It tells you the rules for use: an EULA.

    I maintain that software should be like music CDs and movie DVDs: If you posess a copy, you can use it however you want; you just can't copy it and distribute the copies.

    While I agree, you know and I know that a lot of people won't play by the rules, and I think the company has a right to protect their property. When you click "I accept" you, too, are saying that they have the right to do so as well.

  153. Using Steam means you have to trust Valve A LOT by kt0157 · · Score: 1
    If your account is blocked you lose access to all your games. They will block your account for dozens of reasons, including someone else hacking your account and doing something with it, or stealing your CD key and misusing it.

    Current form with Valve is not good. They ban people from their forums for being critical (note: not for abuse, or disseminating illegal cracks, but for criticising Valve or Vivendi).

    Current form with Valve is not good. They refuse to transfer a CD key to a new account. This means you cannot sell your game to someone else after you've finished playing with it. And before anyone posts a reply yakking about "license to use" not "a product" you should know that the Valve HL2 EULA specifically permits re-sale of the game. Yet they do not provide any means of doing so. You can't even pass on your Steam account with the game because (a) that violates the Steam EULA, and (b) you might have other games attached to the account you didn't want to sell.

    Any way you read it, Valve's policies suck. They have had years to work on this yet end up releasing a game with authentication/account flaws that a monkey could spot problems with. That says that they hire marmosets (unlikely) or that they just don't care (more likely).

    K.

  154. I'm probably alone here, but I don't mind Steam. by Luscious868 · · Score: 1

    I know I'm probably alone here, but I actually don't mind the activation. I no longer have to worry about keeping track of the game media. Case in point, a month ago my hard drive crashed. Luckily I had my important data backed up and had recently purchased a new 160 GB hard drive to install but hadn't gotten around to it yet.

    So I installed the new hard drive, re-installed the OS, restored the data I had backed up and started re-installing all of the software that I use. My Half-Life CD was gone. I have no idea where it went or at what point I lost it, but it had literally been years since the last time I had seen it. At first I was freaked because I love Counter Strike and Day of Defeat. Thanks to Steam, all I had to do was reinstall the Steam client, log in, and I could download and play the games again.

    Basically, I see it as a fair trade off. My new position is that I'm willing to deal with a game that requires activation to run, provided the company allows me to re-download the content as many times as may be required should something happen to my PC, or should I be over at a friends and decide that I want to play the game.

    Now, I understand the argument that you'd be totally S.O.L. if the company went under in the future, but I've got to be honest here, once I play a game and beat it number of times (which is usally within a couple of months after I buy it), I don't often find myself going back to it unless there's a multiplayer element. So, if 3 years down the road I can't play HalfLife 2 anymore because Valve goes belly up, I wouldn't be all that upset about it. I mean really, I can go out on any night of the week with friends and blow $40 or $50 bucks at the bar. If the game keeps me in for an evening or two when I otherwise would have gone out and partied, then the game has paid for itself. I know that I'll literally spend hundred of hours (maybe even in the low thousands of hours) playing HalfLife 2, Counter Strike: Source and Day of Defeat: Source over the next few years. To me, it's worth it, even if Valve goes totaly belly up after 3 years. The game will have paid for itself a million times over.

    Import software, on the other hand, is a differnt story alltogather. There are times that I've had to go back and install an old version of a product to open up some document that I have saved. Product activation wouldn't work for me for that kind of software, but for games, if it allows me to redownload it as many times as I may need, then I don't really mind it.

    Flame away .....

  155. And you wonder why... by robyannetta · · Score: 1
    Gaming has become so competitive financialy to companies, new games that have TOS that claims they can revoke your rights to play the game if they suspect fraud (not prove) is not worth playing. They take your cash, give you nothing, and, according to their EULA, owe you nothing.

    Sound familiar?

    --
    - Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
  156. I'm With You by Makarakalax · · Score: 1

    I'm with you man. People are too fucking obsessed with the idea of making every single last penny out of their products. It sickens me.

    Having said that it doesn't bother me too much that Valve have used copy-protection, it just appalls me that they don't care about the "minority" of users they have banned who legtimately paid for the game.

    Valve are going to make a ridiculous amount of money out of this game. Why do they care about a bunch of 12 year olds who couldn't afford the game anyway? To me it just looks like greed.

    I should add that I am a producer of creative content myself.

  157. write the damn number on the cd itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    duh.

  158. Penance by Brakz0rz · · Score: 2

    Let's not kid ourselves. The cd check is a punishment from Valve for not purchasing the game online using Steam and giving them more money. It is accompanied by the lack of Day of Defeat and HL:source (considering the retail version has a comparative cost to the steam 'silver' package).

    I pre-bought my game far earlier then they released the info on the Steam vs retail packages. I feel insulted by Valve and I personally hope Vivendi gives them some sort of legal grief for the way things turned out.

    --
    "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot
  159. No-CD Cracking and Mod Chips by HarvardAce · · Score: 1
    The way I see it, using a no-cd crack is very similar to using a mod chip on your console. While using a mod chip for legitimate purposes (like anyone besides those that use an XBox as a cheap computer does this...) is probably legal, you are doing so at your own risk. If something goes wrong and the console stops working, you're screwed, whether the problem was directly due to the mod chip or was completely unrelated (like a faulty hard drive) and normally covered under warranty.

    I haven't heard anyone here complain about the fact that your XBox live account will get locked if Microsoft finds you using a hacked XBox, yet most people here are complaining about the same exact thing -- Valve is locking your account if you get caught using a hacked (in this case, cracked) executable.

    Besides, in both cases of being locked out by the vendor, you should still be able to play non-online games. If Valve locks your account for using a no-cd crack, you still should be able to play single player, since you can bypass the Valve validation anyway with another crack.

    One more thing -- with the XBox, Microsoft knows that the Xbox was actually purchased (with the exception of those which were stolen), while in the case of HL2, there is a significant number (the percentage is of course debatable, but my guess it is >50%) of illegally copied software being disabled.

    --
    Note to self: Stop putting jokes in my insightful comments so I can get something other than +1 Funny!
    1. Re:No-CD Cracking and Mod Chips by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      If you cannot validate your Steam account, you cannot play Half-Life.

      CIVIL VIOLATION IN PROGRESS

      Life mirrors art with this fucking game I swear, I feel more and more like Gordon Freeman every day.
      I could almost take my crowbar to the Combin errrrrrrr Valve Headquarters and demand action.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:No-CD Cracking and Mod Chips by HarvardAce · · Score: 1
      Unless of course you download a crack that gets you by that. From the discussion in previous articles, this crack also exists.

      And that wasn't my main point anyway -- my point was that as soon as you modify something, the original vendor is no longer reponsible if it no longer works, because you have violated the software license you agreed to when you installed the product. You buy their software, you have to follow their rules -- if you don't like their rules, then quit b*tching and play Doom 3.

      --
      Note to self: Stop putting jokes in my insightful comments so I can get something other than +1 Funny!
    3. Re:No-CD Cracking and Mod Chips by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      But in half-life I can hold my torch and swing my crowbar at the same time.
      I laughed lots at that when I did it :)

      The game(hl2) itself is stunning and I'm not going to do anything to violate my license but this is the tightest set of rules I've ever come across.

      I think my next move will be to disable online access to Steam servers (hosts file initially) and then lock out the CD.
      I might even consider taking an snapshot of the required portions of my system so that I never have to contact them again just to play.

      Now, if they release a major update to it (new level packs etc?) or other bugfixes, I will have to cleanup my system, reinstall all the bits and start all over again.

      By that time, the next big game may be out, and it just might not be worth it.
      One thing is for certain, I am NEVER purchasing another game from Valve/Vivendi whilst dictator like checks are in place.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
  160. What Valve really did... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Some people don't seem to understand what Valve did.

    Valve released a cd key to the public, through warez forums.

    Valve took note of all STEAM accounts trying to register HL2 with that cd key, if the user tried to circumvent the activation process.

    All accounts (20,000) that Valve recorded were disabled.

    Many people tried to use the fake cd key on their normal accounts, and now cannot play their original HL/DOD/CS1.6/mods.

    1. Re:What Valve really did... by tricops · · Score: 1

      Right, because you have so much proof they did that themselves. Not that it's impossible, but you're just talking out your ass. I've seen a whole lot more serial codes/cd keys released by hackers than by companies, haven't you? Seems the more likely situation to me....

      Anyway, while I don't know that I agree with their losing access to legitimately bought games, they would have to be pretty dumb to go and enter something like that in an online service if they actually thought it through first. I don't have a whole lot of sympathy in regards to that :)

      --
      (\(\
      (^v^)
      (")")
      This is the cute vorpal bunny virus, copy to your sig or runaway, runaway in fear!
  161. Where's the precedent? by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

    Here's a question for the "EULA's are unenforceable" crowd:

    The consumer software industry is almost thirty years old. The practice of enclosing license agreements in boxed software has been around nearly as long.

    In all that time, has there ever been a court ruling addressing the question of whether post-point-of-sale EULA's are valid? If not, why not?

  162. RTFA by Sirwar · · Score: 1

    "Yesterday, Valve disabled approximately 20,000 Steam accounts which had been used to try to access Half-Life 2 without purchasing it. The method used was extremely easy for Valve to trace and confirm, and so there is no question that the accounts disabled were used to try and illegally obtain Half-Life 2." "Second, the number of people who actually had bought HL2 and used the CD key cheat was VERY small. VERY small. Most people just tried to rip off the game and not bother buying it." CD *KEY*. So explain to me why anyone who has a legitimate copy of the game would use a phony CD-KEY?

    1. Re:RTFA by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Point taken. To be fair, the whole discussion is offtopic. This is not about Steam and it's cancellation of 20k accounts.

      Like i implied before, when you buy HL2 you bought a licence sold as a game. I don't like it, so i won't buy it. I've played a game (at a friend's house, which has, imagine that, downloaded it off BT) and i found it to be quite good, but i'm not confortable with a company telling me what i can and can't do with software i bought (besides pirating it, of course, which is covered by copyright laws).

    2. Re:RTFA by Sirwar · · Score: 1

      Again, point taken.

      While your stance is, of course, a good one to have in general; there has to be room for specific exceptions. This is not a case of "you may not install this software on another computer" or "you may not copy the contents of this disk". You CAN do anything you want with the software, so long as you satisify the very reasonable stipulation that you are not pirating it, or using cheat hacks online.

    3. Re:RTFA by Sirwar · · Score: 1

      Very reasonable stipulation to say you aren't pirating it.

      What if the activation servers go down? Well hell, you better grab your shotgun and stock your basement with Pork & Beans, because who knows when ANYTHING we might rely on goes down.
      But seriously, IF they don't find a way to eventually turn off activation, start bitching about it then. For now, and the next 5+ years, just play the game.

    4. Re:RTFA by Sirwar · · Score: 1

      And as well, if Valve activation servers go down, then obviously they will not care about piracy, so you'll be free to crack/keygen your way to HL2 goodness.

  163. I Pirate video games by halo8 · · Score: 1

    Ya... i pirate video games.. i dont pay for most of them. so what? most games out there are shit. and the companies know it.. same games just with prettier grahpics, and even dumber A.I. than the last game of that genre.

    But a game like Halflife2.. i know im going to get good money out of a game like that. $60 for a 5 year investment.. hey thats pretty good return rate. and downloading 5CD's what a hassle.. i just bought the game. Masters of Orian, Dungeon Keeper 1-2, Battlefield1942, Halflife2.. thoes are the games i own. the rest have lasted less than a week. its the Mod community that supports them

    --
    The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
    1. Re:I Pirate video games by u16084 · · Score: 1

      Most of us follow the "Try Before You Buy" theory. Morally Wrong Maybe? Not being scammed by worthless buggy software - Priceless?

      --
      -- I Dont Deserve A Sig I Have Bad Karma
  164. Pirated HL2 Games work fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The pirated & cracked/packaged releases work fine (because steam was never installed & you don't install it to play the illegal released copy) . Here are the type of people being banned ;

    1. You bought the retail game & are using a no-cd hack. (modifing the game , violates EULA)
    2. Your CD Key is now trying to reactive new accounts on several other computers around the world (steam account & key blacklisted)
    3. You attempted to bypass steam to play Counter-Strike on more than one computer on your LAN with only 1 steam account. (you are allowed to install your account/game on multiple computers but the library book law aplies here)
    4. You attempted to bypass steam activation of your retail copy (if your online while playing the game and/or steam is running while your online , your game will be de-activated & banned).

    And of course, the true pirates in this ordeal are always un-affected & are the real winners. The got what they wanted upfront, no hassle, no EULA, no CD protection, no STEAM, & no problems getting what the wanted ... playing Half-Life 2 right now.

  165. I thoroughly agree by Makarakalax · · Score: 1

    Generally agree with you, who cares if people who don't pay get banned?

    But otherwise I want to say, don't call it stealing you stupid wanker.

  166. Flamebait by moxiez · · Score: 1

    Once again, someone bitchin' on SD about stealing something and not being able to use it... this is getting old.

  167. Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why dont companys just put ultra fine print on the box that says.

    Before purchase please agree to the EULA located here : www.blow me.com/crap.html?eatit. Then nobody has an excuse. You could even put "You can write the company here to receive a copy of the EULA in writing before purchase." Then you can review before buying.

    1. Re:Simple solution by Danse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why dont companys just put ultra fine print on the box that says.

      Why should it be ultra-fine print? What do they have to hide? Aside from that, I wouldn't have a problem with them making it available online. Just as long as they understand that some or all of their EULA may not even be valid where I live, and they should not be allowed to take action against me by removing my right to play the game if I violate unenforceable portions of the EULA. Now they could refuse to sell the game to people that live in places that won't enforce parts of the EULA, but that's up to them.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  168. Left out text by dbacher · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the article:
    Yesterday, Valve disabled approximately 20,000 Steam accounts which had been used to try to access Half-Life 2 without purchasing it. The method used was extremely easy for Valve to trace and confirm, and so there is no question that the accounts disabled were used to try and illegally obtain Half-Life 2.

    Accounts also may be closed due to fraudulent activity in an attempt to obtain additional products for your Steam Account. This includes Credit Card fraud, theft of accounts you do not own and using cracked versions of Valve games.

    --

    There is a direct link to what to do if you believe they made an error, etc.

    I think this part of the message is vitally important, compared to the other piece, because people are going "oh I applied a no-cd patch, etc."

    Note that the steam agreement does say you won't alter the software. Note you can also get a no-cd patch (as other posts have been saying) by simply uninstalling the game, and then running it via Steam.

    And note, when you install a Steam game from CD, it doesn't necessarily copy the entire CD (or CDs) into the cache. When you play the game over Steam, the steam title has the option of loading files from the CD that aren't present in Steam's cache (and AFAIK there's no way to turn this option off from the steam client).

    This "might" be why one of the CDs has to be in the drive, because it might be reading an index (I've not licensed Steam to develop games, just investigated licensing it, and that's one of the features in the list).

    --
    If your code is acting bloated, and is running rather slow, it's likely and predicted that some loops you will unroll.
  169. Pirate version of HL2 way better than the official by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Emporium - Proper (pirate) release of HL2 runs better than the official copy of the game.

    1. It has Steam removed
    2. It does not require online activation
    3. It does not need to be burned to a CD
    4. It has faster loading times

    Everyone who legally bought the game should go download the pirate release off bittorrent. Your gaming experience will improve considerably and you will never have to worry about being locked out of Steam again.

  170. Vote with your dollar by kb9vcr · · Score: 1

    I refuse to purchase a product that has to be authenticated for:
    1) single player
    2) playing MP on a LAN

    Authentication for playing on the internet is perfectly fine and makes sense, but gaming companies have overstepped their bounds. You might not agree but, I really don't care...dish out the cash now if you want but don't complain later when all your games stop working after game company X stops their 'support.'

  171. This just in: Valve offers exchange by gotgenes · · Score: 0

    "Stores will not accept returns, but the company who put out the product usually will."

    One option for customers whose service has been revoked is that you can now send in your purchased copy of Half Life 2 to Valve in exchange for a stylish T-shirt.

    The front features the HL2 logo; on the back is a larger version of the logo, along with the words "I bought Half Life 2, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."

    Only available while supplies last...

    --
    It's such a fine line between stupid and clever.
  172. Journalistic Integrity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have to question the Journalistic Integrity of a site that "reports" on a product that is advertised "in" that site. When I brought this story up, there was a HL2 advertisement RIGHT NEXT TO THE STORY.
    Bad, Slashdot!

  173. ...yes by Renraku · · Score: 1

    There are still a shitload of people that get nothing but headshots on CS:S with scores of 10x kills to x deaths.

    There are still people that know where EVERYONE's at, and you better believe they're coming for you in your new secret random hiding spot that's way out of the way. Likely aiming for your head through the wall.

    There are still people that run faster than you, reload faster, shoot faster, etc. There are still people that will almost always win because all they have to do is push a button. They don't have to aim, use strategy, or anything.

    Their CHEATS do it for them. Steam hasn't prevented these, because a third of the CS:S players still cheat, and obviously.

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
  174. Re:Violating the license for one locks you from al by jdreed1024 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Why aren't they just blocking those users from Half-Life 2 instead of revoking (shall we say "stealing" since they like to mis-use the word too) ligitemately purchased licenses for other products too?

    More importantly, why aren't more people telling this company to fuck off? When TurboTax tried the activation bullshit, there was a huge public outcry, people applied for refunds in droves (and got them in states where the laws allow them), and rushed to H&R Block's TaxCut. TurboTax got the message big time and took out a full page ad in the NY Times and other major newspapers apologizing for the incident and as a result TurboTax for this year has no activation required.

    Of course, I can answer my own question: because there are other ways to do your taxes, but Half-Life 2 is shiny and game addicts need their fix. If you hate a company's product, you shouldn't support them. People need to be stronger and stop buying movies and DVDs and software that impose restrictions. Only then will the companies wake up.

    --
    There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
  175. American Express hands down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simply purchase it with American Express at any store and complain to them, they will refund your money. AE is the best CC company ever and any problem I've ever had was simply over turned by them and credited to my account. I will never purchase on any other credit card because of that. I've had Visa etc.. and all were hassles when trying to resolve issues. AE makes so much money they don't bother with petty stuff. If you got the shaft and purchased it with a CC i'd consult them and tell them you were ripped off.

  176. What planet are you from? by CatOne · · Score: 1

    So your excuse is that you didn't read the click through license agreement, so the fact that you were using a pirated key and they deactivated your account should mean they owe you compensation?

    Good God.

  177. Strange Thing... by blackmonday · · Score: 1

    Reading these comments strikes me as funny, with all the Steam defenders. If this was an RIAA affiliated music CD, I wonder if the comments like "But Steam has to make a living! Stop the Pirates!" would hold water to us slashdotters.

    1. Re:Strange Thing... by gabriel29 · · Score: 1

      Nice!!! I was wondering if anyone was going to point this out. Piracy is Piracy is Piracy.. even if it software, music, or some other IP. Someone put time, money and effort into its creation and deserve some compesnastion...what compensation and for how long, well that could be a whole other thread!!

    2. Re:Strange Thing... by Ahnteis · · Score: 1

      Well, actually, RIAA is more equivalent to Vivendi and their requirement for a CD in the drive even for this online-validated game.

      That's right, people who buy the CD in the store not only have to submit to Steam authentication, they have to have the CD in the drive to play. (Securom if you care.)

      Valve is the music artist in this example. They're creating a way to get around the middleman using technology. Seems like a good enough plan to me.

      Vivendi is the RIAA trying to preserve the old way of doing things at the expense of the customer. (And failing miserably at it I might add. Vivendi Universal Games is in a death spiral right now.)

  178. The MMORPG aspect by Luscious868 · · Score: 1

    I hate replying to my own posts, but I feel like I left out this important element to put it into perspective.

    I forgot to mention the MMORPG aspect. Take a game like Everquest or Star Wars Galaxies. You're actually worse off if you buy into something like that because of the monthly fee. Not only are you spending $40 - $50 bucks for the boxed product, but you've got to pay a monthly free of anywhere from $5 - $10+ to continue playing after the first month and you're in the same boat as you would be if you bought Half Life 2 from Valve in that if the software company goes belly up then you can't play the MMORPG that you paid for.

    With Half Life 2 multiplayer (Counter-Strike: Source and Day of Defeat: Source), I spend $40 bucks up front, and can play as long as I like and never have to spend another dime. Let's say I spent $45 on it and played for 2 years and then Valve goes out of business. It cost me a total of $45, which comes out to about $1.66 a month to play the game. Now let's say I spend $45 on a boxed MMORPG game which includes one month of free play and then proceed to pay $5 a month for the next 23 months of play. That's a grand total of $160 bucks to play the game for 2 years, or about $6.66 a month.

    Half Life 2 is the better deal. Especially when you consider that most hit MMORPG games cost more than $5 bucks a month.

    When it comes to value, Half Life 2 with activation beats any MMORPG game out there hands down. Yeah you have to deal with product activation, but you're in a similar situation with a MMORPG and you don't have to deal with a monthly fee for each month you play Half Life 2's multiplayer games or Half Life 2 itself.

    1. Re:The MMORPG aspect by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Yes, but at $10 * 100K users(UO today) thats $1M monthly. Assuming traffic, overhead and upkeep eat half that thats $500K montly $6M annually. Granted for someone like MS, thats nothing, but for most companies that's a revenue stream they don't wish to close off. You are better off with the MMORPG model because unless all 100k users jump ship at once, you have 6-12 months warning before you lose your game. with steam, you don't know until or after they pull the plug, it isn't an ongoing revenue cash cow.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  179. Sorry, but killing em all ain't right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I will not purchase HalfLife 2 at this point. I had intended on purchasing it in a few weeks (after a system upgrade). This Steam thing puts all the cards in the hands of Valve. If they miss identify behaviour on your part, they can literally "unsell" hundreds of dollars of software in the blink of an eye. Now, of course, they will not refund your purchases, they will gladly keep that. I do not condone the theft and use of Valve's software, but I also am getting really tired about the "terms and conditions" that companies are giving themselves. Software should be treated no differently than any other form of purchase. Companies should not be able to give themselves super-judge powers, that in the blink of an eye can undo all purchases which have been done with that company. Kick the illegal software out, most certainly. But also kicking out legally purchased software, is not right.

  180. MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With all of the posts that are complaining about Steam, I think it's important that people see this perspective as well. There are some upsides to it if you're aloud to re-download content. Plus, how long did Valve manage to stay afloat between Half Life 1 and Half Life 2? What was it, 5 years, 6 years? Anyway, Half Life 2 has been getting good reviews. With the Holiday season coming up, there going to make millions. I don't think anybody has to worry about them going out of business anytime soon. By the time it happens, if it happens, people will have moved on to other games, and probably gotten their $50 dollars worth a thousand times over!

  181. Why not buy it now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All you have to do is re-register with steam (new username), and buy the game if you've been locked out... no?
    I dunno i don't own the game yet... might wait on it :) Or did they block the actualy CD key? i think they only blocked the account...

  182. EULA Question by wizatcomputer · · Score: 2

    I have a few questions about the EULA which pose some interesting situations. 1) If I'm under 18 and I install a game and push "I accept" but then violate the EULA, can they do anything? Since I'm a minor, the "contract" is null and void, and in theroy I can do whatever I want. 2) If I don't accept the EULA, does that mean that I can attempt to reverse engineer the software? I'm not to sure about copyright laws, but I didn't agree to the "no-reverse engineering" bit in the EULA. 3) What if (again) I don't accept the EULA, but manage to copy all the files off the CD and onto my computer, making the directory structure in tact and all files in place? In theroy I can do whatever I want (including play and/or possibly modify the files) as I did not agree to the EULA. I've been wondering about these questions, but I've never been able to find the answers. Maby someone can answer these questions.

    --
    What's the point of a sig?
  183. Re:You don't need an EULA for music CDs and movie by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    The nature of the container is irrelevant.

    If you don't need a license to use a book, then you don't (or at least should not) need a license to use software either. That is implicit in your purchase of the container.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  184. Who will start the class action? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does someone have the balls to call a lawyer and get a class action suit going? I think this is the perfect opportunity to test EULA's legality. Would the Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org/ have an interest?

  185. Re:I'm probably alone here, but I don't mind Steam by bynary · · Score: 1

    I love Steam! Here's why: 1. I don't have to drive to the store, which may or may not be sold out. 2. I don't have to wait in line to pay at said store. 3. I don't have to deal with uninformed employees, "HL2? Hmmm...we have Halo 2? Is that what you were looking for?" 4. I don't have to worry about scratched CDs (some may argue that you have to worry about a crashed HD) 5. It lets me pay Valve directly and saves me $5 in the process. 6. It's easy to use. So, no, you're not alone.

    --
    http://www.bynarystudio.com
  186. last time I checked by ocularDeathRay · · Score: 0

    you don't have to put up with any of this crap to play bzflag or cube or abuse_sdl or chromium... I can live without valve/steam/HL2 etc.

    --
    Obama is a twitter sock puppet
  187. Sir, would you kindly allow me to use my software? by D.+Book · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The trouble with product activation is that it's implemented in such a painless and convenient way (in the majority of cases, where it works properly) that people fail to see this process for what it actually is: repeatedly asking permission from the manufacturer to use the product you purchased, after you purchased it. It seems the process is too automatic, too obscure not only for Joe User, but surprisingly, technically literate Slashdot readers who you'd normally expect to understand abstract threats to their freedom.

    Perhaps if people had to actually speak to the company and say the words, "could you please activate my software?" and say it a few more times for other software packages, and a few more times after reinstallation, it might hit home. Perhaps if they had to wait on hold for thirty minutes, desperately seeking permission to use the software they purchased, it might sink in. Perhaps if, in a fit of nostalgia they decide to reinstall an old game only to be dismayed they can't play it because the activation system no longer works and no patch is available, they will get the message.

    Indeed, whenever I've had to phone Microsoft to activate Windows XP, or Intuit/Reckon to activate Quicken, it's not the annoyance of being put through a five minute exchange of serial codes that sticks in my mind, but the more profound emotion of resentment of being put in that situation in the first place. I resent having to obediently request permission to use something I'd spent hundreds of dollars on. I resent having to repeatedly ask permission during the life of the product, according to criteria set by the company. I resent not knowing if I'll still be able to use the software a few years down the track. I resent that many of my friends, who paid nothing for their pirated/cracked copies, don't have to suffer the same indignities or worry about such things.

    The most important issue about activation is not whether it's convenient or inconvient, but the way it fundamentally changes the relationship between the customer and a company selling proprietary software. For the life of the product, the customer is now dependent on the company to repeatedly affirm the most basic right of any software user. Not to peak at the software's source code or modify it, but simply to run the program they purchased legitimately.

  188. You dont want that by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    If you use the nocd crack, Valve will assume you are a theif and disable your steam account and game.

    Your screwed and this is why people are so pissed here.

    I bet half of the 20,000 were using the crack.

  189. I just learned that being a geek can be dangerous! by NeedleSurfer · · Score: 1

    I actually have bought the game, what a blast it is, I dig this thing a lot. However, my geek mind wasn't able to deal with the copy protection scheme, not in the sense that I didn't like it but in the sense that I was wondering what was sent to Valve, how, when, why does it need to connect everytime I play and so on. Since pirates usually figure that out before me I downloaded a crack version so I could check which file were changed and how, and maybe get a few hints on how the Valve authentication system works.

    Pure curiosity since I already have bought the game. I downloaded, didn't find anything interesting since it was the actual source code that has been stolen which I needed to compile and so on. I was very disapointed but since I also have a life I stoped my investigation there, disapointed by the unfruitfull long wait of the download.

    Thank God!
    I could be cut off today...

    Curiosity killed the cat... and the geek's Valve account.

    My situation must not be very common but still, I'll think twice before trying to know next time...

  190. Wrong generalisation by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 1

    People are discovering that when you buy any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really bought anything.

    No. People are discovering they actually have bought nothing. In my country, lawyers would call this a fraud.

    --
    There you are, staring at me again.
  191. Lost Customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm one of those would be customers this B.S. has lost.

    I was really looking forward to Half-Life2.
    But my laptop is often unable to connect to anything when(where) I'm playing, and I've been known to take out that power sucking cd/dvd drive to make room for a spare battery.

    Obviously the stream activation/check in with mothership is not a good thing for me. Same with the CD route.

    Besides, if I purchased via Stream, what do I do when I nuke and pave? It happens about every 8 months, if not every semester. (Yes, I'm a college student.) Can I download a copy to store on cd/dvd for when I reload, or do I have to download from stream everytime? And what do I do when the company changes, fails, stops supporting it? (That's not speculation, it will happen, and probably way too soon...)

    Basically this whole HL2 mess looks like a timebomb debacle of incompetence that will only get worse.
    At least they didn't tie the installation to a specific processor id code... Guess that's in the next patch....

    1. Re:Lost Customers by Shadwhawk · · Score: 1
      Besides, if I purchased via Stream, what do I do when I nuke and pave? It happens about every 8 months, if not every semester. (Yes, I'm a college student.) Can I download a copy to store on cd/dvd for when I reload, or do I have to download from stream everytime?

      Steam has a built-in backup system, and will automatically separate the backup files into 640mb or 4.7GB chunks, for easy burning.
      While Steam crashed on me when I tried to cram everything in the Silver package into one file (nearly 5gb), when I spread it out into a few different backups it worked fine.

      And what do I do when the company changes, fails, stops supporting it? (That's not speculation, it will happen, and probably way too soon...)

      It is speculation. Valve has made precisely two games in their history: Half-Life and Half-Life 2, with a couple of expansion packs and absorption of a few popular mod developers. Half-Life 1 is still supported. Half-Life 2 is a success, despite all the complaints about Steam. Valve will still be around in the years to come, and there's absolutely no reason to think that they wouldn't release a 'Remove Authentication' patch should they ever close Steam down.

    2. Re:Lost Customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Valve dies, were do you get the "no auth" patch?

      In 10 years, say Valve is dead and gone, and I have a nice new machine, and my HL2 Gold edition $80+ CD (and pretty box). I can't play MY game? Not with out hunting warez sites.

      Its shit...

      I have no problem with the net-play requireing AUTH, or Steam shutting down players who steal (I do wonder what will happen if a virus is released with the soul purpous of finding Steam account detals, and publishing them).

  192. Re:Off topic: Re:You're wrong. Re; Flash Ads.... by djdavetrouble · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yeah i was annoyed I couldn't block them with pith helmet on safari.

    --
    music lover since 1969
  193. Keyword match or coincidence? by ceeam · · Score: 1

    The ad for this slashdot page says - "In Stores Now! Half Life 2. Buy Now!". Ah-hah, right.

  194. 19,999 and counting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The law of Unintended Consequences predicts:
    Valve will loose more legitimate purchases than the number of illegitimate users it has banned. This will happen due to alienating consumers with it's tactics.

    1. Re:19,999 and counting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm, no it wont?

      In fact, I think it will force all your "willing to use warez" peeps out there to buy it in the store. And try as you might, you cant resist the crack can you?

  195. Reason for the Banning by SmokeyDP · · Score: 1

    There are lots of posts on Steam about users being pissed about having to log into steam and use the disk check after verifying the serial. A no-cd crack was relased which would still require you to login and verify your serial with Steam. People are getting banned for using the no-cd crack. The Warez version of the game does not even go through steam so it would be hard for Steam to lock someone out.

    Also, I played the warez version of the game before I bought it since it was sold out in the store. The warez version started up in 5-10 seconds. The retail version takes almost 45 seconds with Steam verification and CD checking. I have a high end system so thats not the bottleneck.

    http://www.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.ph p? s=14a3ac916acc2a115bffcc6e53daa4ab&threadid=178908 &perpage=15&pagenumber=2

  196. Re:Violating the license for one locks you from al by Twanfox · · Score: 1
    That's the thing, isn't it? Valve doesn't have to do anything to prosecute you, you must take them to court in what amounts to a "countersuit" because they imposed a punishment outside the legal juristiction of the courts. Get this... it should not be the responsibility of the accused/victim to bring a lawsuit to regain rights taken away by an entity outside the legal system.

    A proper and legal way to punish someone that wronged you is to take the person to court, not to inflict what you consider due process upon them. In all honesty, it sounds very vigilante-ish.

  197. "its like stealing" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Quote from a person who had his account banned:

    "on my account i had over 200 dollars worth of legit software. in the consumer world they cant just take it away form u. its like stealing."

    Apparently Valve "like stealing" his supposed legit software is verboten, but him straight out stealing HL2 is a-okay. Thats sound logic to me! Whatever. One less asshat to deal with in C-S.

    1. Re:"its like stealing" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they banned his account mistakenly?
      Maybe he tried the No-CD crack because he doesn't like his drive spinning up every 30 seconds in-game. With Steam.exe running, you should not need a CD check.

      Valve can steal back any software you bought and paid for, without proving anything.

      This is not right.

    2. Re:"its like stealing" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's the complete excerpt, taken from Evil Avatar:

      "on my account i had over 200 dollars worth of legit software. in the consumer world they cant just take it away form u. its like stealing. think about it ppl. vavle should have emailed me and warned i would get banned if i crossed the line or sumthin im sure anyone would stop what they are doing at the time. but no they just decied to take my account. doesnt to them 200 bucks is like 5 cents for them."

      Doesn't sound like he was mistakenly banned. "vavle should have emailed me and warned i would get banned if i crossed the line" sounds like a theif caught red-handed trying to justify himself, and failing miserably in the process.

      Since i'm not a Valve employee, I don't know how Steam works internally. Theoretically it's possible they could deactivate your legal account for no reason, but why would they? You are a paying customer, and they want your business.

  198. While all of you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are "debating" the finer points of activation, I'm downloading CDHack v2.0, and when they break that, I'll get v2.1, and on nad on. For better or worse, I don't buy this crap anyway. Microsoft's solitare is good enough for me, but then I can be content with a 5" b/w tv. I have no respect for any laws that can be bought and sold like candy, and I will use my purchases as I see fit. All this talk about copyright is becoming tiresom when it's quite obvious that the concept of IP is absurd and robs the public at large.

    1. Re:While all of you by deesine · · Score: 1

      "For better or worse, I don't buy this crap anyway."

      No wonder the software piracy problem is huge.

      "[I]t's quite obvious that the concept of IP is absurd and robs the public at large."

      Yep, as obvious as shit stinks. What is obvious is that no matter what the laws are you would still be trying to half-ass rationalize your position that the world owes you something. Obviously the position of someone who's never actually made anything and tried to sell it.

      --
      damaged by dogma
    2. Re:While all of you by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, it's the IP zealots who beleive the world owes them something for nothing. I can't send a copy of me to do my work for me as you apparently can with all your copyrights and patents and whatnot. I have to show up for my work. You should, too. I get paid for my time...for performing work, not selling copies of it. There's no reason a person should be paid for copies. Only the original will do. The copies are for advertisement. In fact, you should pay me for distributing your copies. I'm giving you free advertisement for your next performance. If someone wants to pay for copies, they're welcome to it, but they obviously shouldn't have to. Being first shouldn't bring exclusivity. If you want to keep an idea to yourself because you can't make a million bucks on it overnight, fine. Somebody else will be more generous to the community because he or she will benefit from the idea along with everybody else. You just want it for yourself. Pretty damn selfish. Do you honestly think we wouldn't have light bulbs if not for Edison? Or the airplane without the Wright Brothers? IP has actually retarded developement and avdvancement of these devices because of the stranglehold the inventors had on them through IP. It was IP that delayed the acceptance of the compression ignition engine because our friend Mr. Diesel insisted that the engine be manufactured his way that made it very inefficient and lack power. It wasn't until much later that other people were able to make the improvements necessary to make it a viable alternative the gasoline engine. IP makes it very difficult to build upon people's work. It's retarding human progress for the benefit of a few. It give control of information to people who should not have that control. It provides for gov't censorship through corporate proxy(or possibly the other way around). It feeds the "not invented here" sydrome. It's the ultimate in karma whoring. It's all "hey, hey, look at me". Also remember that the relation between publishers and pirates is very symbiotic(?). They depend on each other for mindshare. Don't think for a second that Microsoft would have the market it has outside the US were it not for piracy. If it was possible to pirate Apple hardware, they would be the ones with 90% of the market right now, and the rumors about them "dying" would never come up.

      --
      What?
  199. gates and newell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i wonder why so much fuss when microsoft attempts something ugly and then no problem with this thing gabe pulled out of his ass, wich is something uglier that anything microsoft could have done in the past...
    yeah i guess the game is so awesome it doesnt matter....
    fucking retards
    i hope some worn starts out there and wipes the floor with eiter steam servers or retards who support this masive fraud hl2 is.

  200. Any econimics students out there? by ceeam · · Score: 1

    How do we guesstimate how much money they are gonna loose due to negative reactions (including "word of mouth" and rumours) relative to _stupid_ would-be "pirates" that don't know how to find/use properly cracked version (and that won't probably buy the game anyway)? What is the probability that the "pirates" and P2P nets would be blamed for this losses. Oh, don't bother with the second question. :)

  201. Has anyone noticed... by Aim+Here · · Score: 1

    ... that Valve seems to be making this Steam stuff work well for it's direct customers who bought the download, but it's apparently screwing over some random customers who bought the game in a store, via all the middlemen.

    I mean, Valve and Sierra have been bitching at each other over HL2 for a while, Valve is making less profit on the retail version than the download, and now, as soon as HL2 reaches the shelves, the boxed retail version suffers activation delays, and then Valve pisses off a bunch more retail customers with this CD check stuff. If I had my tinfoil hat on, I'd think that perhaps Valve is trying to make the retail boxed version a relatively jarring and annoying experience so that customers will be more inclined to buy straight from them.

    This might be a foretaste of our brand new DRM age - proprietary software monopolists with complete power over their user's computers might start finding subtle ways to attack the consumer to 'persuade' them to upgrade....

  202. Lies and Damnation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This is why I will NEVER work in the gaming industry. I spent over 10 years going broke in the gaming industry and after leaving, I will never look back. It is so nice to work for people who appreciate your help. Computer Gaming is for the most part a thankless job.

    These kids are so spoiled, they have had the paradise of American opportunity handed to them without any burdens of being raised in an unstable world (such as worrying about where your next meal is coming from, how to stay warm enough to avoid dying from exposure, etc), and they still have the audacity to believe they OWN someone after giving a measly fifty bucks to them. Most of these kids have no concept of what it is like to create something that actually generates money. Nor do they understand the work that goes in to making them. Their idea of work is "I beat the game in 5 hours".

    I'd like to tell all these whiny complainers "Guess what kids, your measly $50 does not buy Valve, their talent, or their game. It buys a revocable license to play. Don't like it? Good. Tell your friends not to steal."

    These kids will lie, cheat, manipulate, and do anything to circumvent any effort to make an even playing field online. Including coming up with the most bizarre story about how my uncle's brother's cousin shot the dog that was my sisters and so I bought her this game to make her feel better and she thought it was for her friend....

    Sure. Whatever. Once in awhile those stories will be true and someone unfortunately will be inconvenienced.

    So what.

    Believe it or not it is still pretty much a reasonably free country. If you don't like Valve, don't buy their stuff. If you don't like Microsoft, don't buy their stuff. If you think there should be something better, get off your ass and go make something better.

    This whole debate is like blaming Ford for loosing your car keys. "I wasn't stealing my car! I can't get into it! Is Ford going to pay to have a locksmith come unlock my car?"

    Adults understand we are inconvenienced by thieves. If nobody ever stole cars, we would not need car keys. If nobody ever stole anything, we would never need keys at all.

    Hey... Imagine that... a world without keys. Every door would open 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Wouldn't that be nice?

    On the steam forums someone from the armed forces was complaining about not being able to play on ship because they were not allowed to use internet on their ship. Who was he blaming? Valve. Not the kids that stole the game in the first place, but Valve.

    Someone who's livelihood depends on evil people doing evil things should realize the cost of splash damage.

    Valve is only guilty of making a better lock. They are not guilty of locking these people our of their cars.

    If you lost access, you lost your own keys. Either by choice of occupation or by not keeping the CD-Key secret or by trying to use a cracker to disable the need for leaving the CD in the drive.... It don't matter.

    Buying Half Life again still costs less than re-keying your car.

    1. Re:Lies and Damnation by stanmann · · Score: 1
      This whole debate is like blaming Ford for loosing your car keys. "I wasn't stealing my car! I can't get into it! Is Ford going to pay to have a locksmith come unlock my car?"
      Ford may not, but Hyundai will(during the first 10 years limited extended(free) warranty). I know if your car is Onstar(GM) equipped it can be unlocked remotely? What was the question again?
      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    2. Re:Lies and Damnation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What was the question again?
      The question is why do people think computers are so different?

      Some people don't like Onstar because the police can shut their car down. Talk about paranoia.

      You don't see slashdot going nuts on that one. Why? Nobody cares! For most people the following is true: The police will never shut down their car while they are driving it. I bet OJ Simpson today does not have onstar.

      So why is everyone going nuts about Steam? The only reason I can think of is if they normally steal software, they're worried they wont be able to steal it anymore. That or they think computers are somehow different - the rules of what is fair somehow don't apply the same.

      Well I'm sure there will always be cheezy games without Steam, just like there are cars without Onstar. I would rather drive a car with Onstar and know my insurance is going to be cheaper, just like I would rather use a game on Steam and know the authors are getting paid better for their efforts.

      If all games move to steam (GASP), who would we have to blame? The gaming industry bean-counters, or the pirates? Either way I don't care. I bought the Gold version of HL2 because I could afford it and I appreciate Valve's efforts. I would buy another copy and re-register if someones crappy crack program generated the code that was on my machine without throwing a screaming tantrum fit.

      If they sold two million copies, and disables 20,000 accounts thats 1% theft. Believeable? I think so considering the source code leak made the news and was on PTP systems.
    3. Re:Lies and Damnation by lew3004 · · Score: 1

      The problem is industries revolve around customer satisfaction and rightfully so. The people who legally purchase products don't give two shits about copy protection, people who pirate or activation. The current wave of these "protections" from the industry tend to hurt these people; and I'm sorry but hurting .01% of your paying customer base is still too much. They pay to NOT have these restrictions placed on them and get irritated when they are. Yes, there's piracy but don't penalize a fraction of your customer base to implement bullshit tactics like this. You'll only alienate a few and the word will spread. It always does. Don't like it? Don't spend 3 quadrillion dollars on R&D and game development. The technology will catch up in a more reasonable way, trust me.

      --
      I still can't get the screen shots of Castle Wolfenstein for the Apple IIe out of my head.
  203. 20,000 Thieves! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "...people that had their accounts disabled had attempted to steal an item worth about $50. 20,000 accounts times $50 - that's about a million dollars worth of illegal attempts. That's hard to ignore."

    Don't just disable their accounts, I say attempt to prosecute some of them, if at all possible. These people are thieves, pure and simple. (I don't care what you think about the definition or semantics of "steal" and copyright infringement; honest people inherently know that the two are for all practical purposes, equal).

    Why do so many of you defend these thieves and act like the company is just so evil? Oh, becasue some of you ARE those thieves and had your account canceled?

    If you can't agree with the terms of service, don't buy or use that product. Pretty simple eh? Its THEIR product, THEY make the rules. We only affect their rules with our wallets and purses, not by stealing or by whining here like little sissies.

    I think its hilarious. The smug little software thieves are so used to getting away with anything, this time they got the smackdown. Go cry some more crybabies.

    1. Re:20,000 Thieves! by deesine · · Score: 1


      Seems to me that the only legimate users who got caught in the noose are the ones who ran a NoCD crack or used a bogus key. How can you blame Vavle for interpretting these activities as illegitimate.

      There's a simple solution: DON'T run NoCD cracks or use stolen keys, and keep your CD handy. Direct your anger towards the people that forced this situation, the thieves (and spare us the whinning).

      Do you think Valvee would be using these anti-piracy measures if piracy weren't such a huge problem?

      --
      damaged by dogma
    2. Re:20,000 Thieves! by pclminion · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I don't care what you think about the definition or semantics of "steal" and copyright infringement; honest people inherently know that the two are for all practical purposes, equal

      Say it as much as you want, but you're still wrong. For all practical purposes they are completely different. In one case, a person has been deprived of the possession and use of an object. In the other case, they have not. How you can say that for "all practical purposes" these two are equivalent, I can't understand.

      I'm in agreement with you that both are unethical, but they are definitely not equivalent. We draw much, much finer distinctions than this in the legal system. Consider manslaughter vs. murder.

    3. Re:20,000 Thieves! by brkello · · Score: 1

      It's such a dumb argument to have. I can interpret your definition of stealing: "depriving someone of possession and use of an object" in different ways. You aren't depriving them of the master copy of the game, but you are depriving them of possession and use of the money that they would have taken for the game. I could also define stealing as "taking something that does not belong to you". Ultimately it comes down to the fact that it is eaiser and faster to say stealing rather than copyright infringement. So when someone is accused of manslaughter, when someone mentions it as a murder trial, people aren't all freaking out and quiveling over terms. So what if the news reporter says people are stealing the game, it's not like suddenly in court they are charged with theft and not copyright infringement. The fact is you know what they mean when they say it, it doesn't change their argument or a person's counter argument one iota, and it's all a bunch of bs slashdotters use to try to lord intelligence over someone else. If saying "stealing" actually made some difference on a person's argument or how people understood the argument, then I would say you have something. But since it isn't a big deal, all the people who have to argue this come of as anal and condescending.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    4. Re:20,000 Thieves! by maximilln · · Score: 1

      So you advocate using mass ignorance to sway public opinion in order to bolster your private little crusade?

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    5. Re:20,000 Thieves! by brkello · · Score: 1

      Wow. Take your tin foil hat off for a second bud. Mass ignorance? What does it matter what word they use...they are taking a game and not paying for it...by calling it "stealing" it doesn't sway public opinion. Or maybe you want to explain how it does. Now with Steam, the line is even finer than it was before. People would say, well, if you steal the box from best buy, you are actually depriving Best Buy, Vivendi, and Valve from money. By "copyright infringing" they don't lose real money, the product is still at Best Buy! (a stupid justification at best) But now there is no box, there is no cd, you are playing a game you didn't pay for. The lines between stealing and copyright infringing software are becoming more blurred.

      Oh man...and private crusade? What the hell are you talking about? I just argue with ass hats that playing a game they hacked without paying for them is morally wrong and that their justifcation are weak and stupid. Hardly a crusade. Maybe a crusade against stupid slashdot arguments:) What's your crusade? Justifying use of software without paying for it?

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    6. Re:20,000 Thieves! by maximilln · · Score: 1

      by calling it "stealing" it doesn't sway public opinion

      Yes, it does, because there is still a large percentage of the population who do not feel that sharing software is stealing, theft, or even in the remotest bit wrong. You say stealing to someone who doesn't know a thing about computers and automatically they think it's wrong. If you tell them that people write code like most people brush their teeth and that the number of copies of software in existence has absolutely NO BEARING on the wage of a programmer and suddenly software sharing isn't quite so wrong anymore.

      I just argue

      You win.

      Justifying use of software without paying for it?

      Yeah. I run Linux and I haven't played a video game in over 6 years. The last video game I played, I did buy. I have played hundreds of video games which I did not buy and, you know what, the authors that wrote those games still have a house, children, jobs, and play golf. What's wrong with not paying for software again?

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    7. Re:20,000 Thieves! by brkello · · Score: 1

      Your arguments make no sense. People program software like they brush their teeth. Are you kidding me? I actually am a programmer and the amount of man hours to do any significant program and do it well is extremely difficult...and you don't think I, or anyone else, who program deserve to earn a living? You are deluding yourself if you think a large percentage of the population believe that using software that you didn't pay for is ok (and I am not talking about Linux, because the license for Linux allows you to do that. that is not true for commercial software). If people write programs that other people want to use, and they want to give that away...fine, great...that is awesome. But it doesn't work the other way around! If I want to get paid for my work, I can choose what I think it is worth and get paid for it. If people don't like my program, they don't buy it, if it does exactly what they want and does it well, the will buy it though and I can make a living. Your logic is truly messed up. the number of copies of software in existence has absolutely NO BEARING on the wage of a programmer and suddenly software sharing isn't quite so wrong anymore. So you are justifying using software that you didn't pay for because the programmer directly responsible for it doesn't get more money if the product sells better? Give me a break, that is called BUISNESS. If the programmer did all the work himself and was able to distribute it, then guess what, he would get all the money for it. Whether or not you believe it is wrong to "share" software, the law says it is illegal...on top of that, it is morally wrong...but if you can't see that, you have some really fucked up morals.

      I have played hundreds of video games which I did not buy and, you know what, the authors that wrote those games still have a house, children, jobs, and play golf. What's wrong with not paying for software again?Ok, I will explain it to you. If you go in to the programmers house, and steal his brand-new-not-even-out-of-the-box $50 ipod, he still has a house, children, jobs, and play golf. So what's wrong with stealing again? I guess nothing, by your piss poor attempt at logic.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    8. Re:20,000 Thieves! by optimus2861 · · Score: 1
      Say it as much as you want, but you're still wrong. For all practical purposes they are completely different. In one case, a person has been deprived of the possession and use of an object. In the other case, they have not. How you can say that for "all practical purposes" these two are equivalent, I can't understand.

      Blame, of course, lies on the "IP" industries for blurring the lines between copyright/trademark/patent and tangible property with the wretched kludge-term "intellectual property", and their whores in government who blow the seriousness of "IP" infringement all out of proportion. But never mind that for now.

      I've got a good example that should drive the distinction home. There is a CD-ROM just being released that contains complete scans of the first 500 issues of the Amazing Spider-Man comic book from Marvel. The CD sells for about $50. So if you burn an copy of that CD, infringing the copyright, what's the publisher out? $50 or so. Less if you argue that all the publisher really lost was the profit margin on that $50, as the publisher incurred no costs due to that infringement. Anyway, you broke a law, you caused some financial harm, but really not that much.

      Now, walk into a comic shop and steal a copy of Amazing Spider-Man #1. What's the shop out? A book worth over ten thousand dollars in anything over very fine condition. Now you've done some serious financial harm to somebody, and could very well be looking at a charge of grand theft and some significant jail time.

    9. Re:20,000 Thieves! by hsoft · · Score: 1

      You're sick. If everybody thought like you, programmers would be starving, and HL2 and HL1 wouldn't exist.

      --
      perception is reality
  204. +1 Information parent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stupid /. expiring my mod points like 20 minutes before I want to use one, finally.

  205. Oh, please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this brouhaha about not being able to play the game in 5-10 years if the Steam auth servers are no more is pointless.

    All you have to do is make a copy of your clientregistry.blob file and write-protect it. When you back up your game files, just use the backup of the blob file you made to restore your games' unlocked state.

    A bunch of freaking out for nothing, if you ask me.

  206. Steam is frustrating and annoing by kop · · Score: 1

    I bought the DVD for 60 Euros
    Then i had to wait for more than two hours as steam was doing stange stuff to my computer and communicating god knows what to some evil corporation before i could play.

    I arrive at work today bringing my laptop along and a collegue just downloaded the torrent,he was happily playing the illegal version.
    Then i started my version to compare and steam started doing whoknows for a freaking half hour before i could play.
    grrrr, next time i wait for the cracked version of any steam enabled game.

    The game is exellent, no complaints there : )
    And yes we can play games at work, we own the place.

  207. Suck it, Valve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HALF-LIFE.2.PROPER.OFFLINE.NOSTEAM-AHU - 1.6 gigs, works beautifully. Available on eDonkey or Bittorrent (plus newsgroups, other p2p services, etc.) Enjoy.

  208. No, you don't own the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do not own the game, you own the media containing it, sheez. It's only been that way for the last 25 years of software production or so. You may not agree, but that is irrelevant, you do not own the game. Take them to court and see for yourself.

    I mean realy....how old is everyone around here anyway? Maybe I'm getting old, but I certainly wouldn't claim any right to use someone elses property without being required to follow their rules or to pay anything but the stated price; regardless of whether I think the product is worth it. I wouldn't enter into a contract ,either, without expecting to be held to its terms.

  209. Valve has a method to their madness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Consider:

    - People who paid and downloaded the game through Steam have no authentication checks, and play the game smoothly.

    - People who bought the CD have to deal with Securom which ranges from a mild annoyance to actually preventing play at all on some hardware. Some of them may get the crack in order to play.

    Now think about the next points:

    - Valve gets 100% of the profits from Steam distribution.

    - Valve splits profits with Vivendi on CD sales.

    - Valve hates Vivendi.

    Do the math. Valve would *love* to make life as miserable as possible for every CD user. In fact I was hearing that the CD-version was doing some sort of verification over the network causing large pauses during gameplay (not sure if this is true or not). Wouldn't surprise me at all though. Does Valve care about banning some people who legally purchased the CD version of the game? Not much at all.

    1. Re:Valve has a method to their madness by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

      that's a good point. Never thought about it to tell you the truth. But then, Vivendi's name is not the one on the box...in the end, Valve gets the heat when ppl's games don't work.

      Maybe they should pull a Pixar and go solo (or sub-contract cd pressing to someone else).

  210. or buy them by geekoid · · Score: 1

    used. Oh wait, Steam is used to get around our rights of First Sale Dactrine

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  211. Re:Violating the license for one locks you from al by geekoid · · Score: 1

    when you steal something from a store, you are innocent until proven guilty.
    Valve just assumes you are guilty and punishes you.
    I, for one, am very sick and tired of being treated like a criminal every where I go.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  212. Losses by fireteller2 · · Score: 1

    It seems like the software industry spends so much time thinking about the losses due to piracy they forget what those numbers really mean. You see quotes for billions of dollars lost for the industry as a hole.

    I'd just like to stop for a moment to remind everyone in the software business here that these losses are imaginary. Not everyone who is cheating a software license would have bought the software to begin with. In fact we don't know how small a percentage of software theft results in real dolor loss. Since the product itself does not cost money per unit, and distribution costs are being paid by the crackers the maker of the software is not experiencing true losses.

    Just keep this whole "look how much money we're loosing" shit in check, because when you piss off paying customers to the point of not wanting to buy your products then you are loosing real money not imaginary money.

    It reminds me of the cartoon where the bear catches 5 fish then drops them all to catch one more.

    I'm really getting tired of people not thinking problems all the way through these days.

    -fire

  213. Print your friggin' receipts... by Teechur007 · · Score: 1

    ...if downloading it off Steam. If you purchased the boxed version, didn't the store give you a receipt when you bought it? I teach Civics, and I always tell my students that smart consumers keep their receipts.

    Get into the habit now, and you'll be a lot better off, trust me. You won't worry about things like "proving" you purchased the game.

  214. Irony / liklihood of having a valid cd key rejecte by gorfie · · Score: 1

    I find it ironic that Valve isn't accepting the potential for a user to have their key ripped off somehow (via hacking, trojans, unethical friends/family, etc.) when they were hacked no less than a year ago and lost a substantial chunk of their code.

    Add to that the fact that users typically don't have the resources to setup proper security when an organization like Valve *SHOULD*.

    Of course, a good chunk of those people probably stole the product, but how does one prove they didn't?

  215. OMG, Valve doesn't want people ripping them off? by digital+photo · · Score: 1

    What's really interesting about this is the fact that the gamers were the ones who committed theft by pirating copies of the game. This in turn results in their online account getting locked/disabled. Since the game depends on the online account to play, they get screwed.

    Sounds fair to me. I liken this to using fake ID to get into a bar. Sure, you're paying for the beer and whatever else you're buying, but you used illicit means to get in. You're still going to get bounced from the bar.

    People used cracked and pirated copies of the game as well as a cd key. People did this of their own free will in an attempt to get around paying for the game, but wanting in on the online gaming. Valve/Steam are in their full rights to bounce people out of the system for violating terms of service.

    Simple example:

    Steam TOS: You need a legit copy of the game to acquire and keep an account. If you don't have said legit copy of the game and/or Valve indicates that your copy is pirated, then we disable your account.

    Sucks for the person(s) who decided it would be a good idea to share their CD key or share their copy of Valve's software.

    The other thing is that it isn't like Valve/Steam aren't offering means of correcting the problem: Provide proof of a valid copy of the software and the valid CD key and they'll reactivate your account.

    So... hey! Just send them the real cdkey and all is cool. You do have the real cd key, right?

  216. 20000 is a lot of accounts by Elracim · · Score: 1

    AFAIK there are pirate versions of the game that don't require that steam be installed. How did 20000 people manage to find a pirate version that ties you to a steam account? My feeling is that there are a pretty large number of people who *bought* the game, used a nocd, and got banned.

    --
    All Rights Reserved. All Wrongs Avenged.
    1. Re:20000 is a lot of accounts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't even seen a pirate version that requires Steam. I have downloaded TWO of them so far and both of them work great and have all Steam related files removed. It is unusual to see more than 1 pirate release of a game since groups compete to see who can release a game first. After the first successful release is made there is no reason for another group to make their own release of the same game. If anyone knows of a pirate release that requires Steam I'd be interested in hearing about it. As far as I know the only thing that requires Steam is the NO-CD crack that only works for people who already authenticated the game over Steam (i.e. people with legal copies of the game). It's possible that Valve banned 20,000 of their paying customers.

  217. The problem is that Michael is a moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except...these people didn't actually buy the product, did they? No, they stole it. I don't see what the problem is.

    See subject line.

    The solution is Michael keeping his idiotic editorial comments to himeself.

  218. What I'd like to see by frag+thief · · Score: 1

    ... is 30,000 gamers buy HL2 at the most expensive retail price they can find and then notify Valve that they regretfully cannot accept the terms of a grossly one-sided EULA and would like a full refund. This is not about piracy, it's about Valve exploiting the ugly side of being a wired community.

  219. ANYBODY BEING FORCED TO BUY OR PLAY IT? by jasonbowen · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Lots of whining for something that isn't required in your life.

  220. Alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've read several posts which claim that you'll be unable to play HL2 if Valve goes under. This is quite absurd. You can crack HL2 to bypass steam *now*... and who knows what "official" options Valve may provide on their way out. Hell, some respectable game companies throw all their source out in public domain before closing their doors (anyone play abuse lately).

    I purchased HL2 from steam, and it has been a completely great experience. No hassles, no dumbarse store clerk's comments and no waiting (1pm MST I was up and running). Not to mention being able to play CS:S before the official release.

    And to all those who try and make statements that they will not purchase HL2 because of their release/license scheme... your loss.

  221. Adblock by boffy_b · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Adblock can block images, flash objects, or just anything from a particular server(eg: ads.osdn.com).

    Not just that, but also the spaces they occupied, so you don't get big annoying blanks where the big annoying adverts are traditionally.

    Is compatible with Firefox 1.0 on Windows and Linux.

    --
    Windows is only $500 if your time is worthless.
    1. Re:Adblock by wampus · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Last time I checked Adblock also caused Firefox to hang on some java applets for some reason. YMMV

    2. Re:Adblock by GlassUser · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      jeff?

  222. A Question to those of you defending Steam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you defending Steam because you feel somehow that you're defending some sort of nebulous "honor" thing here?

    I'm just curious, because on the internet, if a company decides it will kill all calico kittens, there's a percentage of people who will agree and defend the company.

    Its like you're an amateur "defender".

    I'm just curiuos about it. Personally, I hope Steam takes away everybody's accounts because these online games are just plain dumb. I'd say pathetic, but I save that for people who post anonymously on /.

  223. Valve, you have a bit of damage control to do! by ayeco · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm completely mis-informed here, but if I am Valve has a lot of damage control to do.

    I'm in the process of building a nice pc, and have been planning on purchasing HL2. Now I'm affraid to do it.

    I just can't stomache the idea of "owning" a game that I don't have enough rights even to play it w/o an internet connection. I have one, but it comes down to the principal of it all.

    What happens if Valve goes down? Or their servers have a problem. When I want to play a game that's on my computer why should I ask permission from a server that may or may not be up? The whole "in 5 years when I reinstall the game" bit. Too scary for me to plunk down my hard earned money for. Too big brother.

    I don't think I can buy it. Steam doesn't seem to have the personel or resources to handle heavy loads of customer support. Did I hear right that isnt' even a support phone number?

  224. Will I be able to play HL2 in 10 years? by wvitXpert · · Score: 1

    So how long am I going to be able to play this? I dont mind Valve preventing people from stealing the game, thats great. But I have 10 year old games that I still love to play, will I still be able to play HL2 in 10 years? I want to own my game, not rent it from Valve. One of my favorite games is Command and Conquerer Renegade, it is no longer supported by the manufacturer but I can still play it online because other users still play it, if I needed EA to validate it I would be up a creek. I really want this game, it looks like alot of fun, but I dont want to spend $50 to rent a game for however long Valve decides I deserve. If I'm wrong please say so (I would love to run out and get this game today), but from what I've read the EULA is to restrictive for me.

  225. My Experience w/Steam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Before half-life 2 became available Steam was online and available for playing other games. I have owned the original half-life game for years and have never barrowed the game to anyone, or shared the key. When the WAN authentication servers went offline and you needed to use a Steam account to play over the Inet, I signed up for a Steam account. I found that someone had already used my key to register for an account. Valve's FAQ said that if I sent in my original printed key, they 'may' reactivate the key for my account and that they would not return the sleeve and key to me even if I provided postage.

    Essentially, someone probably generated and used my Key. Then when I (a real Valve customer) decided to try to get my account back, they made it hard for me, and easy for the thief.

    To make a long story short, there are a lot of games out there. I simply decided that Valve is no longer concerned about its customer and therefore no longer concerned about a good name.

    I will use my dollar to show them what I think by purchasing titles from their competition. Hopefully others will realize that Valve has crossed the line and pay only someone who provides both a good product and A REASONABLE ANTI-PIRACY POLICY.

    Valve may have made sure that two people didn't play the game from my single Key online, but they also made sure that I will never buy a Valve game again. I purchased that game, and never shared it with anyone. Then Valve gave the right to play the game to someone else, and took it from me...

  226. Actually, its not unreasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "IMHO you're being unreasonable"

    Only if Steam doesn't intend on using lawyers.

    In otherwords, if they have lawyers to draw up tricky EULA's, one of two things have to happen:

    1) Steam has to simplify their EULA to the point where you don't need a lawyer to understand it

    2) Steam has to agree not to act on the EULA, since a "reaonsable" person cannot understand the implications of it.

    Now, this isn't Steam's fault; we live in a society that loves to have silly rules and sue, but if Steam is going to fall back on an arcane EULA, then they need to explain what is and isn't allowed.

    In plain english.

    With no lawyers involved.

  227. Vote with your wallet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are plenty of other good games out there, I wouldn't waste my time on something that takes away so much of my rights. Thanks, but I won't even be giving it a look.

    And that's exactly the right attitude. Vote with your wallet! When Valve finally realizes their draconian practices are costing them customers then they might be inclined to change them.

  228. I was planning on buying this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't buy software unless:

    1) Its really good.
    2) Its not too expensive.
    3) Its less of a hassle then warezing it.

    Sorry Valve, you fucked up on part 3.

  229. How does that go....? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Because the game is fun"

    That word... fun.... I do not think it means you think it means...

    1. Re:How does that go....? by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're right! Fun is defined by the Overlord and only what He says is fun can be fun. How did I forget!

      Get a fucking life.

    2. Re:How does that go....? by sysopd · · Score: 1
      That word... fun.... I do not think it means you think it means...

      Anybody want a peanut?

  230. Speaking of "wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "but the IP on that disc is given to you under terms of their licsence"

    Nothing is "given".

    There is no license on a DVD (or CD) for that matter.

    And those initials "IP". I do not think it means....anything.

    Do you mean the "copyrighted material"? If so, please say that. But claiming some sort of property rights over a the content of a CD verges on bizarro.

  231. Valve can suck it. by codefool · · Score: 1
    I was really looking forward to HL2, but now I'm going to skip it.

    First, the whole activation thing is just too inconvenient. It smacks of the RIAA-conspiracy model of 'You will pay us this much for the product, you will use the product in this way, and you will like it.' I think that a product should be at my convenience, to use and I see fit, and the only thing the publisher should be concerned with is that I actually paid for the product. But what Valve is doing is just too much.

    Second, I usually only have time to play games when I'm on the road. That means I use a laptop. This thing requires me to have my battery-sucking CD attached all the time, and that's a deal killer.

    Hey, Valve, how about making a really good product and then selling it for a really good price? Then most of the 'pirates' out there wouldn't bother to steal it because its not worth the effort. Sure, there would still be the losers that would do it for the challenge, but who would really bother to steal something that's really cool yet costs $20 bucks? You might actually sell 100x more copies than are stolen. In other words, how about giving some value for the money you're charging? Something to think about.

    Meanwhile, I'm putting my dollars where they'll actually be appreciated.

    --
    "Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
    1. Re:Valve can suck it. by Shadwhawk · · Score: 1
      Second, I usually only have time to play games when I'm on the road. That means I use a laptop. This thing requires me to have my battery-sucking CD attached all the time, and that's a deal killer.

      Then the deal isn't dead. Hook the laptop up to the internet, buy HL2 over Steam, download it (or have someone give you their Steam Backup files), and activate it on the laptop. Disconnect it from the internet.

      That's it. You'll never have to put the laptop online again. You won't have to hook up the CD drive. Steam runs in Offline mode, and HL2 will run fine until your graphics chipset drains the last erg from your batteries.

      As for the pricing, well, there's rumors out there that HL2 would've been cheaper to buy over Steam than to buy in stores, but their publisher would have none of it and took them to court over it. Valve could've sold HL2 over Steam for $15, and still made more per copy than VU pays them for retail box sales.

  232. Re:You're wrong. (informational filler) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess I broke some copyright laws there.

    Not necessarily. Government publications (for the most part) are not subject to copyright. Photocopy away!

  233. You're bizarre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "For the second case they were committing piracy,"

    Committing piracy?

    Exactly how was that? "Committing Piracy"? Is English a second language for you?

    Honestly, you have a vague feeling that something is wrong here, but you can't express what, so you say "they were committing piracy"?????

    Does it give you a headache to think and express clear ideas? Or is that beyond you?

    1. Re:You're bizarre by SScorpio · · Score: 1
      From Dictionary.com

      piracy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-s) n. pl. piracies

      Robbery committed at sea. A similar act of robbery, as the hijacking of an airplane.

      The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy.

      The operation of an unlicensed, illegal radio or television station.

      In my second example of using the nocd crack to illegally play the game on the friends computer without the cd, that seems like unauthorized use to me which would be piracy.

      And while it doesn't give me a headache to have to go into great detail on precisely explaining everything I type, I do normally type for a certain intelligence level, where I assume the reader has a basic understanding of the topic I am presenting. In this situation stating that the people in the second case were illegally pirating software; that statement was just being just being used to confirm why Valve legal could and should ban the accounts.

      Was my reply satisfactory in explaining my view point mister Anonymous Coward?

  234. Pretty insane by zecg · · Score: 1

    While I tend to take Valve's side in this (since no one is forcing those who don't like the system to buy the game), it's still notably schizophrenic in some respects.

    I mean, the physical media are protected with Securom - but if you buy & download the game via Steam, you can give free copies to all your friends and Valve tells you how to do that on Steam support pages. (You can just copy your entire Steam dir to all your friends' computers, activate each one and they can play in offline mode. After that, you can even change your Steam password to prevent them from accidentaly damaging your account). So, what use is having Securom on the media in this situation?

    --
    .i lu doi ringos.star. xu do puku'aroroi dunli dopecaku leni virnu li'u
  235. EULA's by goobenet · · Score: 1

    The problem with most EULA's is that they're so bloody long that they don't fit on the box. They just mention "this product bound by the containing EULA..." or some crap. It's catch 22. You have to open the software to read the EULA, but if you disagree with the EULA, you cannot return this software since it's now opened. I haven't seen an EULA actually on paper other than MS products. Have you?

  236. Now that you know... by genjo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "You, Socrates, are breaking the covenants and agreements which you made with us at your leisure, not in any haste or under any compulsion or deception, but having had seventy years to think of them, during which time you were at liberty to leave the city, if we were not to your mind, or if our covenants appeared to you to be unfair."

    ... if you don't like/agree with the rules as we ALL pretty much know them to be at this time, do not purchase the game/license/vapor/whatever. I think the number of people who disagree with these kinds of measures is probably ridiculously low compared to the number who won't purchase based on these tactics.

    Now that we know, put your money where your mouth is and don't play the game. If you do purchase, I don't see how you can argue that you disagree with the method Valve is using.

    1. Re:Now that you know... by lew3004 · · Score: 1

      I believe that's what most people here on slashdot who disagree are saying; vote with your pocketbook. I sure will be.

      --
      I still can't get the screen shots of Castle Wolfenstein for the Apple IIe out of my head.
  237. Too bad, so sad...you're wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You can't possibly claim "I didn't know there would be an agreement" since it says so right on the box!!"

    Settle down Sparky. There is no agreement of any kind on the box. Proving once again that like most of slashdot, you talk out of your ass *all the time*!"

  238. You licensed it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You bought a license, which can be revoked. Your fault if you agreed to that license agreement in the first place.

  239. Re:Violating the license for one locks you from al by jbarr · · Score: 1
    But then, shoplifting is a criminal act and copyright infringement is civil, not criminal, so you're comparing apples to oranges anyway.
    I'm not so sure. IANAL, but if all the person was doing was copying a CD or copying a file, then it might be a copyright infringement issue. But in this case, I think it goes deeper. Were they not using bogus keys to connect to the activation servers to gain access to an application? How is this any different from logging into a bank with bogus information and transfering money? We're not talking about a crack here that circumvents authentication, but actually faking an identity to provide activation of an application. More generally, they were using fake information to fraudlently gain access to something they are not otherwise entitled. I would think that certainly goes beyond simple copyright infringement.
    --
    My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
  240. Difference is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I don't know about you but I do have a license to drive my car. A license that can be revoked if I don't follow the terms of aggrement. Just like a HL2 CD just because the license has been revoked they don't come knocking on your door to take away your CD as well.

    ...your license is not from the car company.

  241. Is reselling Half Life 2 OK under this license? by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I wish I had considered your argument previously, as I regret my purchase of HL 2 now. Like other hard core players, I just marched out and bought it, thinking, Here's quality!

    But the game itself is woefully overrated. I'd say, "Off to eBay with this," but who knows whether HL 2 will work if it has to be reactivated by a new owner?

    HL 2 suffers most from being broken and from a fundamentally bad design choice. The STUT-STUT-STUT-STUT-STUT-STUTtering of dialogue at the start of virtually every new scene is something Valve will have discovered in testing, but obviously (and arrogantly) shipped anyway to get Xmas sales. The Source engine has big memory management problems.

    Then there are the long, painfully slow load times, one coming every 10-15 minutes, and lasting around 60 seconds. Levels are split at arbitrarily unidentified points, so you never know when you're going to get hit with another minute-long delay--or make that 2-3 minutes, if you decide you want to go back to explore or find supplies.

    HL 2 definitely has moments of brillliance. Fighting giant striders is interesting, and skimming along water reservoirs in your Road Warrior-style craft is fun for a bit. But it is far from being the masterpiece that the sold-out gaming press has blathered on about.

    1. Re:Is reselling Half Life 2 OK under this license? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      And yet I play the game without any STUT-STUT-STUT-STUT-STUTtering, or magical slowdowns, or other problems plaguing everyone. Why? Because I don't have the bleeding edge drivers and bleeding edge 3D card. I have a GeForce 4 Ti4800. And it plays BEAUTIFULLY.

      The problem isn't that they didn't catch it, it's that it never occurred with the testing machines that they were using. Given all the time they've spent saying "it's not done till its perfect" that they would let something as egregious as this be overlooked intentionally in a rush for sales? Something they would have known about for a good year and had good time to fix?

    2. Re:Is reselling Half Life 2 OK under this license? by spaeschke · · Score: 1

      Since when is a Ti4800 a "bleeding edge" card? Bleeding edge two years ago? Yes. Today? Not so much.

    3. Re:Is reselling Half Life 2 OK under this license? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't say that it is bleeding edge. Read the comment again.

    4. Re:Is reselling Half Life 2 OK under this license? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said his card wasn't bleeding edge...

    5. Re:Is reselling Half Life 2 OK under this license? by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 1
      Interesting. Would you mind posting your resolution and other details settings here? And btw, I wouldn't call my Radeon 9700 "bleeding edge," either. ;-)

      But I do find your claim that Valve "didn't catch it" to be hard to swallow. What are the estimates of the cost to develop HL 2? Upwards of $10 million? Valve and financially-troubled Vivendi were under severe pressure to ship this season, and ship they did, almost certainly after testing the game on "bleeding edge" hardware.

    6. Re:Is reselling Half Life 2 OK under this license? by Sciflyer · · Score: 1

      My video card (R9800pro) and sound card (Audigy) are not bleeding edge either, and yet i get the stuttering.

      What was your point again?

    7. Re:Is reselling Half Life 2 OK under this license? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next time, first try a demo.

    8. Re:Is reselling Half Life 2 OK under this license? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here, GF4 Ti4800 on an AMD64-3000 and the game runs perfectly at 1024x768.

      Only one stutter so far in the entire game and I'm about 2/3rds the way through it.

      I find it hard to believe that valves testing machines all run older geforce cards, although I guess when they entered testing the GF4TI4800 was probably cutting edge :)

    9. Re:Is reselling Half Life 2 OK under this license? by fistynuts · · Score: 1

      I can't believe this uninformed pile of crap has been marked "Insightful".

      Because there is some stuttering and loading times can be an issue, this game is "woefully overrated". Please consider the big picture.

      You state that the "Source engine has big memory management problems". Sure, there may be some small issues at the beginning of scenes but this isn't an indication that the entire engine is a failure. I've seen plenty of games do this in the past (Doom 3 as an example). I expect a patch soon to resolve this issue.

      I wonder what you were looking for while you played the game. Were you looking to have fun and enjoy it, or to pick holes in it? If it's the latter then you have succeeded. Well done. The rest of the world will continue to enjoy the game for what it is, the best first-person shooter ever written.

      --
      "You heard the man, Tubbs.. get undressed."
    10. Re:Is reselling Half Life 2 OK under this license? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop your damn bitching..Your just sore because you got burnt, you and all the other damn whiners on here...jesus -- I hope some of you whiners are female, because you cry worse than a bitch.

      As for spin on hear about owning the software or the license...I don't give a rat's ass (and trust me neither does the Supreme Court of the United States) about what a district appeals court says...or perhaps the person just misinterpreted what the court ruling was to begin with...

      You DO NOT OWN THE SOFTWARE, A DVD MOVIE, ECT. You *DO* own the RIGHT to view the movie, use the software/play the game in accordance with the terms of the agreement or copyright and NOTHING ELSE.

      Stating that you own something implies you can do WHATEVER you want with it....like if I own my car, I can modify it if I want (if I want to drive in on the roads it must adhere to certain rules/laws though)... Well to test the "ownership" theory of copyrighted software go ahead...copy it and redistribute it to your friends and family....if you truly owned it surely you could do that right?

      HL2 as a game, is simply awesome. I don't like Steam, I think its silly how I must get a Steam account to play a single player campaign with a game I bought "off the shelf"...but that's Steam...the game itself is simply awesome looking and FUN!

    11. Re:Is reselling Half Life 2 OK under this license? by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 1
      You're entitled to your opinion, such as it is.

      Discerning players will look for deeper, more immersive experiences. They will be less tolerant of "big problems" (note: that's not a synonym for "failure," as you confusedly imply). I pointed out what I think is "brilliant" and yet also why I think HL 2 is woefully overrated, a position I can defend. But you make no point at all, other than attacking my motives and blurting out rudely.

      I wonder what you were looking for while you played the game. Were you looking to have fun and enjoy it, or to pick holes in it?

      Heh. You need to examine your own tendencies to quash criticism before you go theorizing about the motives of critics.

  242. Re:Violating the license for one locks you from al by ThousandStars · · Score: 1
    When TurboTax tried the activation bullshit, there was a huge public outcry, people applied for refunds in droves (and got them in states where the laws allow them), and rushed to H&R Block's TaxCut. TurboTax got the message big time and took out a full page ad in the NY Times and other major newspapers apologizing for the incident and as a result TurboTax for this year has no activation required.

    This doesn't happen to Valve for a couple of reasons. Walt Mossberg doesn't review games, but he did review TurboTax. Mossberg's column can propel a product's sales or destroy them; more importantly, he's an unbiased, reputable critic with a massive audience who writes for the most respected newspaper in America. That kind of credibility doesn't come easily, and no game critic has it.

    That leads to the next point, which is that the gaming media is an incestuous pool of kick-backs and lame reporting with a generous amount of hype. Without a critical press and sufficiently discerning readers to follow that press, game companies are free to get away with almost whatever they want.

    Your answer to your own question is relevent too. In economics, a competitive market often has perfect or near perfect substitutes, such as TurboTax and TaxCut. These products are not precisely interchangable, however, but they are much closer than games. Each game is unique, and as such one cannot find a near perfect substitute for HL2. That means people are willing to put up with Steam and all the rest of this bullshit.

    Notice that I say people in general, because there's no way I would buy HL2 because of all the shit I've read on /. about it.

  243. True by Makarakalax · · Score: 1

    Yeah what you say is true.

    I think there's room for some developers to go back to doing things via shareware, and make ridiculous amounts of money again. The whole "intellectual property" route is not the most lucrative with computer games imo, not to mention you get situations like this one because you get paranoid about making every last penny.

    In fact I want to try it out. I just need some artists willing to work for free until we release.

  244. Any purchased copies banned? by Felonious+Ham · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I've read through plenty of comments, both the idiotic "Valve has no right to require activation!" and the common sense rebuttals, but what I haven't seen is an instance of a wronged user. Again, lots of argument about how you "own the code" (or whatever) after you pay your $60, but nobody who paid saying Valve cut them off.

    Honestly, if you don't want to deal with activation, don't use the product. End of story. Free Software will surely produce a game of HL2 quality before you die.

    1. Re:Any purchased copies banned? by sekicho · · Score: 1

      NetHack's been around for a while.

    2. Re:Any purchased copies banned? by malkavian · · Score: 1

      Actually, I feel wronged. I bought the DVD.
      I spent about 4 hours trying to install the damn thing (including installing it, getting to the steam account setup page, and being told there was an error, and the install had failed. Retry install.)
      Not selecting to install the counterstrike also messed up the install. Had to reinstall from scratch.
      Bloody confusing, it was. And I deal with tech. Had to google search to find the root of some of the problems, until I found out what was going on.

      Then, the necessity of having to put in the DVD EVERY time I play the game.
      Right. So, having bought a store copy, I'm somehow less 'trusted' than someone who bought online.
      Why shouldn't I put a no-dvd crack on it if I want to archive my shiny DVD on my shelf (that has over 200 store bought games on it, all in good, unscratched condition, and playable after a good ten years).
      If it were about copy protection (note, not stealing, or piracy, which are entirely different issues), then they wouldn't have a no-cd version available as a download.

      I've heard someone say 'get a CD wallet'. So that's more money you have to pay to be able to support their request for having the CD in the drive. The inconvenience of swapping things in and out (every time I put certain music or other game CDs back in, they hit the auto play and take about a minute for me to just tell the damn thing I want it to quit, and never wanted to play in the first place. Inserting the CD didn't mean I wanted to play. I just meant I wanted it in the drive!).

      So, the initial experience of Steam was very negative. It took 4 hours of my time, doing something I didn't want to do (i.e. dealing with their inability to get the install done correctly, and finding the remedy). The cost for people to get me to do research, or work that makes me that stressed for that amount of time far eclipses the cost of the game I bought.

      Put bluntly, I'll actually go along with those people that have been saying "It's just a game, you don't have to play it.".
      Valve had my money this time round. I went through the experience.
      I didn't like it.
      So, I chalk it up to experience. They got me this time. Doesn't mean I'll give them the chance to do it again.

  245. +1 insightful by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 1
    In the event that Valve and Vivendi continue to hate customers more than they hate each other then just give up.

    Beautifully put. This licensing scheme is hostile to consumers, and the companies involve need to be taught a lesson--probably through litigation.

  246. cheater. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Valve has only blocked people if they cheat, and even then, they only block them from playing on Secure servers - they can still play on insecure servers with other lowlife cheating assholes.

    They may have the right according to their EULA to do more draconian things, but face it -- every piece of software in the world has a crazy ass EULA these days. But as long as the company's reputation is on the line, they aren't actually going to do anything too unreasonable. And unless they already have, it's fairly unreasonable to hold it against them (the only people who claim this are people who pirate all their software anyway).

    So what you just said, is that you refused to buy hl2 because you want to cheat in online games. In that case, GREAT, we in the hl2 and counter-strike community don't want you in the game anyway.

    kthxbye

  247. Wrong analogy. Keep all your boxes? by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The better analog is to have a Gameboy game that requires you to have the box in hand whenevre you want to play. In short, an annoying physical vestage of the game that makes no sense to keep otherwise.

    When you install a game on the PC, it copies all media to the PC itself (generally). In this case why are you required to ALSO have the game CD?

    For HL2 this is doubly an issue. Because the game material you get via CD is the same encrypted stuff you get via Steam - only in the case of STeam you have no physical CD, so it doesn't require one to play. The HL2 CD should be treated as a much faster download from Steam, and then things are the same after that.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  248. Bought the game 90+ days ago by 103-rejection · · Score: 1

    I bought the "Game of the Year" edition of Half-life in 2002. Now I can't use my CDkey to set up a Steam account. They say any key older than 90 days is invalid ... of course I could send in $10 and my CDcase to Sierra to have my key reset, but I still see that as not quite fair. I paid for the game expecting online multi-player ability, and I had it, for 2 years, but now I don't.

  249. What is this whining? by slaida1 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It's not like HL2 is the best game evarr and everybody neeeeds to play it. It's just a game. Repeat with me: It's just one stupid computer game. Nothing earth shattering here, move on.

    Wait a year or two and when it's in discount bin and working no-activation crack has been released, then buy it. Good games don't get old. If you suspect it might get old then maybe it isn't very good afterall.

    Maybe FarCry2 or 3 or something else will be better. You just don't know. But you can bet that you'll know whether HL2 is any good after waiting a year, without even trying it out first.

    --
    Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
  250. Re:Violating the license for one locks you from al by Poseidon88 · · Score: 1
    A proper and legal way to punish someone that wronged you is to take the person to court, not to inflict what you consider due process upon them. In all honesty, it sounds very vigilante-ish.

    Valve isn't prosecuting people. They are simply revoking licenses to use their property. Sort of like denying someone access to your home. It is their responsibility to prove they deserve access. People just need to get over the idea that they own the software they use. Read a EULA sometime. Whether or not a EULA is legally binding is a completely different discussion.

  251. Why is this News? by iamthetru7h · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Honestly? It's a game. You purchase a license permitting you to play said game. Some people pirate it and then get their accounts killed. If you buy a legitimate copy and follow the directions, I don't honestly see how you could get banned. Then again, the people who are whining are the ones you used a NO-CD crack, or using an outright illegal copy. Go Figure. The people who whine the most are the people who don't like paying for things. Oh wait... this is SLASHDOT, not Fark.com. What am I doing here?

  252. Stores do check you every time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It's like having a store run a criminal record check every time you wander in to buy something.

    Stores do run a check on your every time, unless you're using cash. What do you think happens when they swipe your credit card? Or plug in the account number on your check?

  253. there is a better solution by kardar · · Score: 1

    Instead of deactivating the entire account, just deactivate that particular game in that particular account - just make that particular key invalid.

    If the software vendor is proactive in doing this, if they are "on the ball" when it comes to seeking out and deactivating known bogus keys, this should prove as effective a deterrent as disabling the entire account. Disabling accounts isn't going to win them any friends, and if the "word" gets out that people shouldn't even bother trying to use bogus keys because they won't work but for a short while before they get deactivated, there might be enough of a disincentive to prevent people from doing those things that the software vendor doesn't want people doing.

    It's been a fad for quite some time to be harsh, draconian, and fierce, but in the interests of preventing the use of bogus keys, deactivating those bogus keys, silently, switfly, and without much fanfare would probably be equally effective.

    1. Re:there is a better solution by SScorpio · · Score: 1
      While I never said the banning of accounts was the best course of action, it is good to see a developer being able to finally have some recourse.

      The two examples I posted where with the assumption that Valve was banning for the use of a nocd crack, while reading much further now the thread it appears that it may be due to a seeded bogus key.

      If the bans are being driven by the attempt of accessing half-life 2 using a bogus key, then that eliminates both of my examples and leaves only people who were trying to illegally optain the game.

      And yes it does suck they they were locked out of their accounts for all of the games they legally owned, it's not that much that was lost. A retail copy of half-life 2 is going for $55, for $60 you can get the silver package which includes all of Valves past library. It's a hard learned $5 lesson that will hopefully deter people in the future.

      And as for losing money, sure people will say fuck them I'm not going to buy the game now. But in the end look at all of the copies they will sell, what's a few lost sales here and there. Who knows, a lot of these people might be buying half-life 2 anyways when the next killer mod that replaces Counter Strike for the source engine.

  254. Re:Irony / liklihood of having a valid cd key reje by prshaw · · Score: 1

    >> but how does one prove they didn't?

    Huh? That seems like a pretty easy one. Produce the CD and key that came with it. Having a sales receipt would probably help too.

    How do you prove you didn't steal anything?

    What am I missing?

  255. OT: HL2 question by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1

    If you buy HL2 and activate it, do you have to pay a subscription fee to use the game? I am thinking of buying it but not if they require _more_ money after I already bought the game.

    --
    If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
    it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    1. Re:OT: HL2 question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not a subscription. Nothing on steam is a subscription.

    2. Re:OT: HL2 question by TeraCo · · Score: 1
      No. (Although I will concede that it could be 'Not yet')

      PS: Regardless of the whole steam/valve thing, my personal experience is: I bought it on steam, it took about 10 minutes to decrypt on release day, I finished it in 5 days [and in my opinion it is definately the best FPS of all time], and now aside from mods, or me wanting to reminisce about how good it was, I will probably won't load steam again until HL3 comes out.

      The only people who seem to be having problems are the ones buying the game on CD, and they are being fucked by Vivendi, not Valve. [No love lost in that relationship]. Buy it directly from steam and I'd imagine you would have a lot less problems.

      PS: Wait for them to fix the stuttering bug first, if you aren't desperately panting to play it. Apparently the fix is being released some time today, but who can tell in this breakneck paced world of the internet.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
  256. I hope they are sued... by danbeck · · Score: 0

    "The number of people who actually had bought HL2 and used the CD key cheat was VERY small. VERY small."

    Even if it was one person, I hope they are sued in court for this. These types of asshole software developers who think it's ok to force legitimate users to have to have the f**king CD in the drive to play their damned game need to be taken to court, and be made to stop this type of anti-consumer garbage. This is ridiculous. What's next? Valve will require that Doom 3 not be installed to play on Steam? Just because their ninja EULA agreements say we can't do something doesn't mean we can automatically waive our rights in this country. Dammit.. something has to be done about this!

    P.S. Gabe Newell is a fat fuck lying sack of sheep shit...

    1. Re:I hope they are sued... by numark · · Score: 1

      Something can be done about this. Don't buy the product. No one's forcing you to buy Half-Life 2, and it's certainly not essential to anyone's life or business. I highly doubt something as relatively nonintrusive as requiring the CD to be in the drive is "anti-consumer" by any means, nor is it illegal. It's their game, and they have the right to determine whether you need the CD to play it. They're not requiring you to pay anything more to play the game once you've installed it, they're asking you to do one small action with something you already have in your possession. You don't have a right in this country to have every game manufacturer follow exactly your guidelines for program usage. You do have the right to determine whether you open your wallet for the game in the first place.

      --
      Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
  257. my letter to valve by paniq · · Score: 1

    http://neuro.snusnu.at/letter2valve.txt hope someone agrees with me :/

    --
    Do not trust this signature.
    1. Re:my letter to valve by xotx69 · · Score: 1

      I read most of your letter. Piracy is what allowed many people in the beginning to get a taste of what windows was. Many people were using pirated versions of windows years and years ago, and then eventually became paying customers of Microsoft, direcly, and indirectly (e.g. through work). I'm an ex-gamer (13 years). I quit in 2001. While I don't play games anymore, they are alienating quite a few future customers. Out of 20,000 people, I'm certain many people will eventually give money. Those that don't are the ones that wouldn't have paid for it anyways. It's amazing how many people don't realize that Piracy does help in the long term outlook of products. As weird as that sounds. P.S. Nice site. I downloaded a song. Me likes.

    2. Re:my letter to valve by paniq · · Score: 1

      thank you! yes, you could be right. we will see if valve succeeds with this method. i feel unsafe all of a sudden.

      --
      Do not trust this signature.
  258. Steam: The DiVX of Game Software by CAP811 · · Score: 1

    Valve should consult the previous "successes" of Circuit City.

    --
    All things are possible with everything.
  259. Alcohol 120% by rsklnkv · · Score: 1

    Anyone know if this would work for cd check? I'm almost afraid to try at this point seeing as folks are getting banned for using nocd cracks. Sad to see paying customers penalized for something like that. This is the first game I've purchased in a while and if this trend continues, will probably be the last. Not the last, however, that I play. Not to say 'Valve/Steam did this so I'm reverting to piracy', but it's pretty frustrating.

    --
    _____ "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." -- Orwell
  260. You mean theft is illegal? WOW! by Frobozz0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who the hell are the whiners complaining that you're account was terminnated because they circumvented copy protection and/or stole the product? Are these people INSANE? Who on earth thinks it's okay to steal something, have someone take it back, and then feel like you've been cheated?

    It's like looking at the sky and flat out refusing to say it's blue. Come on, people, fork over the $50 to buy the game and support the people who BUILT IT so you can enjoy it.

    How many games per year do you buy? Is $50 really that much for a game? It's not.

    --
    "Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
    1. Re:You mean theft is illegal? WOW! by frost22 · · Score: 1
      Who the hell are the whiners complaining that you're account was terminnated because they circumvented copy protection and/or stole the product? Are these people INSANE? Who on earth thinks it's okay to steal something, have someone take it back, and then feel like you've been cheated?
      You - and a gazillion of others here - build a convenient straw man. That thing is not about piracy. The problem is about forfeiture of legally bought and paid for property.

      Read the valve FAQs. You "lose" games bought via steam when Valve feels like it. Valve is accuser, judge and executioner in one. There is no appeal. Nor legal rights. Nor due process. There's just "poof" and your games collection you assembled maybe over several years is gone.

      Don't think just "Half life 2". Think about the steam concept a few years from now. Would you trust Valve to never err ? Never go down that slippery slope from treating everyone fair to just doing whats best for their quarterly bottom line ?

      Now think for a while about that. Anyone remember those diablo 2 fiascos ? When people were removed from Battlenet and their cd keys banned for simple "violations" like having maphack installed while questing along perfectly happy on their own ?

      Or when people and thier cd keys were banned because some frind whose account they once played committed some days or weeks later ?

      Let me put it simple: I buy all my games. I've done so for many years now, and I buy quite some. And when I buy something I own that. I certainly will not permit anyone to destroy my property on his own whim. So, when HL 7 comes out, and my cd key leaks beacuse my pc was hacked, I will cetrainly permit no one to take my whole games collection away.

      So when Valve tries to force such condition on me I will take my business elsewhere. Thanks, I could live woithout HL, and I can certainly live without Steam-only games. If Valve wants to establish steam as a distrubution way for its games, they will have to offer me - their customer - some assurance that Im not ripped off. Right now I don't see that - just to the contrary, right now they do their best to make painfully clear that a steam-only customer is fucked by default.

      So, bye bye Steam. Nice try. As they say in marketing, you cant't fool all people all the time.

      --
      ...and here I stand, with all my lore, poor fool, no wiser than before.
    2. Re:You mean theft is illegal? WOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue is that they disable the whole steam account. So they not only disable that game, they can take away a whole library of HL games. That can be a little exsessive. I have no problem with someone being hit for the 50 bucks, but it sounds like some people are losing over a hundred dollars worth of games.

      btw, I don't have any HL games, warez or otherwise. :)

    3. Re:You mean theft is illegal? WOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually, it IS too much, and that's why I neither bought it, nor play it.

      It's interesting to note that software companies claim they need to raise prices to combat piracy, then introduce new systems to thwart piracy, and yet don't lower the prices now that piracy shouldn't be a problem anymore.

      Why is that? Were they lying about why they increased them, or are they gouging now?

    4. Re:You mean theft is illegal? WOW! by borgheron · · Score: 1

      No straw man about it. You don't own the software. You own a license to USE the software, there is a radical difference.

      Look at any EULA from Microsoft or most other companies it clearly states that ownership/title of the software remains with the company and isn't transferred to you.

      That's why it's called *LICENSING*.

      GJC

      --
      Gregory Casamento
      ## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
    5. Re:You mean theft is illegal? WOW! by kevinadi · · Score: 1

      The thing is Valve is getting so confident in their hit-making capability it borders on arrogance. They think they can get away with this crap while history has shown time and time again copy protection schemes simply does not work. People are either honest or not, and what they're doing is pissing off honest people that actually KNOW their rights. There are some honest people here that have no clue whatsoever of the implications of Steam if it ever takes off. All I hear is 13 year olds here crying "go buy the game you bastard Steam is cool HL2 r0x0r you all can read the EULA before you buy" while I laugh quietly at their naivety. Such innocence.

      Piracy is a persistent problem. You will never be able to thwart it completely. Remember Quake? Doom? How many of those you think is pirated? Yet how do you explain the Ferraris? For. Each. Developer? You can't say that id is not getting their share of money even though some of them are lost due to piracy.

      Valve should not follow Metallica's lead in blaming piracy for low sales where it's their own fault to blame.

  261. I may be in the minority here by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

    But I'm all for this. Valve's property on steam includes several multiplayer games, including the most popular one by far. A central ID that you can't change is a vital part of keeping cheaters and griefers in check. Banning by steamid and wonid work much better than a simple IP ban. Perhaps the one thing I'll fault them for is not letting people know exactly what's going on before they purchase it, but since I haven't purchased HL2 or anything else over steam, I can't say I know this as a certainty.

    But hey, I'm also the kind of guy who submits those voluntary machine info statistics. Judging by the typical outrage over privacy, I'm clearly a privacy lunatic giving out personal info willy-nilly.

    --
    I Browse at +4 Flamebait

    Open Source Sysadmin

  262. ahahah by ChrisJones · · Score: 1

    I notice this is >1000 comments already, I blatantly can't be bothered to read them and I'm surprised you can, but there we go. Apologies if this has been hammered out a bunch of times already ;)

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

    I find this terribly amusing. People hear about a sneaky crack or a leaked code or whatever and just blithely slap it onto their PC to try and get that special angle almost nobody else did (except the other 19,999 suckers). The result? they lose any Steam supported games they actually have bought. That sucks and is arguably a bit naughty of Valve, but this is a powerful message to send right at the start of something that will be running for a while (I expect Steam will catch the eye of a lot of games company marketroids. Of course rather than use it they'll write their own, but nm).

    So, while I sit here and chuckle at the boneheads who thought they could get something for nothing, I shall also rue not being able to play HL2 or CS:S yet because Cedega isn't out for another couple of weeks.

    Actually, I also want to poke fun at the people who are downloading hacked versions of HL2. The particularly amusing part being that they have to download hack patches *every time* steam updates part of itself. AHAHAHA. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? ;)

    --
    Chris "Ng" Jones
    cmsj@tenshu.net
    www.tenshu.net
    1. Re:ahahah by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1
      So, while I sit here and chuckle at the boneheads who thought they could get something for nothing

      And you are saying this while using Linux? How much did you pay its developers? This attitude is precisely what bothers me about these self-appointed "moralists" here. Most of them are guilty of getting "something for nothing" when it suits them and yet they will lob snarly insults from their high horses whenever they feel someone does the same thing in a way they find not to their liking. Get off Linux and buy duly licensed Windows XP. Stay back from any FOSS because it is "something for nothing".

      I personally admire FOSS people and despise the likes of Valve. I remember days when Doom was a "shareware" game and yet ID Games made vast sums of money on it. That was the days before blind greed took over and people like you got to display their smug, ignorant and totally unjustified attitudes about "piracy".

    2. Re:ahahah by ChrisJones · · Score: 1

      The developers of my OS didn't ask me for money, they said I could have it for Free (beer and speech). I have paid for Linux distros in the past though, I also buy commercial software for it, influence decisions at work to put money into it, I report bugs, submit the odd patch, help people on mailing lists, forums and IRC. I was also a journalist on the largest UK PC mag writing Linux workshops for over a year. Don't get up on any kind of high horse about me freeloading please.
      Even if a FOSS user does *nothing* to give back, the software is still free by the developer's choice and therefore *nobody* has the right to bitch about that user. Sure it would be nice if they helped out, but that's it.

      Also, I am sitting 12 inches away from an old copy of Half Life (my second purchased copy, actually). As soon as the new Cedega is out my money is gonna be going on that and HL2.

      I am not a self appointed moralist, I am just laughing at people who are idiots. They are idiots because they chose to try and circumvent paying Valve for their hard work.

      If you despise Valve, don't play their games. It's that simple. I don't license Windows XP because it doesn't meet my needs, so don't give me any shit about that either. That leaves you with no points left. Care to try again? Sorry to be rude, but you are being an ass.

      Cheers,

      --
      Chris "Ng" Jones
      cmsj@tenshu.net
      www.tenshu.net
    3. Re:ahahah by borgheron · · Score: 1

      I find your choice of handle particularly appropriate in this instance. :)

      There is an old saying: "He who pays the piper calls the tune." It means that if you create something you are at liberty to license it as you see fit. The creators of Linux chose the GPL as the license. SuSE, in turn, offers a free version of SuSE 9.0, which is their right, also under the GPL.

      So you see Steam made HL2 and they said you had to PAY for the right to use it, that's their right, they created it. And you went around that. That's your problem. And you deserved the spanking you and 19,999 other people just got for being assholes.

      GJC

      --
      Gregory Casamento
      ## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
    4. Re:ahahah by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1
      The developers of my OS didn't ask me for money,... Don't get up on any kind of high horse about me freeloading please....*nobody* has the right to bitch about that user. etc

      It was you who stated earlier that people are "idiots" for wanting "something for nothing". I called your bluff and no amount of explaining will do away with it. You got something for nothing, even if you are coming with all sorts of stories how you are a great, indispensable helper to FOSS.

      Care to try again?

      Ther is no need to try again. Your original statement was patronizing and like any hypoctritical preacher you are guilty of "do as I say, dont do as I do". And you got caught. Simple as that.

    5. Re:ahahah by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1
      I find your choice of handle particularly appropriate in this instance. :) There is an old saying: "He who pays the piper calls the tune." It means that if you create something you are at liberty to license it as you see fit. The creators of Linux chose the GPL as the license. SuSE, in turn, offers a free version of SuSE 9.0, which is their right, also under the GPL. So you see Steam made HL2 and they said you had to PAY for the right to use it, that's their right, they created it. And you went around that. That's your problem. And you deserved the spanking you and 19,999 other people just got for being assholes.

      I am not sure what you are blabbering about.

      a) I was not locked out, I simply returned HL2 after I discovered it used Steam to try to shackle me, and it was blowing up on top of that. It was long before the 20k account problem

      b) your comment has nothing to do with my reply to the previous poster who is full of himself and believes in "do as I say, dont do as I do" since he is berating people for wanting "something for nothing" while he is merilly using free software such as Linux.

      and c) I reveived no "spanking", in fact Valve did get it from me since I took my money elsewhere.

    6. Re:ahahah by ChrisJones · · Score: 1

      Err, no. My comment about wanting "something for nothing" refers to people wanting to avoid paying for something they are supposed to *pay* for.

      I was patronizing indeed, I think it was pretty clear my original post was clearly directed at the expense of idiots who tried to *steal* (ie get "something for nothing") Half Life 2. People who abide by the FOSS licenses are getting a very good deal and should be encouraged.

      --
      Chris "Ng" Jones
      cmsj@tenshu.net
      www.tenshu.net
    7. Re:ahahah by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1
      Err, no. My comment about wanting "something for nothing" refers to people wanting to avoid paying for something they are supposed to *pay* for.

      It was not expressed in that manner. Even if it was however, it assumes the following things: that Intellectual Property concept is valid and accepted by everyone, that the methods of receiving "payment" for their labour used by Valve is valid, that they do actually deserve "payment" as opposed to donations or patronage grants, that the laws that govern "trade" of bits of data are sane, that Valve has rights well beyond those of applicaple to trade of physical objects, that conversly the consumer is deprived of rights in this new "commerce" he would have otherwise and that people do not have moral and ethical obligation to oppose all these things. "Supposed to pay for" is an assumption based on you not doing any thinking as to underlying principles. It is only a prevailing custom, backed up by illogical laws based on some rather shakey principles that people pay for software. Berating them for not doing so requires of you do defend the whole system.

      I was patronizing indeed, I think it was pretty clear my original post was clearly directed at the expense of idiots who tried to *steal* (ie get "something for nothing") Half Life 2.

      The term "steal" is applicable only to physical objects. What you are referring to is a dogma, adhered to by some, called "copyright infringement". It assumes that there is such a thing as a "right to copy" that can be granted or revoked.

      People who abide by the FOSS licenses are getting a very good deal and should be encouraged.

      Although not true of all FOSS licences, GPL in particular was designed as a countermeasure to legal systems based on "right to copy". It is a legal weapon designed using the very framework of "Intellectual Property" to destroy that concept. RMS does not believe in "right to copy" and GPL is a clever trick to combat that ideology. In essence you are using a system which resulted from an effort to fight the very thing you believe so strongly in.

    8. Re:ahahah by ChrisJones · · Score: 1

      I take a very pragmatic view of licensing. I do believe it is a good thing, I have no problems with the creator of something putting whatever license they want on something. There are two reasons for this: a) they created it, b) I am not compelled to license it. Half Life 2 is hardly unique, there are many games you can buy and own outright (subject to whatever IP laws you have in your country, which you may not agree with). If Valve choose to make their system oppressively restrictive then people will simply stop using them and they won't get to put out any more crappy systems.
      I don't agree with much of the actual IP law that exists (e.g. lengths of copyrights) and I have many problems with the patent systems currently being distorted. I am not dogmatic though.
      In terms of the GPL specifically I think it's a perfectly good license. It has a very clear aim and it is pretty much unequivocal about it. I happen to agree with it and favour it, but I can do that without being incapable of seeing its limits and inapplicability to some situations.
      As an example I would lean towards publically funded projects using BSD style licenses so the public can use them as they see fit. I also obviously respect whatever license any author/publisher chooses to release their code under.
      Without some recoginition of IP and copyright you can't have a GPL; Nor does it attempt to do away with copyright or have any kind of "viral" properties. That is hubris. It is a simple agreement to share all of the code in a project under the same rules. If your IP can't take being GPL'd, don't link with GPL code - if you have IP worth protecting you can probably buy a license for some code that isn't GPLd, or if GPL is too restrictive you can probably find some BSD code, or write it yourself.
      A few idiots (I refer to the zealots who you have clearly crossed paths with) on forums really don't represent Linux and FOSS. If you believe in anything to the absolute exclusion of all else you are probably wrong ;)
      I see FOSS as a fantastic boiling pot of ideas and strategies and goals that are all intersecting and some clump together (LAMP springs to mind) and thrive, others don't, and it tends to evolve good solutions, so there is a choice of good alternatives, not a monopoly of one person's ideals (be they Bill Gates', Linus Torvalds', Theo de Raadt's or even RMS') and efforts.

      You're right on the stealing point though, I did think about rewording that, but I was already waffling (again). I agree that it is technically not stealing, it is copyright infringement although I would hope that could be expressed as "theft of IP", but that's a silly little argument that isn't worth our time. Either way they are going against the wishes of Valve for how their creation should interact with the public, which is at best unfair and at worst illegal.

      --
      Chris "Ng" Jones
      cmsj@tenshu.net
      www.tenshu.net
    9. Re:ahahah by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1
      I have no problems with the creator of something putting whatever license they want on something. There are two reasons for this: a) they created it, b) I am not compelled to license it. Half Life 2 is hardly unique, there are many games you can buy and own outright (subject to whatever IP laws you have in your country, which you may not agree with).

      I disagree. In a wider philosophical context, there is no such thing as "intellectual property". For it to be so, information would have to possess certain physical attributes such as non-transferable uniqueness. People however see it fit for profit motives to try and treat information as such. In the context of existing (and by necessity illogical and internally inconsistent) laws one thinks of "licensing" information. If the authors (or precisely either original sources of that combination of bits i.e. artists; or its first copiers - i.e. scientists) were to be able to impose any restrictions they see fit, it would quickly lead to an unsustainable situation whereby some critical parts of infrastructure of human thought are someone's "property".

      Your "pragmatic" view is the root of all sorts of evil. This approach separates the parts of information "trade" that are more reconciled with the traditional trade of physical goods and sets up a framework to deal with it in a similar manner.

      Unfortunately, from that point others build complex structures to deal with other aspects of this problem which in short order results in wacky patents on "business processes" and copyrights on DNA sequences. So while you "don't agree with much of the actual IP law that exists (e.g. lengths of copyrights) and I have many problems with the patent systems currently being distorted" you should realize that the "pragmatic" approach to things less obviously insane such as software licensing is the direct cause of these. The system as a whole is unsustainable. Information, be it a string of numbers, DNA sequence, a song or a piece of software cannot be "traded" or "licensed" because of the nature of it and most western societies live in denial of this simple fact, constructing volumes of fantasy legal castles on sand in order to make impossible happen.

      I went on in many other threads on ./ many about how the patronage system for arts and public academia are the only ways to maintain sanity for the future generations but I am not in the mood to go over all those points here again.

      Without some recognition of IP and copyright you can't have a GPL. Nor does it attempt to do away with copyright or have any kind of "viral" properties. That is hubris. It is a simple agreement to share all of the code in a project under the same rules.

      GPL uses the concept of IP the same way a prisoner would use his cell's window bar to tie a rope on which to lower himself down to freedom. If IP laws would not exist, neither would GPL. And yes it is "viral" in the sense that it abhors any license that promotes IP protections. Note how the advertising clause of BSD is not compatible with GPL. Even going as far as to demand printable attribution is a type of enforcement of IP "rights" and thus incompatible.

      This of course is not true of many other licenses, but GPL is indeed very political about its aims. RMS was always an activist and GPL reflects that. I personally like GPL very much because RMS and I think alike in this regard.

      I would hope that could be expressed as "theft of IP", but that's a silly little argument that isn't worth our time.

      Quite to the contrary. This is the very essence of the argument. IP cannot be stolen, as I mentioned, because of the way universe works: information lacks required attributes to be "private property". This is also the front-line of the battle of proponents of "IP" who seek to obscure and hide this fundamental fact.

      Either way they are going against the wishes of Valve for how their creation should interact with the public, which is at best unfair and at worst illegal

    10. Re:ahahah by ChrisJones · · Score: 1

      I think we are going to have to disagree on this, especially if you're going to rant at me about IP not existing and then use the word "evil", which clearly doesn't exist.

      Your view of how IP should not exist simply is not compatible with capitalist industry and we aren't going to have a revolution any time soon, so I suggest you get used to it ;)

      --
      Chris "Ng" Jones
      cmsj@tenshu.net
      www.tenshu.net
    11. Re:ahahah by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1
      Your view of how IP should not exist simply is not compatible with capitalist industry

      To the contrary, it is the present scenario that undermines the foundations of captitalism because that socio-economic system is based on trade of goods and labour, one of the cornerstones of which is the concept of "private property". While originally a good intentioned attempt to promote innovation, the "Intellectual Property" laws not only dilute the meaning of real property but also are primarily used as anti-competetive mechanism and thus contrary to tennents of free-market. It does not matter whichever way you slice it, "Intellectual Property" goes counter to the interests of humanity and works instead for a small group of very greedy and selfish people. That is what I refered to when using the word "evil".

  263. Consider.... by mark-t · · Score: 1
    If you happen to unknowingly possess counterfeit currency, and if you take it to a bank and attempt to deposit it, that money can be confiscated from you without any obligation whatsoever on the part of the bank to reimburse you for your loss, even if you had absolutely no idea that the money was fake. You are almost certain, however, to receive a useful explanation from them on how the difference between the counterfeits that you were going to deposit and the real currency can be detected. It's happened to me... only once, thank heaven, and I learned a few of the anti-counterfeiting technologies that our real currency uses and know how to spot their absense in phoney money, which itself is useful information that I think a lot more people should be taught. The point is although I was seriously put out by having to turn over what I thought was almost $200 in real money without receiving even a single penny for my trouble, I still realize the bank was within their full right to do this.

    So now, let me ask... how is this fundamentally any different than valve suspending accounts that don't use the CD?

  264. Stock in Kleenex just went up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as a result of the whiny little brats in this thread.

  265. the problem is that they also sold a CD by justins · · Score: 1

    Yes, with Steam you're "only renting" software. Two points about that. First, Steam only actualizes the reality which already exists in standard EULA boilerplate, that either party can break the "contract" between the parties at any time. It's absurd, but it's fairly well established absurdity which Steam is illustrating. But that's not really my point.

    Second, "renting software" can be really fucking cool, and Steam illustrates that as well. The idea that any game you've paid for can be played on any machine where steam is installed is nice. The fact that they offer this flexibility to people, along with the high-speed service to grab the stuff (instead of farming everything out to oddball mirror servers, like every major game publisher feels justified in doing with all their downloads) could become a pretty popular distribution model. People aren't necessarily choosing this product out of ignorance of the consequences: it has some nice, convenient features.

    The problem is that they also sold a CD. They (and I couldn't say if "they" is Valve, or VU Games, or what) confused the issue. People feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are getting a perpetually useful product when they buy that CD, which doesn't fit very well with Steam, and the notion that a game can be turned on and off depending on who is logged onto Steam.

    Add into that the utterly worthless and annoying requirement for having the CD in the drive even though the game works fine running from the drive and copying the CD doesn't really get a pirate anything with the authetication system that Steam uses and you've got a situation that is designed to cause trouble. Of course single-player users are going to crack the game to turn off the stupid CD verification. Of course a central authentication authority is going to shut down hacked games, and view users who use those hacks as their adversary. The superstupid thing was putting the CD requirement in there in the first place.

    --
    Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    1. Re:the problem is that they also sold a CD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, with Steam you're "only renting" software.

      If Steam is renting HL2 to customers then what is the duration of the lease?

    2. Re:the problem is that they also sold a CD by justins · · Score: 1

      It's a lease with an option to buy. But only if you have it on layaway. Don't sublet!

      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
  266. Re:Sir, would you kindly allow me to use my softwa by deesine · · Score: 1

    So basically you resent anti-piracy measures (activation at least) as they currently exist. These measures place you in a situation/relationship that evokes the profound emotion of resentment.

    What I don't understand is why you resent the company rather than the thieves who've forced companies to take this position. Where's your resentment towards the thieves? Don't they figure into this whole equation?

    Your post seems like an honest effort to descibe what you feel and why. But this effort seems disingenuous without a mention of software thieves and alternate anti-piracy measures.

    --
    damaged by dogma
  267. Two good arguments against activation by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

    Overall I agree with you that activation *isnt that bad*. But there are two major issues that I would like to see resolved, by law if necessary:

    (1) What if you dont have internet? In Microsoft's case they let you call in, which I think is sufficient.

    In Valve's case, they say "dont buy the game". Half the time I play single player games its BECAUSE i dont have internet to play online. (like when i'd go home for my college winter break).

    Still, for Steam it isn't that bad. You only have to get online and activate once - so as long as I dont reinstall steam+hl2 over winter break, I can play hl2 single player until my eye's bleed. So once again...really not that big of a problem.

    (2) What happens when the company stops offering activation in 10 years, or the company goes bankrupt and dies? Are we no longer allowed to use the product?

    Is the company legally liable for allowing activation for as long as the company is around?

    What about Nintendo -- I can't buy an 8-bit NES anymore to play my 8-bit NES games. Should Nintendo be legally liable for continuing to create consoles that play 8-bit NES games? But I paid for those games, and I can't play them anymore!

    I think the solution I would like to see for (2) is that the company is legally liable for providing activation as long as any company is around which owns the rights to that bit of software.

    If the company dies, or otherwise gives up rights to the software, then people can reverse engineer the game to their heart's content and post the results online for anyone to obtain.

    So really, the only thing we need is some laws saying

    1) any software (or otherwise) product that requires activation must allow it in a timely manner, and via multiple communication forms (mail, phone, internet, whatever)

    2) Any company which owns software that requires activation (or cd-key, or even cd-in-drive checks) to run, must continue allowing activation (or keep their cd-key checking servers around, or offering replacement media for scratched CDs) indefinitely.

    3) Any software product requiring activation, may be reverse engineered and offered freely in any form, if activation is no longer available for that product. (this offers an easy out for if a company stops offering activation [reasonably] but still tries to retain the rights to the software)

  268. Wrong. Sharing cd-keys are useless. by Man+in+Spandex · · Score: 1

    Good point but can you carefully tell me how the heck does a cd key get entered into an account once its registered within the customer's account? It can't. Steam will popup saying "Duplicate CD KEY. This one is already in use" which makes almost everything you said false.

    Once a cd key is entered, it takes $10 to make Valve remove it from an account. Otherwise, its there as long as Steam is running and even if you gave your cd key to somebody, that would be useless because nobody else can use it. Somebody would have to hack you some way to gain access of your account information and then if Valve detects that the same account is used among a range of different ip addresses, then the cd key will be subject to ban.

  269. Re:Sir, would you kindly allow me to use my softwa by maximilln · · Score: 1

    What I don't understand is why you resent the company rather than the thieves who've forced companies to take this position

    1. No one forced any companies to take any position. The argument that unauthorized software distribution has a significant impact on corporate bottom line is nebulous at best.

    2. Get off the bandwagon. They're not thieves. You can't steal software any more than you can steal air. No one is going to suffocate just because you're breathing harder.

    3. The software companies have created a straw man in software piracy. Illegal software distributors may exist, but they're no more to blame for corporate losses than shoddy worksmanship, overbearing position with respect to customers, and the artificial bubble that has the world believing that entertainment is a get-rich-quick industry.

    --
    +++ATHZ 99:5:80
  270. They lost two sales here and I'll tell everyone.. by xtal · · Score: 1

    that I know to hold off on the game if they can.

    I have a major lan party every Xmas, and my time isn't worth bothing pirating the games;

    Now, pardon my french, but I ABSOLUTELY FUCKING HATE NEEDING THE CD TO PLAY THE GAMES. I want the option to be able to install a patch - or hell, write my OWN patch - or image the CD - so I don't need that CD. Swapping CDs sucks, and they get damaged and lost. There is NO POINT.

    Requiring the CD is stupid because it's a measure that is so easily circumvented and dries people who legitimately buy the game mad. That's a great idea, guys. Rocket science.

    I don't mind online activation; It would be a good compromise to not needing the CD. I'll even call a 800 number and do it voice. One thing I want though is once that copy is activated, is ability to NOT NEED A DAMN CD. What makes this especially inane is people who download it via steam don't need the CD; people who buy it do! Hahaha. Great.

    There is, however, an easiy solution to this: An escrow clause in the contract. If the company ceases to provide online authentication, it has to provide a means to play the game under the terms of the contract. This is common in the software industry in the closed source critical applications field; so why can't we get this out of the way here? It's easy; it shows good faith on the part of Valve; and the game isn't going to be worth selling in 10 years anyway.

    The bad press valve is picking up is not worth it. Maybe I'm wrong.. but this is going to snowball. Way to flush years of community goodwill down the toilet.

    --
    ..don't panic
  271. you all are brain dead by zajaco0 · · Score: 1

    All of you people bitching about this must be brain dead. The reason things like this started in the first place (lisc agreements and other ways to copyright material) is because of people like you that like to steal software. Oh no, you're not stealing it, your buddy just backed up a copy of his software for you. If only one person buys the software and everyone else hacks it, the company is in for a HUGE. HL2 probably cost millions of dollars to make and wtf kind of company would release their software without putting some sort of lisc agreement on it to protect themselves from hackers out here. I for one will legally purchase this software and give credit where credit is due.

    The ONLY people that are bitching about how much of a pain in the ass out there are the people stealing it. Why would anyone else care. Yes you buy software and you have to "activate" it. Oh wow, when you buy a car can you just drive home? NO!! you have to put gas, oil..etc other fluids in there to make it run. You have to continually pay for this gas/oil/maintainence to keep your car running smoothly. You say well what if the software companies go out of business and we can't activate software anymore?? Well what if 30 yrs down the road gasoline isn't the standard anymore. Saying that your car lasts that long, You would be the kind of person to be pissed off the 12k you spent on a new car 30 years ago is worthless.

    oh yeah i forgot...quit your bitching and just pay for the software already, trust me it's worth it!!!

    ~Zach

  272. I found an easy way around this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't like the terms, don't buy the software.
    If you are a "gamer" read : IQ less than your shoe size and it's a "must have" then SFTU.

    Personally, I've never seen a game I can stand for more than 20 mins, but that's because I have a life.

    Ironically the name of the game is "half life" which is apparently what all you whining losers have.

  273. Why is it so hard to just play by the rules? by madpianoskills · · Score: 1

    I bought the game at Best Buy. I went home. I got a Steam account. They did not invade my personal privacy and I provided no personal information. I installed the game. The files were unlocked. The game opened. I played until I could not physically stay awake. I was happy. What is wrong with the above picture? Nothing! The install process was absolutely painless (if a bit lengthy - I managed to get through a documentary on The Great Escape while it was working, but that was my only gripe). I sometimes feel like a heretic in the gaming community for such blasphemous statements as "I pay for all my games," or, "I don't mind purchasing a license as long as it doesn't collect any unnecessary information," etc. I'm glad Valve shut down as many accounts as they did. Now, I would hope they checked carefully enough into each one (either via electronic security checks or eyeballing the questionable ones) to make sure that legitimate accounts were not eliminated, but the fact is, they can't afford to take chances. After all the problems they had with security leaks, who can blame them for their caution and paranoia? It's because of the people who get cracks and complain about registration/license issues like these that the security exists in the first place! Contrary to whishful thinking, we do not live in a society with the free and open exchange of ideas, goods, and services. We have money. And it is used to pay for things. If you have a problem with that, spend a little less time playing pirated games, get a job, earn money, and play legal games without hassle. I'm sure the quality of your life will improve dramatically.

    1. Re:Why is it so hard to just play by the rules? by deesine · · Score: 1

      Why not play by the rules?

      Because this is Slashdot, where software piracy is only an argument at best.

      We all know that evil software companies only use anti-piracy measures just to piss us off. Those companies only care about the bottom dollar and using anti-piracy makes them more money....somehow, damnit. Aww the horror of it all!

      --
      damaged by dogma
    2. Re:Why is it so hard to just play by the rules? by wvitXpert · · Score: 1

      The problem I personally have is that I want to be able to play my game years from now after Valve shuts down. I want more that a $50 license to play the game when Valve lets me.

    3. Re:Why is it so hard to just play by the rules? by space_jake · · Score: 0

      Your OS will stop you from playing the game before Valve will.

    4. Re:Why is it so hard to just play by the rules? by wvitXpert · · Score: 1

      Is my Windows install just going to disapear some day? Microsoft hasn't yet sunk to the point that your OS licence runs out after a given time, so I don't understand your point.

    5. Re:Why is it so hard to just play by the rules? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because playing by the rules means you serve the evil man. Just ask all the enlightened geniuses of the '60s. You know, the parents and grandparents of the people foaming at the mouth about people trying to prevent theft.

      If Karl Marx were alive today he'd have idiots blocking intersections in NYC because the 'priveleged' can enjoy HL2 while others cannot.

    6. Re:Why is it so hard to just play by the rules? by space_jake · · Score: 0

      Well actually with Windows XP it kinda does. Granted what I'm saying is that newer operating systems wont be able to support the game. You can always keep an old pc around to keep playing it and since it runs on Windows 98 SE you should be fine for another 35 years give or take hardware failure. http://www.iee.org/Policy/Areas/SCS/problemdates.c fm Interesting read, most wont apply to an OS entirely or limit your gaming but just a few examples. If you've been gaming on a PC for at least 10 years you know what I mean about trying to run old games on the newest OS. With the last iteration of directx gone and passed who knows how backwards compatible it'll be in its new incarnation.

  274. Stupid Fanboys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just like watching the conservatarian fanboys on here try to justfy the draconian Steam authentication system. "You didn't buy the game, you bought a license!" "The EULA specifically states that you can't use a NO-CD crack. Quit whining!" "It's Valve's property, they can do what they want." Etc. Yeah, well CDs and DVDs are covered by license agreements as well. I can't wait to watch the Slashdot crew come out in support of the next CD protection or DVD authentication scheme...

    Slashdot asshats scream bloody murder when Valenti or Rosen tries to fuck consumers in the ass, but lube up for Gabe Newell. Stupid fucking fanboys.

  275. Two words for you: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Restocking Fee

    If the shops can ask for a "restocking fee", then why can't I?

    PS the EULA was inside thebox, remember. You cannot use it in the defense as if it were known about beforehand.

  276. Mixed Feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The game looks nice. I didn't see any modding tools though.(?) I got the retail CDs. ....
    Mine will not seem to start at all if my internet connection is not live. So perhaps they should have said "internet necessary".
    -------------
    I have read somewhere that 90% or some-high-figure of pirating games occurs within the first three months of release--so perhaps, we hope a patch will be forthcoming that will disable the internet-connection-required Steam service. I don't blame them for killing accounts, because they pretty much know that people sharing serials either gave theirs out so others could play without paying, or wanted to play for free. But there comes a point in net-dependent security features where owning the legit game is almost as much hassle as cracking a warez version--and in that case, what exactly is a customer paying for when they buy a legit copy?
    ----------
    UT2004 required the CD's to play initially, but a couple months after its release the update patch included a no-CD patch anyway. This was most likely to "encourage" people to buy a copy rather than crack one.
    -------
    If a no-Steam/no-CD patch is not forthcoming, I will never buy another Valve product, or any that requires a functioning company with internet servers to play. I have too many old games that are no longer supported to want to pay for a game that effectively dies when its publisher's company goes out of business, or just decides that the necessary server-side services are too expensive to keep running, considering that the game shipped last year, or the year before. Can you still get Half-Life (1) patches off the publisher's servers? ....

  277. Games.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Contracts and all other legal agreements are void for people under 18. Seeing how this is a game and the majority of people buy this game are under 18, isn't the EULA void for the majority of people?

  278. So that means by Tom · · Score: 1

    So that means that once one or the other cracker group has made a perfect release, the pirate copy will not only be cheaper, but also more convenient, easier to install and risk-free?

    Great way to discourage piracy.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  279. Re:Sir, would you kindly allow me to use my softwa by justins · · Score: 1
    The trouble with product activation is that it's implemented in such a painless and convenient way (in the majority of cases, where it works properly) that people fail to see this process for what it actually is: repeatedly asking permission from the manufacturer to use the product you purchased, after you purchased it.

    "If only the users were as enlightened as I am, they'd rail against this horrible system!" That's a remarkably condescending position to take.

    It also isn't supported by facts. Of course people realize they are "repeatedly asking permission" to use the software: one of the main features of the Steam system is that you can "ask permission" to use the games you've bought with Steam on any computer where Steam is installed. The process all the way from download to login is very explicit, and everyone understands that "logging in" is more or less the same as "asking permission."

    The most important issue about activation is not whether it's convenient or inconvient, but the way it fundamentally changes the relationship between the customer and a company selling proprietary software.

    That's true, in a way. But what you apparently don't understand about steam is that the convenience and the change in relationship are the draw, they are what makes the system more attractive to a lot of users.
    --
    Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
  280. Not in this case by Q2Serpent · · Score: 1

    While that is how it works normally, HL2 is unique because there are TWO schemes working together.

    One scheme is online activation via STEAM. You have to do this whether you bought the CD or not. If you did buy the CD (or stole it or whatever), you have to register the cd-key with STEAM, which checks for uniques. This would catch the thiefs right here. So why have the other scheme, that requires the CD to be in the drive? If someone hacked HL2 to play without online activation (so they wouldn't need a cd-key), then they could also hack the game to not check the CD.

    THE ONLY PEOPLE THIS HURTS are those who have a VALID CD KEY and want to play without the CD in the drive.

  281. this is all so stupid by 2TecTom · · Score: 1

    I've been reading the comments and to me it seems the issue boils down to this:

    Is it right or wrong to use software you haven't paid for?

    I contend it is, given the circumstances.

    If software was priced fairly, there would be little point in stealing it.

    What is it with people who think they should be paid over and over for the very same effort?

    Consumer software is grossly overpriced, therefore people simply make an economical evaluation of the situation and choose the most valuable course of action.

    Moralists can argue over these issues but pragmatists would simply lower the price point, forget copyright, profit! and move on ...

    --
    Words to men, as air to birds.
    1. Re:this is all so stupid by Ahnteis · · Score: 1

      Considering the game cost OVER $40,000,000 to develop, I think $50 is a fair price.

      Now, I DO have to question certain web-based forums that cost $100+ that are developed by a single developer over a year's time. Total cost -- what, $100,000 perhaps?

    2. Re:this is all so stupid by deesine · · Score: 1

      "If software was priced fairly, there would be little point in stealing it."

      What is a fair price? Perhaps companies should consult with you before releasing products to help them determine what is a fair price. OR they could use the free market system already in place where prices are determined by a supply-demand dynamic. Perhaps you've heard of this system. It goes like this; if you want (demand) something they got (supply), and you pay for it, then it's priced just right. If you want it, buy it somewhere else cheaper, it's priced too high.

      Judging by how many people bought HL2, I'd say it's priced just right.

      "If software was priced fairly, there would be little point in stealing it."

      Except for the fact that it would STILL COST SOMETHING. Good job succinctly giving us "the world owes me" point of view.

      --
      damaged by dogma
    3. Re:this is all so stupid by maximilln · · Score: 1

      OR they could use the free market system already in place

      It's not a free system when the government can and has passed entire libraries of regulations on it.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    4. Re:this is all so stupid by deesine · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's still (relatively) a free market economy. Perhaps you know of an economy that's more free than the US's? Let us in, what country is it, and why is the US economy the largest in the world, while being based on a free market?

      --
      damaged by dogma
    5. Re:this is all so stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Now compare the number of units expected to be sold in each category. Or the ways Steam will be leveraged to generate more revenue from Internet cafe setups or from licensing to other developers. Or the cash sales of the game engine itself to other developers will raise.

      It's a bit of an "apples and oranges" situation. Along the same lines, I used to wonder why school books cost two or three times as much as traditional hardcover books.

    6. Re:this is all so stupid by maximilln · · Score: 1

      (relatively)

      Backpedaling.

      Perhaps you know of an economy that's more free than the US's?

      It's cold in hell because there's no place hotter?

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    7. Re:this is all so stupid by deesine · · Score: 1

      NEWS ALERT: After decades of studies and research economists agree, the US has the largest economy because it's based on a free market (even with all the regulations).

      Obviously this news travels slowly to some people.

      --
      damaged by dogma
    8. Re:this is all so stupid by maximilln · · Score: 1

      You're no scientist.

      NEWS ALERT: After decades of studies and research economists agree, the US has the largest economy

      That is observation and numerically factual.

      because it's based on a free market (even with all the regulations).

      That is opinion and an interpretation of the data.

      Welcome to real life.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    9. Re:this is all so stupid by deesine · · Score: 1

      "That is opinion and an interpretation of the data."

      Oh, you have another opinion? Don't hold back, let us know, why are those economists wrong?

      --
      damaged by dogma
    10. Re:this is all so stupid by borgheron · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. This is the excuse of every idiot pirate from the dawn of time.

      You want to play, you've got to pay if that's what the license says. You think it's overpriced, don't buy it. It is infact overpriced BECAUSE of piracy.

      GJC

      --
      Gregory Casamento
      ## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
    11. Re:this is all so stupid by 2TecTom · · Score: 1

      lol, whatever ... you can call it justification all you want, it matters not, in fact, the truth is, given the chance, most people will usually always do the easiest thing

      these companies just fail to make it affordable enough and if you weren't in denial, you'd expect the executives who are well paid decision makers, to make decisions that maximized customer satisfaction and profits

      funny how you blame the consumer, who has little power, and not the executives who do

      btw, no, I haven't played HL2 nor, sadly, do I want to, until the price comes down

      it just isn't worth that much to me

      --
      Words to men, as air to birds.
    12. Re:this is all so stupid by 2TecTom · · Score: 1

      you would, but then again, you are most likly, an overly affluent first worlder ... btw, just how much is fifty bucks in the second or third worlds?

      i guess in your view poor folks don't deserve technology cause they can't afford to support millionaires, eh

      --
      Words to men, as air to birds.
    13. Re:this is all so stupid by 2TecTom · · Score: 1

      free market !!! rotflmao ... boy, are you naive, or what, eh

      ever hear of all the market can bear?

      i'm always amazed at how few people actually understand what free enterprise means ... it certainly doesn't mean endless copyright and patent perversion

      --
      Words to men, as air to birds.
    14. Re:this is all so stupid by 2TecTom · · Score: 1

      Perhaps because they profit from the same system they claim to be so objective about?

      Oh and what about the economists who wouldn't agree that it's a free market?

      "Economics is the only field in which two people can share a Nobel Prize for saying opposing things."

      --
      Words to men, as air to birds.
    15. Re:this is all so stupid by borgheron · · Score: 1

      They have to overprice it with all of the theives around if they even want to attempt to get something for their efforts.

      It's common-sense, not a justification.

      I don't blame the consumer, I blame pirates who rip the company off and ultimately hurt the honest consumer by necessitating the increase in price.

      Do you understand yet, or do we need to have another go where I explain the basics of economics to you?

      GJC

      --
      Gregory Casamento
      ## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
    16. Re:this is all so stupid by 2TecTom · · Score: 1

      Common sense ... rotflmao

      "Common sense is judgment without reflection, shared by an entire class, an entire nation, or the entire human race." ~ Giambattista Vico
      http://www.bartleby.com/66/52/62852.html

      You blame the "pirates" rather than dealing with it's root cause. Furthermore, you've lumped everyone from those who won't pay to play up to and including commercial mass-production blackmarketers.

      If the price was actually affordable, there would be little if any copyright infringement. This would be even more true if copyright was limited to fourteen years as the founding fathers had intended.

      It's clear from my perspective that it is you who requires an exlanation of both critical reasoning skills and basic economic theory.

      --
      Words to men, as air to birds.
    17. Re:this is all so stupid by borgheron · · Score: 1

      People like you are the root cause, moron.

      GJC

      --
      Gregory Casamento
      ## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
    18. Re:this is all so stupid by borgheron · · Score: 1

      "Common sense is judgment without reflection, shared by an entire class, an entire nation, or the entire human race." ~ Giambattista Vico

      Common sense.
      (a) A supposed sense which was held to be the common bond
      of all the others. [Obs.] --Trench.
      (b) Sound judgment. See under Sense.

      From webster. I'm sorry, but I don't subscribe to Vico's interpretation. The above is the definition from www.dict.org.

      It's clear from my perspective that it is you who requires an exlanation of both critical reasoning skills and basic economic theory.

      I don't think so.

      Quite simply, by several thousand people copying/pirating the software without paying for it, the company cannot make enough market penetration to cover costs even when demand is high since much of the demand is met by illigitimate, illegal means.

      In order to pay the programmers which developed the software, and pay their own bills and also, yes, make a profit, which was, after all, the fucking point of writing the software in the first place. They must mark it up. This of course prompts idiots like yourself to crack and copy it. So it's a vicious cycle.

      If the price was actually affordable, there would be little if any copyright infringement. This would be even more true if copyright was limited to fourteen years as the founding fathers had intended.

      I look upon it as a choice. You seem to think it's up to the company to break the cycle by lowering the price as if this would magically mean that people like you would start to pay (HAH!!). The risk, of course, is that they will go out of business because of their (obviously) misplaced trust in people such as yourself to make that happen. The other option is, of course, for people to stop pirating the software and allow the company to actually make a profit.

      I mean, let's face it. You copy the game, because you like it. I don't think you can deny this as, I, personally, wouldn't be willing to commit an illegal act for something that I didn't like.

      If you want them to stay in business. Pay for the software.

      I agree with your stance on Copyright, btw. Copyright laws are out of control. But you need to find a constructive way to fight them aside from pirating software which only prompts harsher action from the government and big companies.

      GJC

      --
      Gregory Casamento
      ## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
    19. Re:this is all so stupid by 2TecTom · · Score: 1

      Really, your response is just so typical.

      "A last trick is to become personal, insulting, rude, as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand, and that you are going to come off worst. It consists in passing from the subject of dispute, as from a lost game, to the disputant himself, and in some way attacking his person." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
      http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/erist38.htm

      --
      Words to men, as air to birds.
    20. Re:this is all so stupid by 2TecTom · · Score: 1

      I'd agree with the definition,

      (a) A supposed sense which was held to be the common bond of all the others.

      However, I'd like to point out that it's a "supposed" sense and often common sense is quite wrong. As in this case.

      There is no harmful correlation between casual coping and sales, and in fact, when there is a correlation, it's a positive one. It's simply a myth that people who use a crack would actually pay. The truth is most would find less expensive more accessible alternatives. In fact the whole high prices thing is simply incompetent management.

      Here, try reading, "A Plea For Casual Copying"
      http://tinyurl.com/6t5ht

      Secondly, overly high prices directly limit sales and therefore profits. Simple, basic economics.

      Third, the software market is known for it's manipulative market practices and for its relentless attacks of both consumer rights and the public domain.

      http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/projects-99-00 /dvd-css/role.htm

      However, you are right, it is a choice. Many choose not to purchase the game, one way or another. To bad those executives aren't smart enough to fiqure out a way to allow everyone who wanted to play, an easily affordable way to do so.

      Oh, and by the way, I have found a constructive way to fight evil corporations. I simply don't buy thier products or use thier services.

      --
      Words to men, as air to birds.
    21. Re:this is all so stupid by borgheron · · Score: 1

      I still disagree on philosophical grounds, but I can respect your position.

      BTW, Apologies for the previous "moron" comment. You seem like a reasonable person. :)

      GJC

      --
      Gregory Casamento
      ## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
    22. Re:this is all so stupid by 2TecTom · · Score: 1

      And I yours. I always advocate people purchase the software they find useful. I also believe that those who use software professionally should always pay. However, I always recommend freeware or OSS whenever possible.

      As for the comment, not to worry, if I didn't like the heat, I'd stay outa the kitchen. ;~)

      As a final note, I'd like to add that a mutually beneficial relationship is always the most profitable, in the long run.

      --
      Words to men, as air to birds.
    23. Re:this is all so stupid by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Jeez. Even I can tell you they are dead wrong. Most economies are a series of gov't protected monopolies. Tha includes the US. The only real free markets are those involved in contraband, free of all outside influences, unfettered by gov't regulation, available at all hours, every day. It involves the buyers and sellers only.

      --
      What?
  282. Re:Sir, would you kindly allow me to use my softwa by deesine · · Score: 1

    Riiiight, software companies use anti-piracy measures that piss off users, just so that....they can piss off users!? Get real. Software piracy is a real problem for companies.

    Tell me: how, exactly, are software companies making more profit by pissing off users on measures that themsleves cost money to implement?

    Get off "the world owes me something" bandwagon.

    --
    damaged by dogma
  283. WRONG...people need to stop assuming things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't care what you've come to "understand," you're completely wrong. The CD key registered to your account determines what products you download off of Steam. If you activate with a retail key, no matter what, you download retail. Look at the securom.gcf file in your Steam folder that appears no matter what.

    I'm amazed when completely false things get modded up +5.

  284. That is fine by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

    I have done the same thing. I've ripped games and used Daemon Tools for a long time. However, this is *not allowed by the EULA*. Kinda sucks, but if you did it, and they found out, they can ban you.

    If they can tell a difference, I think they'd do good to unban the cd-key hack people with a warning not to do it again.

    But they don't have to.

    Just the fact that they aren't suing every person who was trying to pirate the game is Valve being VERY NICE to a bunch of jerks.

    1. Re:That is fine by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      However, this is *not allowed by the EULA*

      I went through Half-Life 2's EULA, but I must have missed it. Could you quote the portion that specifically bans noCD cracks?

    2. Re:That is fine by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      It may be violating some clause in the intentionally obfuscated EULA; that's just fine and dandy -- I did my friggin' best to understand every one of those I read; only Apple's and the GPL seemed to be written so as to be understandable to laymen. If you write licenses with the intent that they're incomprehensible to your customers, should they be binding?

      I'm going to give Valve the benefit of the doubt here, I'll pay for half-life 2 either way.

      but I plan to firewall the hell out of Steam after activation, and if I can download the crack and the ISOs before that finishes, I'm going to play the cracked version. If that fails, I'm going to play the cracked version. If my post on the Steam forums pisses of Gabe and I get banned, I'm going to play the cracked version. I've got $50 in my wallet right now that's going to buy me HL2, I have no qualms about that. I just want assurance that the game will run when I need it to; I never played Half-Life online because every time (80%) I tried, I needed to download some large patch, and by the time it was done I was out of time. I don't want that to happen again.

  285. Re:Violating the license for one locks you from al by Kehvarl · · Score: 0

    The problem is: valve has no legal right to act as a law enforcement entity. if you steal something from the store, they have to take you to court to make you pay for it (they can fine you, but you can always simply not pay at first). Valve has removed that layer by taking it upon themselves to, having determined your guilt, revoke your right to play other games that you have purchased that have -nothing to do- with the game you have been found guilty of using illegally.

  286. How about this by KinkifyTheNation · · Score: 0

    Don't you think if, after all the trouble they've gone through trying to make this game, let alone fix everything that went wrong in trying to release it, they would have made steam a little more secure than adding the game to the user's "My Games" list and allowing them to download updates for it before it was even verified serverside? While I agree that the 20,000 people who pirated this are in the wrong, I think they should be a little more secure with their client programs. The download "trick" didn't even require any kind of crack or form of code manipulation, using a cd-key linked with HL2 automatically allowed them Steam access to it, and _then_ checked to see if it was okay. There are always going to be people pirating games. Steam's faulty design just made it easier.

  287. EULAs aren't valid anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EULAs don't meet any of the requirements of a contract and are therefore invalid.

    Don't let the software industry trick you into believing that they are valid.

  288. Hey, don't forget us fanatics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Adblock works with Firefox 1.0 on OS X too.

  289. Yet Another... by Cap'N+Crapper · · Score: 0

    reason why Unreal Tournament is superior.

  290. You're wrong-Ignorance of the law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know what? The above example is why I posted this link. So maybe, just maybe we could stop with the stupid analogies. They're NOT needed if you actually understand the law. Buy a copy, check it out from the library, steal it from the bookstore. I don't care, just stop with the bad analogies.

  291. Re:It's not that hard to play a pirated version of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    That is what disables the steam account. That is what caused this story, that is the big deal.

  292. LOL. It's more like by fluxrad · · Score: 1

    You get home and have to activate the peaches.

    --
    "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
  293. Re:michael: STFU-fvck DMCA or boycott-your choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Fvck the DMCA!!! - Use a (homemade) packet sniffer with logging capabilities and a host of reverse engineering tools in order to fully reverse engineer the HL2 product activation scheme. That way, a crack could made with the help of the HOSTS file in the form of a 'server' that HL2 communicates with thinking it is a Steam server. This won't work if the installation code can detect that a packet sniffer is running before it starts the activation process. If all of this is successful, one should be able to play HL2 in one-player mode WITHOUT the need for Steam.
    Of course, it appears to be a DMCA violation to hack around any encryption scheme.

    *OR*

    2) Boycott. This is the simpler, elegant solution. Simply refuse to buy any software or other IP-based products that uses any sort of 'online product activation' or 'digital rights management' schemes. If enough people do this, businesses will get the message and remove this crap from their products.

    Or else go out of business.

  294. Steam, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess some people just don't have the esSteam to get their copies of Half-Life 2 working. Poor fools.

  295. Re:Sir, would you kindly allow me to use my softwa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [thoughtful and polite argument against activation snipped]

    You forget, this is Slashdot. Some house rules for you to memorize:

    Product Activation: BAD if Microsoft do it. GOOD if Valve do it.
    DRM: BAD if Microsoft or the RIAA do it. GOOD if Apple do it.
    Security holes: BAD if it's Microsoft. GOOD (OK, wrong term - "not worth commenting on", at least) if it's Firefox or any other FOSS product.

    I could go on...
    My own view is that all of the above - especially the first two - are BAD, without exception. As you say, product activation fundamentally changes the relationship between the customer and the supplier, and I deeply resent, as a paying user, having to grovel to Microsoft every time I re-install Windows for permission to use the software I paid for. DRM is also bad (m'kay?), not least because it takes the PC down the slippery slope from being a general-purpose, user-is-in-control device to being just a playback device for $media_cartel to use on their own terms.
    But round here, there's no consistency. People who've argued 'till they're red in the face about the evils of (Cactus | Microsoft | CSS) DRM will, almost without drawing breath and with a straight face, tell you how the Apple itunes DRM is a "necessary evil" and really not such a hassle at all. Yes, it's hypocritical, but that's par for the course on this site I'm afraid...

  296. Profit Maximization by BadBlood · · Score: 1

    I'm posting this way too late in the game to get any response, but here goes anyway.

    Which is better?

    A piracy prevention mechanism that prevents 100% of the pirates from playing the game AND 5% of the valid legal customers as well,

    OR

    A piracy prevention mechanism that prevents 95% of the pirates from playing AND 0% of the valid legal customers?

    Methinks it's the latter and Valve has chosen the former.

    --


    Praying for the end of your wide-awake nightmare.
  297. Re:Sir, would you kindly allow me to use my softwa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    STUPID ALERT!

    Attention all: Software is now air. Next time any of you spends a couple hundred (or thousand) hours coding... you're really not doing anything, you're just making air. And air that everybody owns at that!

    Puhlease, that statement is idiotic at best. Regardless, I'd like to meet the people that spent their time making all this air, they need to do something about the smog.

    Oh, and turn your oxygen supply off...

    Or preferably you'd just admit that there are no similarities between air and software.

  298. Re:Irony / liklihood of having a valid cd key reje by Ahnteis · · Score: 1

    The majority (all?) of these particular users had tried to use 1 stolen/hacked key. You can argue that someone hacked your computer and inserted that key into your account, but we're really passing the realm of believability at that point.

  299. What is this STEAM thing anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am half way thru HL2, what are you guys talking about all this activation nonsense?

    STEAMed is what you suckers are, same ones that voted for Bush and his lackys that are going to do the same thing to DVD's and CD's because the big media companies paid for their campaigns.

  300. How about an album? by fluxrad · · Score: 1

    Your argument still doesn't hold up. Stop assuming that because we're talking about software the rules somehow change. We've been dealing with piracy and fair-use issues in this country for two-hundred years. The only difference is that now the software, music, and movie industries are becoming more effective at convincing you that they're somehow doing you a favor by fucking you.

    --
    "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
    1. Re:How about an album? by Politburo · · Score: 1

      We've been dealing with piracy and fair-use issues in this country for two-hundred years.

      *sigh* Yes, with physical items. The problem is that software does make it different. Why you fail to understand that, I really can't say.

      Have we really dealt with piracy on the scale of music/dvd/software piracy in the past 200 years?

      The only difference is that now the software, music, and movie industries are becoming more effective at convincing you that they're somehow doing you a favor by fucking you.

      As I said to sibling, I really don't know what you're talking about. I paid $50 for a game. $50 is the market rate for a game these days, and the product has worked flawlessly. I fail to see where I've been 'fucked'. It sounds like a lot of people here are railing against a system they've never used.

    2. Re:How about an album? by fluxrad · · Score: 1

      *sigh* Yes, with physical items. The problem is that software does make it different. Why you fail to understand that, I really can't say.

      I think it is you that fails to understand that simply because something is easier does not mean it is inherently different. The only thing that has really changed is that the doctrine of Fair Use has been slowly eroded by copyright holders and their lobbyists (e.g. the DMCA or the new timeshifting bill).

      Sure, you can argue that copyright infringement has become more prevalent over the course of the past 50 years. But one can also argue that this is balanced out by the mass creation of content afforded by these same technologies. Additionally, newer content distribution media do not exist for the sole purpose of piracy - but rather have scaled with both legal and illegal industries. Yes, infringement has exploded. However, so has invention. In this regard, I think you fail to account for the fact that piracy does not exist in a vacuum.

      As I said to sibling, I really don't know what you're talking about. I paid $50 for a game. $50 is the market rate for a game these days, and the product has worked flawlessly. I fail to see where I've been 'fucked'.

      No you didn't pay $50 for a game. 10 years ago you would have payed $50 for a game. Today, you paid $50 for a "license" to play a game. If Valve at any point decides they no longer want you to play said game then you have nothing. This is the important point: Your ability to play Half-Life 2 exists solely at the discretion of Valve Studios even after you have paid them $50 for a "copy".

      --
      "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
    3. Re:How about an album? by ozric99 · · Score: 1
      No you didn't pay $50 for a game. 10 years ago you would have payed $50 for a game. Today, you paid $50 for a "license" to play a game. If Valve at any point decides they no longer want you to play said game then you have nothing. This is the important point: Your ability to play Half-Life 2 exists solely at the discretion of Valve Studios even after you have paid them $50 for a "copy".

      Well said that man! It's times like this I wish I hadn't just wasted my mod points on pointless flamewars ;)

    4. Re:How about an album? by Politburo · · Score: 1

      I think it is you that fails to understand that simply because something is easier does not mean it is inherently different.

      In terms of copyright law, you're right, it is no different. What I'm saying is that most of the current copyright law, and all of the historic copyright law, is based around objects that are not as easy to duplicate as digital items, and that the current law is not adequate for digital items. That doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be tightened, just reworked to accomodate the technologies now present. The DMCA was supposed to be the reworking of the law, but as we all know it was horribly balanced towards content creators. IMO, what we need are 'nutrition information' laws for items distributed under a copyright license. There should be a standard format box outlining your rights, what you can/can't do, what copy protection mechanisms are in use, etc. There also needs to be some sort of recourse for the consumer. As it stands now, the creators can trample our rights and there's pretty much nothing we can do about it. Meanwhile, one minor infraction by a consumer, and it's a $25,000 lawsuit from the creators.

      But one can also argue that this is balanced out by the mass creation of content afforded by these same technologies. Yes, infringement has exploded. However, so has invention.

      So, because there's more content now, that means pirating is okay? Odd logic. Look I'm not arguing that CD-Rs should be banned or anything like that. I'm merely saying that content creators should have the right to distribute their content as they see fit, as long as the consumer is fully informed. Also, the "we can change this agreement at any time" clause cannot be used, and should be illegal to begin with.

      Your ability to play Half-Life 2 exists solely at the discretion of Valve Studios even after you have paid them $50 for a "copy".

      My legal ability, yes. If anything like this were to happen, I would have no qualms cracking the shit out of the thing.

      Furthermore, I knew that was a possibility before I made the purchase. So long as consumers are made aware of the pitfalls of these systems before purchase, I have no problems with them. I don't mean EULAs, either. There needs to be clear language warning the consumer that the rules have changed. People who are paranoid about Valve locking them out should simply not buy or play the game.

      The people really hurt here are the consumers that bought HL2 not knowing about the restrictions. Consumer awareness is the key here. If everything is in the open, consumers will be able to make an informed decision. Hopefully a middle ground could be found where content creators are pleased with the protections they have, and consumers are pleased with the freedoms they have.

  301. Forceful registration and companies now gone by jh6cd6d3cktp7w9h7vxw · · Score: 1

    I own a piece of software from 321studios. It REQUIRES active registration via the phone or internet. That company no longer exists. So the software that I paid $150 for about two years ago is now 100% useless if I have to reload EVER. And on that note, I will never buy forcefully activated software so long as I can possibly help it.

    1. Re:Forceful registration and companies now gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://search.ebay.com/321-Studios

      There is a sucker born every minute

  302. Geeze, at least TRY and read the online docs by spoco2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Did you even try and look for these answers? I had exactly the same ones and found them out VERY QUICKLY:

    "If I download the game and my hard drive crashes, can I reinstall it via Steam to a different hard drive?"
    Yes: I want to move my Steam installation to a different disk or computer, how can I do this?

    "Can I install it to more than one computer if I only play one at a time (ie my desktop machine and my laptop)?"
    Yes: Can I use my Steam account on other computers?

    "Does it cost anything to have a Steam account other than the initial cost of the game?"
    No: " Is Steam really free?

    At least try and find these things before bitching the information is not available... that took me longer to cut and past the hrefs than it did to find those answers....

    All you had to do was go to Support and type your question. I've had no problem with downloading all the Steam content onto my computer, then copying it over to my brothers (he only has dial up)... and that was it. He now has and is playing HL2, and when he is done with it, I just fire up Steam and away I go... it's already there for me to play. Excellent stuff!

    1. Re:Geeze, at least TRY and read the online docs by B'Trey · · Score: 1

      I spent awhile searching for answers there and in the forums. I saw the "Can I sue my Steam account on other computers" but that wasn't the question I was asking. I wanted to know if I could install HL2 on two different computers. It certainly isn't clear to me that installing Steam on two different computers is the same as installing HL2 on two different computers. I didn't find the other questions you reference.

      I still say that they should have a FAQ page or an introdutory page that talks about what Steam is and how it works, including covering issues like the ones I brought up rather than making a prospective customer search through support to find out basic info about their service. I spent a while on their site yesterday trying to find info and was quite frustrated when I left. You're familiar with their site, and know right where to search. It seems obvious and intuitive to you. To someone not familiar with the setup, it's neither.

      --

      "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

    2. Re:Geeze, at least TRY and read the online docs by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1
      Umm... Actually, no:
      "If I download the game and my hard drive crashes, can I reinstall it via Steam to a different hard drive?" Yes: I want to move my Steam installation to a different disk or computer, how can I do this?
      Note what they say:
      To successfully move Steam over to the E: drive you have to move:

      C:\Program Files\Valve\Steam\ to
      E:\Program Files\Valve\Steam\

      Then you need to delete this file:
      E:\Program Files\Valve\Steam\ClientRegistry.blob
      So if your hard drive crashes, step one is problematic at best.

      "Geeze, at least TRY and *read* the online docs"
    3. Re:Geeze, at least TRY and read the online docs by spoco2 · · Score: 1

      It's the same deal... you can re-download everything from Steam onto whatever drive you want... that's one of the beauties of it, you have a backup right there at the company (minus your saves of course).

      You can also use the backup feature to backup the games at any time.

      Admittedly that answer was a little off... but it demonstrates they don't care about where it's installed.

    4. Re:Geeze, at least TRY and read the online docs by Tenareth · · Score: 1

      Yes, I had a corrupted game at one point, deleted everything and had it re-download, no issues.

      And they are clear that unlike other games, you can have it installed on multiple computers, as long as you don't use them at the same time.

      Steam allows them to allow you more flexibility, just like any license deamon that is on commercial software.

      --
      This sig is the express property of someone.
    5. Re:Geeze, at least TRY and read the online docs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you, or your kids start Steam on the other PC when you are playing?

      Instant account de-activation?

  303. Re:Sir, would you kindly allow me to use my softwa by Sassinak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think the point our poster is trying to make is that traditionally, we have not been beholden to companies to consistantly affirm the right and (in most cases) ability to purchase, execute, and run applications purchased. People do make a good point.. (What if company A is absorbed by Company B.. there are no promises that Company B will uphold your ability to use that product.. if they don't.. then your X dollar purchase just became void. Not so bad with a 50 - 100 purchase.. but when you are talking in the thousands and hundreds of thousands... it makes a BIG difference).. Or company A decides that in addition to whatever initial provisions are made to use the software, you now have to activate it via this SPECIFIC ISP.. (not such a far fetched idea as lets be honest.. everyone need to do what they think will enable them to survive and grow)

    Lets also be clear here.. yes, there are some indivduals for whom all software (in their eyes) is to be free. But the percentage is VERY small relatively speaking. Most users agree that talent (and the firms that represent them) need to be compensated. (if this were not the case, valve would have just enforced a purchase online policy and there would be no shrink wrapped issues.. (its significantly cheaper for them to do so..)

    What we are seeing here with this activation trash is the notion that they might loose 3 cents to the 5 people that did not purchase the software over the 5000 that did.

    I believe there have been numerious studies from our dear friends at the RIAA and others which, dispite their cries, show that those 5 people don't make a bit of difference in their profits..(in fact, in many cases they help in the "advertisement" of the product itself).

    Personally, I refuse to make use of any product (hardware or software), regardless of method or means, that forces my use down a path that THEY enforce. This is a personal choice so lets not start flaming here. For others, they choose to wave that right (ie: choice) in favor of doing what they wish to do..

    But I do have a problem with the masses that hand over their supposed rights (little tested as they are) in favor of the simple rewards they think they have.

    Of course, that is just my 2 cents.

    --
    God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
  304. Not in Europe. by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    In Europe rights are things that you can't sign away.

    If you believed that you were purchising xyz or that the contract is inavlid then in Europiean law the contact falls on the side of the person who purchased the goods (false adveertising etc..).

    Click throughs don't carry any salt. Don't treat them like they do.

    Not-for-resale is one of the funniest things that I've ever seen used, since that statement is compleatly against the law.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  305. You are wrong - shrink wrap licenses can be valid by MattW · · Score: 1

    From this C|Net article, These agreements normally take effect as a condition of installing software, and they ordinarily require customers to waive their right to sue over alleged defects. Such EULAs have been repeatedly upheld by the courts.

    One such case is Zeidenberg v Silken Mountain Web Services, Inc, in which Zeidenberg won his case claiming the shrink-wrap license was invalid after he violated it to rip off the database on a CD and resell it cheaper - the case was overturned on appeal where the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld shrink-wrap licenses. They do make mention of a need to be able to return the product or see a refund if you refuse the license; but if it says, "by installing/using this you agree to these terms", then it considered that a valid contract under the UCC.

    If you want to play lawyer on Slashdot, and least try to have your rudimentary facts correct.

  306. You're wrong-Authors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Title 17, Section 105, United States Code provides that:

    Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. "

    Also some governments CAN be "authors" that hold copyright to works for hire.

    http://www.gov.nf.ca/disclaimer.htm

  307. Re:Sir, would you kindly allow me to use my softwa by maximilln · · Score: 1

    Software piracy is a real problem for companies.

    No. It's not. You only think it is because you believe them. They own you.

    Get off "the world owes me something" bandwagon.

    Whoa. Wait a minute. You (and software companies) think that the world owes you a watchdog. You feel that I owe you my tax money so that you can hunt down people who share software. I don't owe you anything and neither does the world. You're an intelligent human being, aren't you? Here's a tip: If you make something which is easily copied then people are going to copy it. That is REALITY. Deal with it.

    Wake up: Tomorrow there are no copyright laws. Right, wrong, or indifferent, it's just not something that we waste taxpayer money on. Evolve your business model. Change your product line. Identify your customers better. Safeguard your products better and accept responsibility for legitimate and legal users which you alienate.

    --
    +++ATHZ 99:5:80
  308. your rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My guess is pirates will eventually figure out a way to disable the Steam authentication baked into the executable, and then everyone can patch their legally purchased copies and give the big middle finger to Valve.

    Maybe you don't mind having your rights eroded by corporations, like Valve, but don't delude yourself into thinking you actually purchased a game that you "own". You paid a pretty penny for the "right" to play a game as long as Valve deems you are worthy.

    Hope and pray that no one breaks into your computer, or that Steam is accidentally compromised - because once that happens you are a criminal in the minds of Valve, no matter how "law abiding" a citizen you may be.

    Imagine you lost your credit card and someone made charges to it before you could contact the bank. Imagine the bank immediately locks out your account and refuses to issue you a new card until you prove to them that it was really stolen. How is Valve treating you any differently? And credit cards are free to own - your actually paying Valve for this abuse. gg.

  309. Our money is our vote... by ponos · · Score: 1

    Annoying policies like this one may increase short-term profit but people will, I hope, gradually react. I must say that from all the best-selling FPS epic has showed the best company policies. They released a linux version concurrently (on the same CD!), ut2004 does not require the CD to be in the drive and they keep releasing free files in the ut2004 community (extra maps etc).

    Sure, everyone wants to play HL2. I know I do. But I think I'd rather send them a message by NOT buying their game. Would you go to a restaurant where the waiter insults you, even if it is the best one in the town?

    P.

    1. Re:Our money is our vote... by borgheron · · Score: 1

      You mean by NOT buying it after you didn't buy it in the first place? I'm sure they'll notice the difference.

      NOT!

      GJC

      --
      Gregory Casamento
      ## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
    2. Re:Our money is our vote... by ponos · · Score: 1

      You mean by NOT buying it after you didn't buy it in the first place? I'm sure they'll notice the difference.

      NOT!

      No, I mean by not buying even though I intended to. I thought that was quite clear. Many people have propably waited a few days to read the reviews and hear other opinions before buying. I'm one of them.

      P

  310. When did hating HL2 become a /. bandwagon by sprayNwipe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hate to break it to you guys, but not all companies are the same.

    "Duh, but what happens when the servers go down?!". Well, we're talking about a company that releases game source for their products for people to modify. I'm pretty sure that Valve is more likely than anyone to release a "No-Steam" patch if they went out of business, just like they released a solution for WON being removed (remember that? HL1 had to log into a central server that doesn't exist anymore for multi, yet you're still playing that)

    This is ignoring the fact that they'll be alive for at least another 5 years unless they blow all their money on coke, and that YOU CAN PLAY THE GAME OFFLINE ALREADY! So really, there's *no* situation where you won't be able to play the game.

    What's funny is that the people the most pissed off about it haven't even bought it or don't know the facts behind it. I mean, it's way less restrictive than Apple's DRM on ITMS, for starters. I guess they're pissed that there's no Linux port and need a way to vent. It's okay. We understand.

    1. Re:When did hating HL2 become a /. bandwagon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just for the record.. Not all the people who were using No-CD patches were/are doing it for illegal reasons. Thanks to that [sarcasm] wonderfull [/sarcasm] comapny known as Vivendi/Universal Interactive (parent company of Sierra for those not aware), HL2 ships with SecuROM 5.. and is incompatible with a number of DVD+/-R/RW and CD-R/RW drives, preventing people who LEGALLY bought the software (or liscense if your that much of a "Give the corperations the right to stomp on all of my rights" moron), so that they could NOT play the game that they legally purchsed. In addtion, if you bought the game via steam there was no CD check, or a CD for that matter.. The steam authentication and anti-piracy measures were good enough for Valve, who made the game, why was CD Protection, and CD Checks added to the retail? It makes no sense... AND it defrauds legal consumers..

      As someone else here said, this crackdown, wont slow the pirates down.. but it may have just irritated a good chunk of Valves paying customers...

    2. Re:When did hating HL2 become a /. bandwagon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And were will this magic patch live with Valve are dead and gone? Valve, being dead, will not have a website, so your'll need to download it of some dogdy site. Great.

      I'll still end up buting the bloody game.

    3. Re:When did hating HL2 become a /. bandwagon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is already a patch that disables Steam. I downloaded it off bittorrent with the entire game. Right now it lives on every P2P network as well as my HD.

  311. Re:You are wrong - shrink wrap licenses can be val by maximilln · · Score: 1

    Such EULAs have been repeatedly upheld by the courts.

    Admissable only if you completely ignore political influences which have nothing to do with justice.

    the case was overturned on appeal

    Which further supports the case that the concept of true justice in the court system is being negated in favor of right by monetary might.

    --
    +++ATHZ 99:5:80
  312. Did the Laws Change or did the People Change? by SeinJunkie · · Score: 2, Interesting


    In my American Government course, our professor read an article to us something along the lines of "Do the Federalist Papers seem too difficult to understand to you?" He then read how the original writers made sure that the language was understandable by an average farmer at the time.

    I wonder how many more people would know what our laws mean if we hadn't been educationally dumbed down.

  313. Scrrrratch by neonfrog · · Score: 1

    Attributes of the physical media, that's why.

    You can't scratch a cartridge.

    --

    I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.

    1. Re:Scrrrratch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you can shit on a cartridge. That can screw it up.

  314. The pair of you are wrong... by Zarendahl · · Score: 1

    Yet it does NOT> say anywhere on the bottom of the box that you MUST create a Steam account.

    If someone would scan and show the whole bottom of the box showing the Steam account requirement, I am sure that will kill the entire arguement.

    My understanding of the Internet Connection Required is that it must be able to connect to a server somewhere out there, assumed to be run by Valve/Steam, but it doesn't mention anywhere in there that I MUST create a Steam account to access the software that would, if I purchased it, cost ~$50.

    Go play the game online if you like. I buy for the Single Player aspect of the game. I find the idea behind the authentication to be a decent attempt to protect their rights as well. However it does infrige on the rights of the purchaser in such a way as to render the software on the disc completely useless.

    Now why should I go out and purchase this CRIPPLED piece of software?

    1. Re:The pair of you are wrong... by BTWR · · Score: 1
      the problem then is that you assumed "internet connection required" was only for multiplayer.

      On many games (like Warcraft III) it says "internet connection required for Battle.net online play" - HL2 doesn't say what the internet-requirement is for. I agree that, technically, it doesn't say you need a Steam account, but it clearly says "internet connection required" for Half-Life 2 (says nothing about this being multiplayer only).

  315. Define editor by neonfrog · · Score: 1

    The irony of your statement is sublime.

    This is a news site (loosely). Editors modify content for their publication. Perhaps /. editors should just alter story submissions rather than letting you know what was submitted vs their editorializing? No, you'd not like that either I suppose...

    --

    I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.

  316. YES, it says "INTERNET CONNECTION REQUIRED" by Megaweapon · · Score: 1

    on my box under both the "Minimum System Requirements" AND the "Recommended System Requirements" lists.

    --
    I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
  317. Re:Sir, would you kindly allow me to use my softwa by deesine · · Score: 1

    "You (and software companies) think that the world owes you a watchdog."

    I think software companies don't owe you anything (non verification) for something you buy voluntarily.

    "You feel that I owe you my tax money so that you can hunt down people who share software."

    Huh? I never mentioned taxes or the federal government.

    "I don't owe you anything and neither does the world."

    Agreed. Did I ever suggeset otherwise?

    "If you make something which is easily copied then people are going to copy it. That is REALITY. Deal with it."

    So you do agree that piracy is a problem!? Seems to me that's exactly what Valve is doing, dealing with it.

    You still haven't answered the question: How are software companies making MORE profit by implementing anti-piracy measures that themselves cost money to implement? Why are they doing this when they know users are going to be annoyed (=lost profit)? You've got your head in the proverbial sand thinking piracy isn't an issue companies have to deal with.

    So software companies use activation on a product that NO ONE is forced to buy. But you seem to feel you're owed a non-verification version of the product. Why? Because you think you have a better business model? You know there's one way to prove that, start your own company and make your own game and sell it. You should have no problem with all the business acumen you seem to have.

    --
    damaged by dogma
  318. Re:Wrong analogy. Keep all your boxes? by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

    The fact that they install anything on your hard drive is just because they're trying to make it faster. The CD is the master.

    The GameBoy analogy is perfect.

    --
    Education is the silver bullet.
  319. You can't sell it, once activated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, once you made an account using the CD key, does that mean you cannot sell the game anymore because the key is burned?

    And if you can delete the account from steam and if this revokes the key, how do you convince a buyer you really did that?

    1. Re:You can't sell it, once activated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's unfortunately simple: you can't. If you delete that account from steam, it's fucking gone. The only thing you could possibly do is sell someone the information required to log into steam (login/pw), then hope that they change the pw/email address.

      Of course, this is expressly forbidden (sale/transfer/use by others of an account) in the TOS.

    2. Re:You can't sell it, once activated? by Tenareth · · Score: 1

      Technically, you can never resell software, this isn't new with Valve.

      Read the EULA on any Microsoft software.

      --
      This sig is the express property of someone.
    3. Re:You can't sell it, once activated? by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Actually, last time I read a MS EULA (supposed to be doing Japanese homework, any distraction was welcome ), it said that a one-time change of ownership was ok, as long as you give all manuals, etc.

      Complete BS, it'd never stand up in court.

    4. Re:You can't sell it, once activated? by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >Technically, you can never resell software, this
      >isn't new with Valve.
      >
      >Read the EULA on any Microsoft software.

      If we assume EULAs actually ARE ok and valid, just don't agree with it and you can sell it all you want since if you don't agree to it, it can't possibly apply, now could it?

  320. Re:Sir, would you kindly allow me to use my softwa by D.+Book · · Score: 1

    "If only the users were as enlightened as I am, they'd rail against this horrible system!" That's a remarkably condescending position to take.

    This reminds me of the propagandist's standard response to his critics: "it is insulting the people's intelligence to suggest I am deceiving them". It is not condescending per se to suggest to others that they are overlooking something.

    It also isn't supported by facts. Of course people realize they are "repeatedly asking permission" to use the software

    As an explanation as to why many people view activation as benign, my suggestion was that people don't equate the standard process, whether it's logging in or just clicking "next" to let the software "activate" itself, with asking permission unless they've gone through more concrete experiences, like being refused permission or repeatedly going through phone activation. You've suggested otherwise, which is fair enough, but please don't refer to your opinions as "facts".

    But what you apparently don't understand about steam is that the convenience and the change in relationship are the draw

    It's not that I don't understand, simply that I didn't raise the other significant explanation: the size of the carrot. But I suspect for most people, the Half-Life 2 game itself, rather than content delivery mechanisms, has much more to do with people being prepared to overlook the activation issue. In any case, a nice carrot does not make the stick any less nasty, just more readily accepted or ignored.

  321. The amazing thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    about what must be three of the most commonly misused words -- their, there, and they're -- is that they all start with "t-h-e," and yet people still manage to rearrange the letters.

  322. LOL by SPYvSPY · · Score: 1
    Consideration? Terms exclusive to those disclosed at the time of the sale?


    Welcome to the real world.

    1. Re:LOL by zurab · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but I just read that link. The judge ruled that basically since it's too cumbersome for sellers to disclose their imposed contract terms at the time of purchase, the contract can remain hidden until later after the purchase has been made. The defendant argued that license should have been outside of the box, not inside, to which the judge said - well, the license would have been several pages and would not have fit on the outside, so there!

      One of these cases has to go to the Supreme Court at some point. In no other case can you get away with "awww, sorry - my contract terms are too long to fit in this space - why don't I let you know what they are after you've purchased my bike? Be aware though, by using the bike, you agree to those terms I am going to forward you later."

      Look at it this way: the judge compares the software shrink-wrap licenses to these services:

      - airline tickets: heavily regulated - most of what's contained in the agreement is actually federal law or regulated by the FAA;
      - insurance purchase: also heavily regulated by the states (auto, health, etc.) - does not allow corporations to take advantage of purchasers by undisclosed tactics; all other insurance types (those which are not heavily regulated) always disclose their terms and the contract at the time of purchase;
      - concert tickets: not regulated but customer implicitly agrees to follow the reasonable rules of the venue where he/she will attend an event; i.e. the agreement with the ticket is that customer has the right to attend the event for which the ticket was purchased but there's always a reasonable expectation on how to conduct yourself on someone else's private property; IANAL, but this, I presume, is not the same as purchasing a product and taking it home.

      The judge then goes on to compare that with consumer goods:

      Consumer goods work the same way. Someone who
      wants to buy a radio set visits a store, pays, and walks
      out with a box. Inside the box is a leaflet containing some
      terms, the most important of which usually is the war-
      ranty, read for the first time in the comfort of home.


      What terms? If there was an additional license agreement inside, would it really be valid? Would it be fair to bundle an EULA-type junk with a radio and attempt to enforce it? What if the license told you you cannot re-sell the radio set, and you cannot let your friends and neighbors listen to it - would that be OK with the judge in question?

      Further, warranty does not obligate the buyer to give up something else without consideration - it specifies how the manufacturer will handle the cases if the product is defective. Warranties don't prevent customers from listening to their radio sets!

      Drugs come with a list of in-
      gredients on the outside and an elaborate package insert
      on the inside. The package insert describes drug interac-
      tions, contraindications, and other vital information--but,
      if Zeidenberg is right, the purchaser need not read the
      package insert, because it is not part of the contract.


      That's plain bullshit now - what does this have to do with a contract between a buyer and a seller? List of possible interactions and other medical facts are probably required by law to be disclosed in the leaflet and they by no means obligate the consumer to agree to any additional conditions to use the purchased product. Makes no sense to me whatsoever.

      Next consider the software industry itself. Only a minor-
      ity of sales take place over the counter, where there are
      boxes to peruse. A customer pay place an order by phone
      in response to a line item in a catalog or a review in a
      magazine. Much software is ordered over the Internet by
      purchasers who have never seen a box. Increasingly soft-
      ware arrives by wire. There is no box; there is only a
      stream of electrons, a collection of information that in-
      cludes data, an application program, instructions, many
      limitations ("MegaPixel 3.14159 cannot be u

  323. Re:Sir, would you kindly allow me to use my softwa by maximilln · · Score: 1

    I think software companies don't owe you anything (non verification) for something you buy voluntarily.

    I am campaigning to ensure that more companies know that they will not continue to make money if they incorporate online verification for a game in single-player mode. Additionally, I do feel that if a software company advertises a game (how many ads say "online only", or "online verification required"?) that, when I buy a box with a CD and bring it home, it will work. Period. Anything past that raises suspicion for good reason.

    Huh? I never mentioned taxes or the federal government.

    Eventually we, the taxpayers and consumers, get stuck with the bill. The federal government gets stuck being lobbied for more legislation. It's inherent. To ignore it is naive.

    So you do agree that piracy is a problem!?

    I agree it exists. I do not agree that it is a problem.

    Seems to me that's exactly what Valve is doing, dealing with it.

    By misrepresenting their product and contributing to FUD about the state of and influences on the software industry. Corporate mismanagement, as in every sector, is far more to blame than piracy for poor software sales.

    How are software companies making MORE profit by implementing anti-piracy measures that themselves cost money to implement?

    Primarily speaking software is much more expensive than it needs to be and the public accepts the effective cartel stranglehold that major software companies hold over the price of software. A company is far more than the product on the shelves. Investments, agreements, collaborations... all of the nebulous parts of business which gamers have no knowledge of. The business world is a complex place.

    Valve profits indirectly from serving the Windows platform. By serving the Windows platform Valve is aiding Microsoft in asserting its dominance as an OS--regardless of the merits of Windows vs its competitors. Microsoft has priced software primarily at the stranglehold level which has elevated the public's tolerance for what the fair price of software is. But, should the tables ever turn and people find out that quality software can be much more inexpensive, then the public will begin to wonder why games cost so much. Should Valve then engage in anti-Linux measures or should it adapt to Linux and a community that would not tolerate such insults as online verification?

    So software companies use activation on a product that NO ONE is forced to buy.

    And, if you would quit arguing and start doing something productive, you would aid those of us who are attempting to rail Valve to oblivion for even thinking of such a preposterous and insulting idea.

    But you seem to feel you're owed a non-verification version of the product

    Because it's advertised as a game and, until recently, ever game ever produced could be played in the middle of a rainforest as long as you had enough battery power.

    You know there's one way to prove that, start your own company and make your own game and sell it.

    Spoken like a true troll. How many companies have you started? None? At least I have an idea on how to make a better one. All you do is argue.

    --
    +++ATHZ 99:5:80
  324. Won't work - SecuROM checks for this type of softw by 9Nails · · Score: 1

    Won't work. The game will not launch. The executable will give you an error. If you get details on the error, it will take you to SecuROM's web site that explains that any type of CD / DVD Emulation software must be disabled in order to run the game.

  325. EULA? by fire-eyes · · Score: 1

    I haven't seen it, but I imagine the EULA or other agreement specifies this is within their bounds.

    Assuming this, don't bitch. If it wasn't covered, then people have a right to bitch, at least the legit players.

    Otherwise, enjoy being treated like a criminal first, and a customer second.

    Kind of glad I'm not a gamer these days, with this kind of trash running around.

    --
    -- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
    1. Re:EULA? by maximilln · · Score: 1

      but I imagine the EULA or other agreement specifies this is within their bounds.

      That's a good point. When is the public going to wake up and reject EULAs?

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
  326. Flashback... by flyonthewall · · Score: 1

    1980's, Atari, copy protected diskettes...

    Game market crash. Will it happen again? ..

    --
    "The avalanche has already started. It's too late for the pebbles to vote." - Kosh
    1. Re:Flashback... by maximilln · · Score: 2

      1980's, Atari, copy protected diskettes...

      Game market crash. Will it happen again?


      Oh quit spreading crap. Copy protection, in any form, including copy protected diskettes were always a joke at best. It's a shame to see it has ballooned this far over the decades.

      Game market crash? MY BACKSIDE! There were so many factors associated with Ataris ineptitude that you can't even begin to blame it on software sharing. I never had a problem finding games in the 80s. Maybe Atari just stunk.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
  327. What about that health club membership then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you 'buy' a health club membership you have to show your id (i.e. 'activation') on each visit. No activation--no entry. A membership is a service agreement. HL2 is too, only you need some software installed to access the service. You can either 'buy' the requisite software on CD anonymously and then have to prove you are the purchaser of the service access or you can download it. You paid for the convenience of receving the requisite software immediately without the time take not download. What's the big deal here?

    1. Re:What about that health club membership then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A health club membership is different, ya retard. You are using their resources and equipment at the club, in which you degrade their equipments from wear, and you use their resources in their infrastructure like electricity and manpower to keep the place clean etc. If you bought an exercise bike for your home use, would you want to register it and ask the manufacturer every time you want to use it?

      Comparing a CD to a book is more appropriate. You don't need to register a book when you buy it, you don't have check with the publisher every time you want to read it, you can finish reading and sell it, so why can't you do any of these things with software on a CD without reading some legalese and obey the company's terms?

      Software companies want to sell you the box of CDs, and that's it. You don't know the terms until you open it and read it, which is too late for any refund. If they give you the terms to read before buying the software, you probably won't want to buy it.

  328. Will software be cheaper with DRM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The industry is always claiming the pirates make their earnings less and therefore sales prices higher. But now with DRM there are much less pirates.

    Will Valve and other software and game companies lower their prices?

  329. Supreme Court ruling: not theft by Phong · · Score: 1

    The Supreme Court was very clear in its ruling that copyright infringement is not theft:

    Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985): copyright infringement does not equal theft

    These are different actions which have different effects and different penalties. Thus, it behooves us to be clear in the speech we use when we're talking about them.

    --
    ..wayne..
  330. Truth in Advertising by chadpnet · · Score: 1

    I find it very amusing that a Half Life 2 ad is/was displayed on this news article.

  331. Re:Sir, would you kindly allow me to use my softwa by deesine · · Score: 1

    >"How are software companies making MORE profit by implementing anti-piracy measures that themselves cost money to implement?

    >>Primarily speaking software is much more expensive than it needs to be and the public accepts the effective cartel stranglehold that major software companies hold over the price of software. A company is far more than the product on the shelves. Investments, agreements, collaborations... all of the nebulous parts of business which gamers have no knowledge of. The business world is a complex place.

    Valve profits indirectly from serving the Windows platform. By serving the Windows platform Valve is aiding Microsoft in asserting its dominance as an OS--regardless of the merits of Windows vs its competitors. Microsoft has priced software primarily at the stranglehold level which has elevated the public's tolerance for what the fair price of software is. But, should the tables ever turn and people find out that quality software can be much more inexpensive, then the public will begin to wonder why games cost so much. Should Valve then engage in anti-Linux measures or should it adapt to Linux and a community that would not tolerate such insults as online verification?


    Congratulations, 200 words and you still didn't answer the question. Something about indirect profitting, cartels, Microsoft (everyone hates Micro$oft)...but no answer. You'd make a good politician. You didn't answer because you don't have a logical answer. Because there's no logical reason to think that software companies spend money on anti-piracy just so that they can piss off users. What do they get out of it? Hint: it has something to do with piracy.

    "And, if you would quit arguing and start doing something productive, you would aid those of us who are attempting to rail Valve to oblivion for even thinking of such a preposterous and insulting idea."

    Can't believe they're not asking for our first born child as well. (Since you seem to like hyperbole)

    And you're not arguing right, lol. You're on a "campaign", and that is not arguing. Get a grip.

    --
    damaged by dogma
  332. Contract Law: contracts with whom? by Phronesis · · Score: 1
    The problem with your analysis is that your contract is with the store, not with Valve. You never actually gave money directly to Valve, nor did you recieve anything directly from Valve. You have no legal relationship with Valve. You can sue the store if they did not uphold their end of the contract.

    As you note, if the seller wishes to impose additional restrictions after the contract is entered, you may sue to enforce the original contract, but Valve is not the seller, and the store is not imposing restrictions, so your line of argument does not apply.

    This point was the basis of the defense in MacPherson v. Buick, (217 N.Y. 382 (1916)) and Judge Cardozo's ruling introduced an exception in the case where the object sold was "a thing of danger" which was negligently manufactured, but since a CD is not inherently dangerous, you'd have a hard time applying this precedent there.

    Your state may have a laws declaring an implied warranty of merchantability, in which case you may have rights beyond what your contract with the retailer provides, but if you're going to assert that you have rights which are not spelled out in the contract, you will have a hard time arguing that the law can't also give Valve such rights.

    1. Re:Contract Law: contracts with whom? by zurab · · Score: 1
      The problem with your analysis is that your contract is with the store, not with Valve. You never actually gave money directly to Valve, nor did you recieve anything directly from Valve. You have no legal relationship with Valve. You can sue the store if they did not uphold their end of the contract.

      I don't quite understand your point. If you as a buyer don't have any contract with Valve, but only with the retailer - what rights does Valve have to impose these terms on top of your contract with the retailer? Still - they'd surely have to provide consideration on top of the original product purchased: e.g. if they didn't originally advertise their online playing capability, but enabled it if you agree to these extra terms and license.
  333. Re:Sir, would you kindly allow me to use my softwa by maximilln · · Score: 1

    Because there's no logical reason to think that software companies spend money on anti-piracy just so that they can piss off users. What do they get out of it? Hint: it has something to do with piracy.

    Just like there's no logical reason that a politician would support a pork bill. It's obvious why they're supporting a bad policy: there's something in it for them. What is that something? Who knows? It's not our job to make money for Valve but it's certain that they have it figured out. I feel that it's part of a larger push to make the public comfortable with complete online verification, and to sway opinion against the open source community which has a reputation for not being concerned with registration systems.

    Many of us simply do not believe that software sharing is a bad thing, and we reject EULAs and all attempts to assert control over software after it has been sold into our possession. If you don't like it, you're free to not sell it to me.

    --
    +++ATHZ 99:5:80
  334. Activation: by 320mb · · Score: 0

    " People are discovering that when you buy any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really bought anything. the same can be said for Win XP.......WPA is spyware, pure and simple--and any moron who uses XP gets exactly what they deserve........

    --
    === 'Kernel Panic' no sig found:
  335. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Admissable only if you complete ignore political influences which have nothing to do with justice"? Er, it sounds like you were trying to say the court was bought, and failed miserably.

    Did you *read* the case? It's a case of an asshole stealing a database, violating the shrinkwrap license to decrypt and copy it, so he could sell the thing cheaper. Who's making all the money? The company that had to spend $10M assembling and maintaining the db, or the ass who paid $150 and started selling copies en masse on the cheap?

    1. Re:WTF? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Stealing is wrong and covered under copyright and espianage laws. No EULA disagreement needed.

      But it becomes a dangerous precident when a company can accuse you out of thin air for contract violation without a written document or proof that you reviewed it.

      ALso it sets up a ludicrious scenario where anyone could just do something dumb like put up a sign on the road claiming "by driving you agree to a license where you owe me money" etc.

      Without written proof with a notary it should not be valid.

  336. I Won't Buy Half-Life 2 by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
    I've completed Half-Life and the two additional mission packs 3 times now. It's probably the greatest and most influential game I've ever played.

    I still play Half-Life multiplayer and Counter-Strike.

    I own three legitimate copies of all of them so as to have enough software keys for myself and two buddies to play on-line simultaneously.

    But I won't buy or play Half-Life 2.

    I am sick and tired of being treated like a criminal by software companies. I do not mind having to register my software on a once-only basis but I do object to constant checking of my validity and I especially object to copy protection that stops me making legitimate backups of any software that I own.

    Half-Life 2 may be even better than the original but until I'm treated like a valued customer by Valve and all the other software houses, I won't be buying ANY protected software.

    Software piracy is nothing to do with me because I don't pirate software, it's that simple. But I won't be held accountable for what pirates do.

    It's about time that all the "sheep" that make up the buyers of software, audio CDs and DVDs actually took a stand against being treated like criminals and just stopped buying this stuff, even if it's just for one day, until we all push home the message that we are sick and tired of inflated pricing, poor quality products and products that are more difficult to use as a result of protection.

    Valve can stick that in their Steam pipe and smoke it...

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  337. Stutter bug? by Snover · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of their original press release that said that there were a "small number of users" encountering the stutter bug in HL2. Yeah, real small numbers.

    --

    [insert witty comment here]
    1. Re:Stutter bug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also their errata that when you install HL2 from CDs and don't select CS:Source, you _may_ run into an error.

      In fact, if you install HL2 and don't choose CS:S, you _will_ get the error.

      CYA.

  338. Re:Sir, would you kindly allow me to use my softwa by deesine · · Score: 1

    "It's obvious why they're supporting a bad policy: there's something in it for them."

    That "something" is obvious to anyone who doesn't think Valve is part of a larger conspiracy to control our computers; to combat piracy, that's why they implement verification and other measures commonly referred to as "anti-piracy". This view is more inline with a common & fundamental principle of most businesses, making a profit. And when people play without paying, companies lose profit. This easily explains why companies use anti-piracy measures, not some explanation about wider public acceptance and swaying the public away from open source gaming(?)

    Occam would proud.

    --
    damaged by dogma
  339. Piracy My Ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, let me say this: I am not a SuperBowl BigTV user. However, I played through HL2 on easy and am half way through it on medium. Counterstrike is awesome (first time playing it) as is HL2. I am returning it to the store. Why? I disagree with the unwritten portion of the license "agreement" that says I may not be able to reinstall HL2 on my new machine in two years without coughing up more dough. I disagree with people having $54.95 + tax STOLEN from them because they use a cracked exe to keep their CD out of their drive (or, any other real or made up reason Valve comes up with.) I don't like where this is headed, so, Half-life 2 from Vivendi and Greed Software is going to get the Superbowl BigTV treatment (Wait!! It isn't like that! None of this bullshit was presented to me before I purchased the software AND most of it was left out prior to installation as well.) Once I see a written promise to unlock the HL2 discs within a year or two, an appeals process for bans, and the ability to run without the CD in place, I may repurchase the software. They have lost me as a customer and the poor guy who picks this back up off the store shelf won't be too happy either.

    I cannot believe the number of people I have seen attributing the existance of Steam to the HL2 source code theft of September, 2003.

    Steam was conceived and being used for quite some time prior to the theft.

    No, no, my friends. What we have here is good ole greed. It is capitalism that gives conservatives a bad name, but, in reality it is business without heart, and, I say much in the way of brains. A true conservative has a heart and does not believe in ripping everyone off that he can.

    Valve created Half-life in 1998 and multiplayer was shit. They cobbled together this and that, and, eventually, it was good. In fact, to THIS DAY, Half-life and its mods are still near the top, if not at the top of online played games (one year ago, consistantly, while visiting a tracker site for AAO, Half-life was AT the top of the list.) Valve saw this and said "HOLY SHIT BATMAN!!!! We could be charging these morons $10-$20 per month to play!!" 150,000 users per month at $15 a pop equates to a sweet two and one quarter million dollars. +$5 for this mod and that. All for doing nothing!! Can you see them salivating??? I can! One problem...I'd be surprised if a tenth of those people played for six years if there were a monthly charge. I hope I am right about that, or, the future is truly bleak.

    I have been excited, since a child, about the prospect of electronic books...a physical book with pages that change to display whatever is contained within an inserted data module. I dreamed of it while carrying a 35 pound backpack and such. I used to dream of it when looking at the shelves of reference and fiction books I have acquired. I can now read any book I bought in the past. I can pass them on to my children. They can marvel at some of the stupid (hindsight is 20/20) ideas we had in our science books as I did with my Mother's textbooks.

    That dreaming is over and I dread the day this becomes reality. You will purchase the latest Tom Clancy novel data cartridge for $9.95. You will have 30 days to read it. A two week extension will be $4.95. Maybe they will be nice and let you recall this book ten years later for $4.95 for 30 days. Maybe they will have a thumbprint reader that you have to keep your thumb on while reading so that they can sell your wife and kids the same book you licensed. Farhenheit 451 takes on new meaning as well. The publisher can just be ordered to not allow any further subscriptions to a banned title. No burning required.

    And, when the "End" comes, be it nuclear, biological, an asteroid, or whatever, the survivors will truly be back in the Stone Ages. Their electronic book with 100 year battery life will be of no use when their subscription to "Survival after Armageddon" terminates just as they finish page six.

    Oh well. What business can sucker government into eventially hits the people directly to

  340. Throwing in my 2 cents... by Simkin1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, another one of those dilemas... On the one hand I like not paying a lot of money for software, and while I was in college (long time ago) did dabble in the black-arts. Unfortunately, I'm seeing today that HL2 is not, comparatively speaking, priced high enough for folks to complain about. What am I talking about you might ask? Well... I've noticed since leaving college that the cost of programs used in professional work environments make gaming costs look like pennies. Considering the number of people using the software in the professional environments, companies have to charge more... but in gaming there are millions of folks who are going to buy the software, so the total cost is relatively small. Suffice it to say, I've learned that paying the $50 and moving on with my life is better than surfing the "z" sites for the random crack, and all the potential virii that come with it. Maybe it's just me though.

  341. People trusted the "suits" and got burned... by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 1
    I know I'm going to get marked Troll as fast as I can post this but it's got to be said.

    All these HL2 users and other Steam users should have known better.

    It's always been about protecting revenue. Period.

    Remember - Valve is owned by Vivendi Universal. The people that squashed an open-source project (BNETD) because it
    • might
    have threatened their business in the future. (Those of you about to mention that BNETD allowed illegal copies to play online remember that BNETD tried to get a validation method out of Blizzard but was repeatedly ignored.)

    Now we see the result. BNETD had it been allowed to exist would have easily been a stepping-stone to a legal Steam alternative. By killing BNETD in court they have a leg to stand on when people say they don't want a Steam account to play their game. They have no alternative. You can't even "go elsewhere" if you still want to play the game. They can't even "make their own" without running into previous court cases.

    I'm voting with my wallet. I didn't buy or "borrow" HL2 and I'm certainly not going to buy a Blizzard title either.
    --

    "Bah!" - Dogbert
    1. Re:People trusted the "suits" and got burned... by DaveCBio · · Score: 1

      Get a clue man, Valve is NOT owned by Vivendi. At one time they owned the rights to Half Life, but Valve got them back. I think it's awesome that Valve can ban pirates and I hope they do cheaters next.

    2. Re:People trusted the "suits" and got burned... by tiglari · · Score: 1

      However it still makes no sense to for them to ban noCD cracks, unless the idea is to increase the immersiveness of the game by creating a real-life mirrors of some of its themes: "Our benefactors want us to control our instincts to protect our expensive piece of plastic by using a noCD crack ..." If they really did trash accounts using a noCD crack, Vivendi should sue them for devaluing the CD version, unless Vivendi were the ones who put them up to it in the first place, which seems unlikely (surely even game distributors aren't actually that stupid).

      --
      *The maze has many windings, which you are yet to traverse*
    3. Re:People trusted the "suits" and got burned... by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 1

      Get a clue man, Valve is NOT owned by Vivendi. At one time they owned the rights to Half Life, but Valve got them back.

      I stand corrected. Still - Vivendi is one of the major distributors and still was, among others, able to force them to change their policy on the Steam servers re:activation date among other things.

      That's no small feat. I suspect that Vivendi still pulls quite a few strings despite their court battles.

      Remember - Vivendi has far more money to throw at these problems that others - Valve included.

      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
  342. Let that be your warning by Snaller · · Score: 1

    "People are discovering that when you buy any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really bought anything. "

    Indeed - so don't do it in the future.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  343. Re:What I find funny...take it for what it's worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shut the fuck up and get back to licking Gabe's ass.

  344. Small Claims Court? by Control-Z · · Score: 1


    They might own their software but you own your computer, and you paid for access to the game. If Valve cuts you off because of you installed a no-CD patch on YOUR computer, can't you take them to small claims court and get your $60 back?

    1. Re:Small Claims Court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but that will cost ya $50 to do that. ;-)

  345. Bad trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    OK, let me start out by saying that my computer runs Linux, and I don't own (or play) any computer games (including HL2), and I believe I'm abiding by the license agreements of all the software on it, so don't call me a "warez dick".

    That out of the way, I see this as a bad trend that consumers must resist by not buying/licensing this product. The next thing that will happen is that every time I pop a DVD into my DVD player, it will phone home and someone at the MPAA will decide when I've gotten my $50 worth of the movie. I won't be able to watch a movie w/o a net connection. Every time I buy a new DVD player, I'll have to buy a whole new collection of movies. I won't be able to sell my copy of "Encino Man" on eBay (OK, who'd buy it, but...) This is exactly what Valve is introducing -- surely there are other games out there that are as good, but without this aweful license?

    I'm not saying piracy is right, or that pirates ought to get away with stealing your work, but wake up people -- now that you understand these terms, you can't possibly want this to be the future of all games/movies/music, do you? The only way to prevent it is to refuse it early.

  346. Ethics? by nurb432 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Ethics? No Excuse? Who cares?

    I dont want to pay, so i will copy it if i want too..

    Actually, i dont do games, so i dont care about this particular software, but the attitude holds. I used to care, but with the way the giants ( software, entertainment media, etc ) are treating us 'consumers', I no longer give a damn. Pirate it all. To hell with them.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  347. Re:Sir, would you kindly allow me to use my softwa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Australia one has the right to purchase things without disclosing their identity (maybe not all things but software, mars bars, toothpicks etc etc).

    I don't use MS software but I wonder what MS's response would be, after you buying XP, phone them and ask them to enable you to activate the product without giving up your private details...

  348. Software and copyright by Zan+Lynx · · Score: 1

    Claiming that the copy in RAM is a copyright protected copy is stupid. It's a copy required to function. It's like claiming that the mirror image of a book held up to the mirror is a protected copy.

    The copy on hard disk is more stable, so is more reasonable to claim copyright protection. But since the software is written to require hard drive installation, the user is being forced to create that copy in order for the software to function.

    If I was making the rules, copies required for the product to function would not be protected copies and would not require EULAs to be legal.

    It's only that copy to hard drive or RAM that makes a EULA potentially legal. The act of printing a book or creating a CD and selling it grants an implicit right for the end user to read the book or CD with no EULA required. That's because it's a copy right. A right to restrict copies. Not a right to restrict reading.

  349. How's this for a solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    How about they give away the CDs for free (see AOL CDs in stores at the register) or charge $5.00 for them with the following written in big letters on the box:

    You are purchasing a CD, which does not give you the right to play the game, but does save you time in downloading it from our system. Whether you purchase this CD or download the game from our system, you will be required to log on to our system and pay us $45 before you will be able to play the game, and you will be required to connect to our system every time thereafter that you wish to play the game. If for ANY REASON, we decide you shouldn't be allowed to play anymore, we will revoke your ability to play the game and you WILL HAVE NO RECOURSE. If our servers ever become unreachable, you will lose your ability to play the game and you WILL HAVE NO RECOURSE.

    I think that's fairer than selling someone a box for $50 and delivering essentially the same thing, but the purchaser doesn't know what they have agreed to until AFTER spending $50 non-refundable (or at least it is likely to be very difficult to get a refund) and then only if they understand convoluted legalese.

    Alternatively, have the sales jerk/clerk EXPLAIN the agreement every time someone buys it... nah, I think that's asking too much of your average retail clerk.

    Of course I also think anyone who would agree to either Valve's agreement or the one I suggest really needs to think about where this is all heading... This is a bad trend, it will spread to movies & music, and the best way to stop it is to refuse to purchase this stuff. I know, it hurts that you can't play the latest game, but if everyone said no, they'd license it differently. Find another game, nearly as good but with a better license, and play that.

    Disclaimer: I do not own (nor do I play) HL2, and do not anticipate I will do so ever.

  350. Please check your facts before trying to insult by Frobnicator · · Score: 1
    Excellent point, except your example is from a California circuit court.

    Yes, the 9th circut covers California. I'll grant you that.

    It also covers a few other areas, including Washington. Therefore, the court case is perfectly relevent.

    Second, the case you refer to is at the state level, specifically the Superior and Supreme courts of Washington state. I'm not claiming problems with the state law or at the state level. I'm claiming issue at the federal level, so the 9th circuit is the place to be, not the state.

    frob

    --
    //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    1. Re:Please check your facts before trying to insult by Poseidon88 · · Score: 1
      Whoopsie, did I type "circuit"? I meant "district." Central District of California, to be precise. My mistake. Thanks for catching that.

      At any rate, the case still doesn't apply to breaking a license agreement, because the decision of the court was that Softman had never assented to the agreement by installing or using the software. They were buying bundled packages of software, breaking them up, and reselling the individual programs. If your complaint was that you couldn't resell an unused copy of HL2, it would apply. But if you install and play the game, your are required to assent to the license agreement.

    2. Re:Please check your facts before trying to insult by BobSutan · · Score: 1

      Someone explain to me how this is open to interpretation. Once you make the purchase, any and all strings attached to the product from a seller's standpoint ceases to exist. Once you open to box and install the software, any pop-up EULA are moot as the transaction has already been completed at the cashier, which upon sale is the only point that the copyright holder has the right to set limits on the usage. The EULA comes after the sale, hence not binding. Hell, this is one of the core reasons we have copyright laws to begin with!

      --
      "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
    3. Re:Please check your facts before trying to insult by Frobnicator · · Score: 1
      At any rate, the case still doesn't apply to breaking a license agreement, because the decision of the court was that Softman had never assented to the agreement by installing or using the software.
      That is part of the case, yes. But that wasn't all that was decided.

      Look at pages 10 through 15. They list that this type of transaction is a sale, not a license:

      A number of courts have held that the sale of software is the sale of a good within the meaning of the Uniform Commercial Code. [references] It is well-settled that in determining whether a transaction is a sale, a lease, or a license, courts look to the economic realities of the exchange. [...] The Court finds that the circumstances surrounding the transaction strongly suggests that the transaction is in fact a sale rather than a license. For example, the purchaser commonly obtains a single copy of the software, with documentation, for a single price, which the purchaser pays at the time of the transaction, and which constitutes the entire payment for the "license." The license runs for an indefinite term without provisions for renewal.

      That's what I do when I buy software. The license I buy is for a single copy of the software and documentation, for a single one-time price at the time of the transaction constituting the entire payment. There is an indefinite term (usually something like 'it can be revoked if the software gets pirated) that is usually considered permanent.

      That's what you do with HL2. You go to the store, you buy a copy of the software, and you use it. According to the very straitforward definition given by the Circuit Court, that is a sale.

      So, since it is a sale, there are several potential problems here. It could be considered a "Failure to Deliver" or "Improper Delivery", entitling the people to any of several remedies. Valve is simply telling these (few) people, "Sorry, you're out of luck." That could be a violation of federal law.

      OR, they could claim "No Arrival, No Sale", giving them similar remedies. Valve's denial of those remedies could be a violation of the federal law.

      OR, they could claim it is a violation of implied warranty. The game was designed for a particular purpse: to be a playable computer game. If the seller (Valve) clearly knew when they released the game that that was the purpose of the game, and they also clearly knew that they intended to deny legitimate purchasers of the software from their usage of the software, then they violated the implied warranty of fitness, which is a federal violoation.

      OR, they could be in trouble for improper notice of termination, since Valve agreed to "successive performances" of access through Steam, but terminated the service without notification.

      OR, it is possible (although unlikely) that it could be established as fraud, if they could show that Valve intended to defraud some small subset of legitimate customers.

      Anyway...

      Assuming the transaction is a sale (which I believe it is) then there are quite a few violations of the UCC Article 2 that Valve could be in trouble with.

      For what it's worth, (I'm an game developer, not a lawyer) I've had chats about this sort of thing with lawyers and other developers. When I heard about Valve requiring online verification, there was a bit of noise in the commuinity. There are many other issues about if sofware is sold, such as: What happens when the servers go down? What happens if the domain is hijacked? What happens at product EOL?

      I personally believe software is sold, just like a book. It is clear: One copy of the software is sold. The software is copyright (C) year by the company. The company retains those copy rights, including the right to distribute copies of the work. If they find people distributing the software, they should prosecute those people for copyright infringement. If they find software that was distributed illegally, then should disable access to that software. But the moment they prevent a legitimate customer from accessing the system, and refuse to give them any remedy as specified in the law, they are in trouble.

      frob.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    4. Re:Please check your facts before trying to insult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good to see someone in the industry with their head screwed on straight.

    5. Re:Please check your facts before trying to insult by Poseidon88 · · Score: 1
      But the moment they prevent a legitimate customer from accessing the system, and refuse to give them any remedy as specified in the law, they are in trouble.

      I agree completely, but that isn't the case here. Valve has offered to unlock the accounts of anyone that can show they legitimately purchased a copy of the game. I've been watching the Steam forums, and most of the people that claim their account was locked, even though they own a copy of the game, are also admitting to either using a no-CD crack or downloading the warez version because they thought it was taking too long to authenticate. I assume that if those people contact Valve, they can probably get their accounts unlocked. But you can't say they aren't completely innocent in the matter. I have yet to see anyone post that Valve completely screwed them over for no reason.

  351. It's the internet connection thing that bugs me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm waiting for the authentication crack, then I'm going to go buy the game.

    In the meantime, I'm buying Pirates. I dunno if it has a no-cd crack just yet, but I'll burn a backup and play from that until then.

  352. A license to do what? by bacchusrx · · Score: 1

    You have purchased something. A license to play the game on the terms and conditions that are told to you by the company.

    Woah, hold on a second. Putting aside, for the moment, whether you bought a game or a license: why would you need a license to play the game in the first place?

    A license is just a permission from some competent authority to do some otherwise prohibited act. So, the question becomes: what (law, contract or custom) prohibits you from playing the game in the first place? And, what authorizes Valve to then permit you to act?

    The game in question is software protected by copyright, yes, but copyright law in the US and in Canada, does not, to my knowledge, prohibit the use of copyrighted software in general, nor does it grant to copyright holders the right to restrict the general use of software (at least, as I say, in the general case, as the use of some software -- probably not games -- is or has been prohibited on other grounds: eg. software implementing strong cryptography or software that circumvents copyright protection apparatus).

    In fact, copyright establishes for copyright holders only a few specific rights: to reproduce, to derive, to distribute and to publically perform the protected work. Copyright holders are not empowered, at least by virtue of copyright, to restrict the use of software (or other works) except insofar as reproduction, distribution, derivation and public performance are concerned.

    So, on what basis does the need for permission to play the game arise?

    If it is private contract, and not by virtue of copyright, at what point was this contract formed? Between what parties and with what consideration?

    It certainly wasn't done at the time of sale (and not with Valve!), since that contract was between the retailer and the purchaser for the sale of some tangible good. It could possibly be done during the "EULA interaction" on running the software for the first time, but what possible consideration could arise from that encounter?

    The consideration can't be an agreement to be bound by the EULA in exchange for permission to run the program, since, we've just established no such permission is necessary. It'd be a strange leap of logic to suggest that the act the license purports to authorize was prohibited by a contract entered into whose consideration is a grant of that very (and very worthless) license. Sounds more like protection money, to me ;)

    So, anyway... Maybe you're right (though, I doubt it very much) that you're buying a license and not the game. But if, that's true, you really have bought nothing: just permission to do what you already had permission to do.

    --
    Life after capitalism? The participatory economics project
    1. Re:A license to do what? by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      If I give you a license for access to my couch, I have not given you my couch. If you violate the contract you've agreed to in order to get the couch access, I can make your license void and you cannot access my couch any longer.

      We purchase a license to use a program that is owned by a company. We're given a license to use it. We can make a backup, but we cannot sell or give away our copy. We can sell the original, but as long as we destroy the copy.

      www.google.com
      Look for "laws"

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    2. Re:A license to do what? by bacchusrx · · Score: 1
      I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. What basis in law do you use to arrive at your conclusions?

      When you buy shrinkwrapped software, you're buying a copy of the underlying work. You do, in fact, own the copy. This is explicily set out in 17 USC 202:
      Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied.

      So, to your disingenuous example: if you give me a license to access your couch, it's true that you haven't given me the couch. What you're talking about is basically buying a ticket on an amusement ride: clearly, it does not confer ownership of the ride. However, buying permission to sit on someone's couch or to sit in someone's theatre isn't even remotely analogous to the purchase of shrinkwrapped software.

      When I buy software, I have -- in both law and in fact -- purchased a copy of the actual software program, which, I do -- in both law and fact -- own. (Incidentally, I can legally resell that copy, even after I've used the program.)

      So, then, on what basis do I need a license from you or anyone else to put that software to a legal use? Your ownership of a copyright gives you the right to restrict reproduction, distribution, public performance and the making of derivative works. It doesn't give you any right to dictate terms of other uses.

      This is the problem with nebulous terms like "intellectual property." Owners and cheerleaders of such "property" try to conflate the term to mean that they "own" the underlying work, which they do not. They own a copyright in the work, which empowers them with particular and limited rights over how the work may be used.

      None of those rights form the basis for requiring a license for "mere use," use outside the scope of reproduction, distribution, or public performance.

      If a license is indeed necessary, it must rise from some other basis. But, I see no compelling case that such a basis arises out of they way software is typically purchased and put to use by end users.
      --
      Life after capitalism? The participatory economics project
  353. Re:Sir, would you kindly allow me to use my softwa by frizzbit · · Score: 1
    You can't steal software any more than you can steal air.

    No you can't steal software any more than you can steal ideas. :)

  354. Re: Hook Line and Sinker. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't buy a license when you buy software.

    You buy a _copy_ of the work, and not the work itself. You are limited in what you can do with this copy by copyright law.

    You seem to have fallen for the software industry's FUD. Why is buying software any different then buying a book or a DVD?

    What about playstation games, etc? Do you believe you purchased a license there as well? What makes computer software so special?

  355. Why I commited a murder by Spiked_Three · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have purchased no less than 3 counter strike games - each from regular retailers and each came with CD keys. Why 3? Well so me and friends could play legitimately on my T1 at my home.
    Imagine my shock and horror when I try to play one day and receive a message that my steam account has been closed because I am using a cracked CD key. 3 F'n times I have paid, and I'm denied access to play to game.
    Then along comes Half Life 2. I refuse to buy it in principal and because of my previous experience. But the reviews are too good. "It's the best game ever, again." Not to mention my IRC chat buddies calling me a moron because I object to steam.
    OK, I give in and buy it. What do I get? The first CD cant be read because of the imbedded copy protection. It takes over 4 hours to install as I go through 4 CD-Rom drives until I find one that will read the disk. An hour to "decrypt" the files, WTF?
    I play it - and indeed it is good.
    Today I read ./ and learn of this mess, 20k users banned - and you know all are not valid bans, the forums closed because of all the negative postings, basically the entire community is in rebellion. S.O.B I was right to begin with and should have never spent $50 for such total bullshit.
    But, who do I blame? Is it valve/vivendi's fault? NO. IT IS THE LAME ASS COPYRIGHT STEALING IDIOTS THAT CAUSED THIS PROBLEM TO BEGIN WITH.
    Two Days ago I read with disbelief incredible responses saying how walking into a movie theater with a video camera and then posting the movie on the internet is an OK thing to do. Some idiot even associated it with free speech.
    There is an incredible "steal it if you can" culture here that has resulted in me having to deal with unbearable BS in copy protection - and I swear to God - if I see one of you in a movie theater with a video camera actively recording I am going to pull out a gun and shoot you between the eyes.
    I am that pissed off.

    --
    slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
    1. Re:Why I commited a murder by voodoo1man · · Score: 1
      NO. IT IS THE LAME ASS COPYRIGHT STEALING IDIOTS THAT CAUSED THIS PROBLEM TO BEGIN WITH.
      Yes, because we all know that if everyone stopped pirating media, tomorrow publishers would start charging reasonable prices and compensate the authors with what they deserve, and everything would be all right in the land of capitalism.

      Stop deluding yourself. Copyright infringement may not fix anything, but this is because issues like these have nothing to do with copyright infringement and everything to do with publisher control. Media company management has this idea that just because the customer has a record button, he has stopped being right. Since they view media (not without cause) as a living necessity, they use this justification to exert further, blatantly unnecessary and abusive control over it's distribution. It's amusing that you call copyright infringers "COPYRIGHT STEALING IDIOTS," because the only copyright thieves here are the publishing companies.

      --

      In the great CONS chain of life, you can either be the CAR or be in the CDR.

  356. Re:Obviously a jaded warez-monkey...oops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oops, should have been: "Pirates are not the only ones who are complaining about having problems, those who legally bought the PC game are having problems getting SINGLE PLAYER running correctly."

  357. You got what you deserved if you pirated!!! by borgheron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ha!! Ha!!

    I'll never understand the mentality of some people. There is an old saying "he who pays the piper calls the the tune". This means that Steam made the HL2 game and they get to dictate it's licensing. You don't like it? Stop buying proprietary software and start using open source or free software as, yet again, those who made it, licensed it as they saw fit: freely.

    You people who think that just because you *can* download it means that it's "okay" need to get yourselves spanked ever now and then.

    Is your ass sore now? Good. Think twice before screwing someone like this in the future.

    You guys give the rest of us a really bad name.

    GJC

    --
    Gregory Casamento
    ## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
  358. Re:Irony / liklihood of having a valid cd key reje by gorfie · · Score: 1

    Perhaps I misunderstood the article, but I thought they had banned all users who used a hacked/stolen (i.e. multiuser) key.

    I believe this means all unscrupulous individuals along with those who are the legitimate owners of said keys. I can't predict how many of those owners didn't intentionally give their key out, but I imagine there are a few who didn't mean to.

    As the previous poster mentioned, it's possible that the original owner can show proof of purchase (photocopy of receipt, cd key, etc.) and become a valid user again, but I don't recall reading that in the article.

  359. Why is this even an issue?! by The+Bringer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why is this even an issue? First of all, I have no sympathy for anyone that has had their account disabled, and I see nothing wrong with what Valve is doing, or how they are going about it. If you used a leaked CD Key, you deserve all of what you've gotten, and if you installed a patch that was not endorsed nor created by Valve, you are stupid to do so. If I were in Valve's shoes, I would do the same thing. There is absolutely nothing wrong to enforcing the EULA in this manner, you agreed to it by installing the software, and the only reason that your account was disabled in the first place was because you violated it. You didn't HAVE to agree to the EULA. Well, that is what I think, IMHO.

  360. Also by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    A driver license is only a license to drive on public roads. We all pay for them with tax dollars, thus the government has not only a right but a duty to regulate them. However one does not need a driver license to drive on private land you can legally drive a car on private property before you are 16. Likewise you are not bound by any speed limit or other such thigns.

    That's how Nascar and the like can exist. They don't have a special exemption or anything, it's a private track. Thus they can drive as fast as they like, in cars that are not legal for normal street use.

    If the government revokes you license it does not remove the right to use your car, which is your personal property. It simply prohibits you from using it on public streets.

  361. However... by ibentmywookie · · Score: 1

    some of us had a really good experience with steam. I purchased the Silver version, and it couldn't have been easier. I was playing within hours of the activation servers being up. I have not had the game crash once. The only problem I've had is with the stuttering, but that's not too bad if I put texture detail at medium.

    Steam is a good service, IMO. It has some teething problems, and completely ignores dialup users, but I like it.

    And in the future there will be ways of playing hl2 even if valve is not around. If I can't activate it legally in 10 years time, I'll use a crack or some other hack to make it work. Hopefully if Valve was self destructing they would open up their games for anybody to use so that it would not require authentication anymore.

    --
    -- The doctor said I wouldn't get so many nose bleeds if I just kept my finger out of there!
  362. Works for me. And, at the moment, 82,542 others. by Behrooz · · Score: 1

    At the time of this post, 82,542 users think that steam is working properly.

    --
    "We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
  363. ahhhhh the whinny slashdot thieves... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    typical..

    Whine that you can't steal it.
    Whine that you have to read the licnese
    Whine about the activation that protects Valves IP
    Whine whine whine...it aint linux you thieves, it cost money...

    and the mods need to grow up a bit, no, a lot!

    Mods need to take critisism without getting pisssy and banning subnets.

    Mods shouldn't toss bans on everyone they disagree with...

    Ya you can ban another subnet, but I have more IP's then you have time...grow up and stop the censoring via bans!

  364. I shouldn't respond by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Since this is so uneducated but what the hell, I am bored.

    1) The exchange must be agreed upon before hand. When you lease an apartment, purchase a house, sell a patent, etc the terms are spelled out and agreed upon in the contract before any such exchange takes place. That's what the contract is, the laying out of what will be exchanged and under what terms.

    2) Nope, sorry, I'm aware of no case law where this has been upheld (if you are, cite the case if not, stuff it). Clicking a button is not a legal consent. There's a reason the signature is used in real contracts. What's more, what happens if I don't click it? Perhaps I have a teenager from next door install it because I'm not good at computers, and he clicks it. Minors cannot enter into a legal contract without parental consent and cosignature. What then? Companies want to think that click throughs are binding, but current law seems to say no.

    3) Basic contract law. Like I said, they don't have to accept it, but the terms have to be open. It means they can't charge you the money, then set out the terms, which is what's happening here. The terms must be presented to you. You can then chose to rewrite the contract and submit it to them. They can decline the changes, or give you counter changes, but they can't say "Nope, sorry you have to give us the money first, THEN we tell you the terms." Terms cannot be dictated or modified ex post facto, that's the point of a contract. Everything is laid out on the table up front, before any exchange of goods/services. Both sides decide they like the agreement, then the exchange happens and those terms are binding, unless both sides decide to change them.

    4) Already addressed.

    As for your piracy bullshit, it's not the EULA that disallows that, it's copyright law. The law says you must have permission from the author to make a copy of their copyrighted work. If you don't have that permission, it's infringement and you can be subject to criminal and civil penalties.

    As for ownership, look up doctrine of first sale. Well established legal concept and restriction on copyright. There is no case law, nor compelling legal argument, why software should be any different than a book in this regard.

    1. Re:I shouldn't respond by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      1) You can return the product after reviewing the license. That is why it works. Show me where it says this can't be done. Remember the law does not need to tell you that you CAN do something, the law just needs to tell you that you CAN'T do something
      2)Show me the law that says you MUST have a signed contract. Your full of shit (you get these insults as a direct reply to yours). Verbal agreements happen all the time...clicking YES or NO is just as valid. Again show me where it says that this is NOT valid. As for your minor situation - be thankful some prosecutor doesn't smack you around for coercing a minor to unknowingly engage in an illegal act (the illegal act is you trying to circumvent the license by having a minor click yes...your above example is as ridiculous as your thought process).

      3) The terms are presented to you. However, since it is not feasible to have a lawyer present at every single store (unless you want to pay 300-500 bucks per game - plus it is not their responsibility to provide you with a lawyer) then you have the option to return the product. See this is how it works and why it is valid. YOu pay for the product, take it home, realize that you do not like the terms of the contract (click no). You return the product. Every buy a VCR with a warranty? Is the warranty terms on the outside of the box? No the terms are on the inside - so chances are you are not going to see the temrs until AFTER you get home because not many people open the box in the store.

      Since copyright law is a law that can be waived (it protects the rights of the group that created the information, so they have the right to waive it or modify it) they have the option to change the rules. Again, you not owning the latest game is not going to prevent you from living a life of liberty, happiness and some such other crap.
      The compelling legal argument is easy: "He can reproduce exact replicas of our software (with little effort) and distribute it. He cannot reproduce an exact replica of this book (w/p exhaustive effort).

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    2. Re:I shouldn't respond by StillAnonymous · · Score: 1

      1) Ha! Have you ever tried returning opened software? You have to open the software and try to install it before you get the EULA. Most places will tell you to fuck off if you're wanting a refund on opened software. They will offer you another copy if yours is damaged, but that's it. It's assumed that you've copied it...

      2) Coercing a minor? What-fucking-ever... So if someone asks the neighbour to install the software because they doesn't know how to do it, it's coercion? Ya, good luck proving that one in court. The only person who's going to get slapped around is the dipshit attorny doing the prosecuting. Oh, and ever see how a verbal agreement ends up in court? It's almost always tossed out because there's no evidence. It's one person's word against another.

      3) Your warranty analogy is no good. I can ask the salesperson at a store "what's the warranty on this VCR?" and they'll respond quickly "2 years parts and labor" or whatever. No employee is going to know the goddamned EULA because it's full of long-winded lawyeresque bullshit. And that's all it is: bullshit. Companies would love for you to believe that they can enforce all of that crap but when it comes down to the final hour, they'll balk in court so that they don't find their EULA struck down and everyone laughing at them.

      Just because it's in a contract does not mean it is legally enforcable. Hell, just a few weeks ago I read in the paper about a woman who took her employer to court for overtime pay even though in her employment contract it said she would not be paid for overtime as she's salaried. Some rights just can't be signed away, as much as Company X wants you to think.

      You've bought into this bullshit, but please look at it from a bigger perspective. These are just companies trying to hock their cheesy wares (no pun intended). They have no more real power to manipulate others than you or I.

    3. Re:I shouldn't respond by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hell, just a few weeks ago I read in the paper about a woman who took her employer to court for overtime pay even though in her employment contract it said she would not be paid for overtime as she's salaried."

      Oh, she won the case, btw.

    4. Re:I shouldn't respond by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      1) Yes. I purchased Neverwinter nights. It didn't play right on my old computer. I went to a DIFFERENT store (same company, different location), without a receipt (credit card purchase) - and got a full refund. I spoke to a manager - took me all of 15 minutes. Whats your point.

      2) Give a ridiculous scenario completely rigged so only your answer could apply and get a ridiculous answer. Verbal agreements are binding contracts - they can and do hold up in court. However, in this case - no verbal agreement is needed - you clicked YES so you could install the program.
      3)It is very good...if you ask the salesperson for the specific terms and agreements of the warranty he will look at you like a deer in headlights. Do you think the sales person knows that in paragraph 3, line 4 it states XYZ terms? Hence, that is why the employee will not know warranty terms (the paper version of the EULA).

      You are correct, some rights cannot be signed away (dummy laws). You do have the right to return the package (dummy law) - you do not have the right to hack and slash the software and think that you "own" it, because you don't.

      I haven't bought into any bullshit, and I at least try not to spread more. I am consumer aware. THat is why I have ZERO problems when returning software to a store (or any other product). I also realize that once I click YES I agree to their terms and agreement...just because you are not happy with them does not make them bullshit. This argument is pointless - you are bent up on thinking that these contracts are invalid - i hope it bites you in the ass one day so you have learned your lesson.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  365. Return It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you bought the game and can't play, return it to the store.

    Stores will exchange open software for a new copy. Claim it did not work and is defective if needed.

    Then, use the new copy to create a HL2/Steam account.

  366. You're silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "please get out of the way and stop holding up progress."

    If you think playing an online game is some sort of progress, then you're about as silly as a boy can be.

    Why you put up with this kind of crap in the name of "entertainment" is a mytery that has people like me laughing all the way to the bank.

    Holding up progress....LMAO!

  367. That's why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's why Sony is laughing all the way to the bank with PS2 games.

    Oooh. Everquest 2! Put some tape on my glasses, mama, I'm comin' home.

    Really pathetic.

    1. Re:That's why... by subgeek · · Score: 1

      what does eq2 have to do with hl2 or the ps2?

      --
      you probably shouldn't have read this.
  368. I was about to argue with you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But you're such a moron that its not worth the effort.

    Does it hurt your head physically when you compare a software license to a permit to drive a car. I mean, does it hurt more when that little tiny pea brain then think "Boy, I'm pretty clever".

    Godalmighty, when you think on such a level, I think it rips a hole in the fabric of space and time. Loser.

  369. feh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    IF they wrote the law in simpler terms i bet they'd cut 800 pages down to 100. Release a much simplified edition for laymen, so you don't have to contend with the legalese unless you want/have to.

    example (from the revised code of washington):
    RCW 9.03.010
    Abandoning, discarding refrigeration equipment.

    Any person who discards or abandons or leaves in any place accessible to children any refrigerator, icebox, or deep freeze locker having a capacity of one and one-half cubic feet or more, which is no longer in use, and which has not had the door removed or a portion of the latch mechanism removed to prevent latching or locking of the door, is guilty of a misdemeanor.


    translation:
    don't leave your fridge outside

  370. Re:You don't need an EULA for music CDs and movie by Pofy · · Score: 1

    >Ya know in the olden days when that big "FBI"
    >thing would come on the screen when you watched a
    >VHS tape? ever read it? It tells you the rules
    >for use: an EULA.

    Never lived in USA, but I would guess it told you about the LAWS. The laws would always apply regardless of if you agree to them or not.

    >I maintain that software should be like music CDs
    >and movie DVDs: If you posess a copy, you can use
    >it however you want; you just can't copy it and
    >distribute the copies.

    Most countries doesn't have regulation in their copyright laws saying use of something is forbidden if there is copyright on it. So yes, if you own it (or really, even if you don't) you can use it at will unless you break other laws of course. IF you don't is the owner of the specific opy, you might be in trouble just as if you use someone elses car or whatever. Still, there is nothing in copyrigh laws that prevent me from using a friends book or computer game (obviously we can't do it at the same time).

    >While I agree, you know and I know that a lot of
    >people won't play by the rules, and I think the
    >company has a right to protect their property.
    >When you click "I accept" you, too, are saying
    >that they have the right to do so as well.

    You know, they they initially SOLD you the copy of their software, it magically turned into yours. If they don't like that concept, they should not sell software to start with!!

  371. Reselling Half Life 2 by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But the game itself is woefully overrated. I'd say, "Off to eBay with this," but who knows whether HL 2 will work if it has to be reactivated by a new owner?

    Presumably, if Steam still exists, and you sell the original CD key along with the game discs, the game can be reactivated (after all you can activate it on multiple machines). Now, if you sold it but kept a copy, and try to still use it yourself, your use of that key will conflict with the new owner's. But doing that would be quite naughty anyway, and the new owner (and Valve) would be justified in being right pissed at you. Just make sure you uninstall, and the new owner should be perfectly happy.

    Levels are split at arbitrarily unidentified points, so you never know when you're going to get hit with another minute-long delay--or make that 2-3 minutes, if you decide you want to go back to explore or find supplies.

    I can see why this pisses you off. It's annoying. I do find that the load points tend to be in "quiet" areas - deserted tunnels, empty rooms etc. I.e. areas that you're just passing through, so the pause is less jarring than it might be otherwise. However, I doubt that mid-level loads are avoidable in a complex 3D game with today's desktop technology level. Until computers can hold the whole level in memory at once, we'll have to cope with it.

    --
    Freedom: "I won't!"
    1. Re:Reselling Half Life 2 by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 1
      Thanks for the insight into reselling. No naughtiness here, I promise. :-)

      Now, regarding level loading times. It's true, as you point out, that the loading points are generally tucked away; this helps, as the player isn't out in the great wide open when they hit, which would be nasty indeed.

      But that great wide open is an illusion, in any case. The linearity of the level design still funnels the player into an A to Z route. I find this actually more frustrating than the loading times; I see somewhere, and I want to go there. It certainly can be done on today's PC hardware: it's the paradigm in Morrowind and the GTA series, and it's only hinted at in HL 2--teasingly, tauntingly--you might even say the illusion of access is Britneyfied.

      So, we are left with anywhere of 5 to 7 minutes (perhaps longer on slower rigs?) per hour of waiting time so that the artificially large levels can be loaded. I don't think that's terrible, but I don't see a great tradeoff for it, either. At best, these "larger" levels in HL 2 are supplying a dioramic effect: we can see more buildings in the background, but great as they look they remain largely as untouchable as the old Quake skyboxes.

    2. Re:Reselling Half Life 2 by smeenz · · Score: 1
      l. Until computers can hold the whole level in memory at once, we'll have to cope with it.

      I had 512mb in my machine when I first played HL, and it was quite smooth at 800x600.. then I increased the resolution to 1024x768, and found it got a bit jerky due to swapping activity on the hard drive. I checked in task manager and found total memory usage was just below 700mb.

      So the next day, I went out and got a couple of 512mb chips, and popped those in, and all the slowdowns disappeared.

      However, it still doesn't use any more than that amount of memory, so even though there's a total of 1.2GB of RAM in my machine now, HL2 doesn't seem interested in using any of it.

      So it doesn't seem to be 'when computers can hold the whole level in memory'.

  372. Edit - I might be wrong by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 1

    From downthread:

    Half-life 2 uses a MMO style activation where you create an account and enter your key. One account, one key. Once a key is registered to an account is cannot be used on any other accounts. The only thing that could possibly happen people getting their steam accounts hacked

    So you might have to give them your Steam account too, presumably they would have to rename it, and change the contact info. Hmm.

    --
    Freedom: "I won't!"
  373. A moron economist speaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "we might yet actually see a reduction in game prices. "

    Game prices are not related to the cost of the medium or any delivery, they're related to the market price only.

    In otherwords, if people will pay $60, a game publisher would have to be as stupid as, well...you, to lower prices.

    Moral: Competition lowers prices, lack of competition raises prices.

  374. Cost of software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree that someone who writes good software deserves remuneration for his/her efforts. Now - I've got to thinking about what determines the *amount* of remuneration they recieve.

    A typical game costs, what, $50 a copy? This $50 per purchased copy presently manages to keep game software companies afloat even in the face of the rampant pirating which is the standard situation anywhere in the world. The cost of copyright infringement is borne by the legitimate purchasers of software / music / whatever, or so we are told.

    The logical concusion is: If you remove the possiblity of pirating, should not the cost of the software come down? HL2 is a popular game, and was always going to be. If Valve knew their Steam authentication would make pirating basically impossible - is it not reasonable that they cut the cost of the game by whatever ratio they thought authentication process would increase sales?

    I suppose an argument against this is that they are receiving remuneration for using a copy protection system which works incredibly well. This idea infuriates me since by purchasing a piece of gaming software I want to reward the developer of an interesting and innovative game, not an authentication implementation. And especially not implementations which inconvenience and disenfranchise legitimate customers the way this whole Steam fiasco is proving to.

    If customers are being asked to relinquish significant control and conveniences, is it not fair to give them something in return? In recognition of the fairer distribution of revenue which an effective copy protection system promises, lower prices might be a fair call.

  375. 'nuff said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People are discovering that when you buy any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really bought anything.

    'nuff said! If you don't like it, don't buy/play it! The prevalence of the Internet is NOT a license for companies to play this kind of bullshit!

  376. bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this valve/steam mess proves once again.

    The pirates have it easier. Sure their copy is illegal. But the damm thing works twice as good as the retail version.

    And when it really screws up and doesnt work? Who cares! i didnt pay anything anyways!

    I have this issue with an older game i still play. Mechwarrior. I own all the addons and extra crap too. bought and paid for.

    AND. its way way easier to go download nice iso files with a crack. It installs quicker. Loads quicker. Plays smoother. And crashes way less since the pirate copy doesnt include their safedisc/safecast garbage running in the background just waiting to freeze.

    And ya know what? What i have done is ILLEGAL! I asked. The fact that i paid for everything doesnt matter. pay for and download the same thing and use the pirate copy since it is more usable and i am still breaking the law.

    So with this particular game. There is NO way to play LEGALLY and have a good game experience.

    (both ways still require a cd in the drive or mounted. the pirate copy just rips out their heavy copy protection that makes the game nearly unplayable)

    Thats just unacceptable. So my choice is. Buy the game. And download a pirate copy to play. Which is illegal.
    Or just download the game. Which is just as illegal.

    Hmm.. i think i'll use the option that doesnt require a trip to bestbuy and $50.

    Copy protection DOES NOT WORK!!! IN ANY FORM!!!

    All it does is make extra problems for the people who actually PAID for the software. And because of that game alone. I will NEVER buy a game again.

    Call me a pirate. Call me a thief. I really dont mind. Since MY copy of the game works.

    (had HL2 downloaded and playing while the rest of you were still trying to "activate". Doesnt that piss you off? Granted this is singleplayer only yet. Give it a month and the private server cracks and patches will be out for HL2. Then i will have almost exactly what you paid for. For free. And no headaches! Damm you gotta be pissed by now. Go thank valve for saving you from the evil nasty pirates who are stealing all their profit)

    That always makes me laugh. "Piracy is the cause of the high prices of games"... But. Crappy games cost just as much as the good ones do. Yet nobody ever pirates the crappy games :)

  377. STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah... that about covers it. Shut The Fuck Up you goddamned dirty hippy!

  378. Re:Sir, would you kindly allow me to use my softwa by bloodhawk · · Score: 0

    good you have a right to reject EULA's, just as valve then has the right to say F$%^# off. There is no big conspiracy, companies are just sick of losers like you who steal there profits after investing huge amounts of money into a project.

  379. Got it by bittorrent...Netcraft: Humanity is dead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "(And don't give me that crap "oh, bad you, pirate! go sit on a corner". Hurl the first stone those who have NEVER pirated a piece of software!)"

    Ah yes! The "everyone does it" excuse.

    God I love humanity. I can't wait for us to crater.

    At least I'll be able to do a "I told you so" while I'm suffering right along with you from the side-effects of your actions.

  380. Remeber the good ol' days?-When we weren't caught. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh please! You throw together a bunch of "maybes" and "might have beens" and then use that to justify piracy.

    Since you want to play that game. Maybe the pirates will all realize that they will never win. Give up and become fine, upstanding citizens.

  381. Re:Violating the license for one locks you from al by Mike+Rubits · · Score: 1

    Maybe no one is telling the company's to F off because simply THE MAJORITY ARE NOT DISPLEASED WITH STEAM?

    I don't really give a crap what it does, as long as it doesn't make me go out of my way. Which it hasn't - along with many other people.

    The world isn't black or white, just because Windows' activation sucks, doesn't mean I have to start the second Crusades against Steam too.

  382. Precisely - you become a slave by Snaller · · Score: 1

    ... and that is what some of us complain about - not some shit about getting pirated versions (since they are already out there if you want)

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  383. Re:Sir, would you kindly allow me to use my softwa by Snaller · · Score: 1

    What I don't understand is why you resent the company rather than the thieves who've forced companies to take this position.

    No - they must take resposibility. Nobody FORCED them to do anything, they are making a ton of money as it is - their greed causes them to think they could make much more by amoral means. They deserve all they get.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  384. Why am I not surprised the writeup was by michael by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "People are discovering that when you buy any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really bought anything."

    Once I read this, I KNEW the writeup was by michael. The video game version of the mantra of the idiotic extreme left we saw so often in /. politics.

    michael, if you play devil's advocate on indefensible issues every single time you are not a thinker, philosopher, etc. no matter what the 'smart' people you know in your favorite coffee shop say. You are just a predictable fool who proves again and again that he has no sense of right and wrong.

  385. Forget Valve now by Trogre · · Score: 1

    After reading so many positive reviews about this game, and since it will run under the next cedega release, I was all set to buy this game.

    But after seeing the way Valve treat their customers , ie like criminals, they can keep their game. Steam is a nice idea for distribution and all, but this is going too far.

    I think I'll go buy Doom3 instead.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  386. Re:Sir, would you kindly allow me to use my softwa by Snaller · · Score: 1

    You still haven't answered the question: How are software companies making MORE profit by implementing anti-piracy measures that themselves cost money to implement? Why are they doing this when they know users are going to be annoyed (=lost profit)?

    Because they know that the users are going to find cracks and won't be sufficiently annoyed to stop buying the products.

    So software companies use activation on a product that NO ONE is forced to buy.

    Because software activation is amoral and WRONG. Just like slavery is wrong and won't go away just because you say "well don't own slaves then" - and this is slavery

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  387. Steam patch is out there by d3am0n · · Score: 1

    The path called HALF.LIFE.2.V1.0.ENG.EMPORIO.BACKUPCD.ZIP is available from megagames.com The patch will allow the game to proceed and run without contacting steam every bloody time. Granted this doesn't really address the issue of having to connect to steam in the first place since you need some updates etc. However at least now you don't have to keep connecting when your playing a single player game.

  388. Re:Sir, would you kindly allow me to use my softwa by Snaller · · Score: 1

    You didn't answer because you don't have a logical answer. Because there's no logical reason to think that software companies spend money on anti-piracy just so that they can piss off users. What do they get out of it? Hint: it has something to do with piracy.


    Duh - perhaps some idiot lawyers think it prevents pirating, but here is a hint for you, mr idiot - it never has - its just gets cracked and they move merrily along.

    There was an excellent example with Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament: Q3 had heavy duty encryption on its servers and according to ID it was never cracked, UT had some lame diskcheck which was cracked on the afternoon of its release. Yet UT sold much much more.

    Moral of the story: Most things in the so called "intellectual property" genre is utter crap and therefore does not sell that well - but that which is quality does. End of lesson.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  389. Re:Sir, would you kindly allow me to use my softwa by Snaller · · Score: 1

    after investing huge amounts of money

    They invest huge amounts of money for THEIR sake not ours - because they know they have an immoral law that can allow them to make even more money back for a job done only once.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  390. my two cents by Saturninus · · Score: 0

    I'm really digging the game, but I find it annoying how it connects to Steam to verify that I paid for it every time I start. I find it REALLY annoying that if I want to install it all I have to connect to the Internet. What if my connection went down? Perhaps the worst copy-protection I have seen on any game. If other game developers follow suit I am not buying anymore games. I actually paid a good deal for this game and kind of hate that I am suffering because of the few who illegally copy it.

  391. Amazing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How we can make this such an issue. Buy the game and play it. It's fun. Heaven forbid Valve would want to protect THEIR rights.

  392. ROFL! by TheLink · · Score: 1

    Yeah, given the loud noises, it is quite likely that Valve is probably screwing at least 15,000-20,000 of their legit customers!

    If Valve actually deactivated people without warning just because they used nocd they are making a big mistake. As you mentioned steam verification can be quite annoying, so what are the odds that 20K people out of all the total customers tried using nocd?

    IMO if someone bought a copy of your game for about USD1.50/disc (that's about the going rate here), they aren't likely to kick up such a big fuss if it stops working. They'd grumble, curse in front of their PC, then just go get another game for USD1.50/disc. Heck some "unauthorized distributors" will even let you swap for another game (with the same number of discs) no questions asked.

    I argue that even if it were 20,000 of such users it'll just be grumbles not huge protests - coz they know what they are getting.

    Of course a large number of these 20,000 could be actual customers who bought the game and loaned a copy to a friend.

    But if so I argue there's quite a big difference between deactivating 20,000 people who got USD1.50 copies from one or five legit USD50 purchases (possibly crackers may need more than one copy for their research..), and deactivating 20,000 people who made legit purchases at USD50 each and made one or two copies for their friends... If Valve can't tell the difference, LOL! I suspect the complaints would be louder from the 2nd group, and that's not the biggest problem...

    Guess what happens when these group of people meet the people who are using the "properly" warezed version you are talking about? Imagine the conversation. Imagine the likely outcome!

    It's no surprise that warez versions of software for non-online play would be possible unless you have stuff like "Trusted Computing/Palladium" AND the necessary legislation and controls - to prevent sale of hardware that bypasses TC or provides alternatives/choice.

    IF it's part of the _gameplay_ to connect to a Central server occasionally then that makes things harder.

    Then you'd have to change the keys/certs on the warez copy AND have a custom server for the warezed versions.

    If it's part of the the gameplay to connect to a central server _frequently_ as part of a _community_ that would make warez versions of limited use/popularity. Because the _community_ would be a major part of the game value.

    --
  393. Oh the irony by Kirth · · Score: 1

    Valve making a game playing in a future police-state, controlling the player in a police-state like fashion through Steam?
    --

    --
    "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
  394. Entity authentication by mattpalmer1086 · · Score: 1

    Encryption alone isn't enough - it would do nothing to stop replay attacks. You need entity authentication, which gives a guarantee that the other side is actually present.

    The system would have to have some kind of challenge-response protocol, or something like that. I can't find anything specific online about what protocols Steam uses.

    There are also questions about how user identity is derived. Is it simply given by the CD-Key? Does registering your CD-Key provide you with an ID that's bound to your machine in some way?

  395. Re:HL2 download via STEAM by numyth · · Score: 1

    I created a STEAM account, but can't find any way to purchase & download HL2. Can HL2 _only_ be installed by ordering the C/DVDs ? Can anyone advise or post the link? Thanks!

  396. Re:I just learned that being a geek can be dangero by phoenix.bam! · · Score: 1

    It doesn't NOT connect everytime you play if you set Steam to OFFLINE mode. If you do that you never have to connect to valve servers again, ever.

  397. Mod parent Un-Insightful by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 1

    The key gets bound to a personal account : Ok, so the account + account password can be sold ; But it can't be reactivated...(or de-activated for that matter)

    1. Re:Mod parent Un-Insightful by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 1

      I posted a second reply:

      From downthread:

      "Half-life 2 uses a MMO style activation where you create an account and enter your key. One account, one key. Once a key is registered to an account is cannot be used on any other accounts. The only thing that could possibly happen people getting their steam accounts hacked"

      So you might have to give them your Steam account too, presumably they would have to rename it, and change the contact info. Hmm.


      My bad, I admit it. Maybe "Mod Parent 'Overly Hasty'" would have been a better title?...

      --
      Freedom: "I won't!"
    2. Re:Mod parent Un-Insightful by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 1

      Forgot to check the extra threads, and once submitting the post, also thought 'un-insightful' might have been a bit harsh considering you were still trying to deal out (correct) info ;)

  398. www.steamreich.com by paniq · · Score: 1

    site with forum for criticism and discussion of stream and valve company policy.

    since complaints and opinions on steam are removed from the official boards, something like this is badly needed.

    spread the word.

    --
    Do not trust this signature.
  399. Re:Sir, would you kindly allow me to use my softwa by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    ...because they know they have an immoral law that can allow them to make even more money back for a job done only once.

    This is exactly the sentiment I have been trying to express. Now, how can we get gen pop to understand this and realize the concept of IP is absolutely despicable? Obviously it will be impossible to convince those riding the IP gravytrain. If there is any thievery here, it comes from IP.

    --
    What?
  400. I hope this gives you enough background... by Frobnicator · · Score: 1

    Someone explain to me how this is open to interpretation.

    I'll try. Standard non-lawyer disclaimers apply. I am a little more knowledgeable than the average slashdotter in that I've had some classes in law, but I'm no expert.

    The issues that need to be resolved are:

    • Is it a sale or a license contract? Some courts have ruled one way, some the other.
    • Does the EULA apply? Again, courts have ruled both ways.
    • Assuming the EULA applies, at what point does it move from a simple sale to an EULA-bound agreement?

    I'll try to give a coherent example based on the court case I cited above; It's got almost all the elements covered.

    You stated:

    Once you make the purchase, any and all strings attached to the product from a seller's standpoint ceases to exist. Once you open to box and install the software, any pop-up EULA are moot as the transaction has already been completed at the cashier, which upon sale is the only point that the copyright holder has the right to set limits on the usage. The EULA comes after the sale, hence not binding. Hell, this is one of the core reasons we have copyright laws to begin with!

    The problem comes from the fact that software companies like the idea of a license. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) has several liability and remedies available to consumers in normal sales. Visit cornell's or some other place to read Article 2 of the UCC, for reference. There are a lot of liability issues with software. Moving it away from a sale and into contract law gives the opportunity to get around the liability.

    Anyway, that is an issue that various courts have decided both ways. The 9th Circut (covering CA, WA, and several other states) gave their decision, so all the federal courts (where UCC issues are resolved) in those states should parallel that decision. If you read the case that I referenced in the grandparent post, they state that under most circumstances, software is sold and not licenced, regardless of the presence of an EULA. That is not under ALL circumstances, even though they list a few specific elements that cover almost all normal software purchses as sales. Specifically:

    "The Court agrees that a single payment for a perpetual transfer of possession is, in reality, a sale of personal property and therefore transfers ownership of that property, the copy of the software."

    So within those states (at least), if you make a single payment for a perpetual transfer of possession, you own that copy of the software. Period.

    You can do anything with that copy that is allowed by normal copyright law.

    On the topic of EULA's in general, the court said:

    Whether contracts such as Adobe's EULA, often referred to as "shrinkwrap" licenses, are valid is a much-disputed question. A number of courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license have found them to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code. [references omited] These courts have refused to recognize a bargain in shrinkwrap license that is not signed by the party against whom it is enforced. In Step-Saver, the Third Circuit found that the terms of a contract were formed when the parties shipped, received and paid for the product. Therefore, the software shrinkwrap agreement constituted additional terms to the contract, and under Uniform Commercial Code 2-207 (governing commercial counter-offers), these terms were invalid without express assent by the purchaser. In contrast, other courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license is valid and enforceable.

    The Court finds it unnecessary to reach the question of the general validity of shrinkwrap licenses at this stage because the Court has determined that SoftMan is not bound by the EULA because there was no assent to its terms.

    --
    //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    1. Re:I hope this gives you enough background... by BobSutan · · Score: 1

      My question comes from the fact that the law states in black and white in Uniform Commercial Code 2-207 that once you purchase it the transaction is complete and all agreements after the fact are moot and not legally binding.

      It appears that the cases that sided with EULAs were simply misinformed judges or lawyers with weak understanding of the UCC. Or maybe that's just me.

      --
      "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
    2. Re:I hope this gives you enough background... by Frobnicator · · Score: 1
      That's right. IF it is a sale, that's the case. Unfortunatly lots of people claim it is a license contract and not a sale.

      That's why the courts that say it's a sale have consistantly said the EULA is invalid.

      That's also why courts that say it's a license or contract have sided with the EULA.

      Two of the circuit courts have come down on the side of it being a sale, and I'm hopeful that those decisions will be the prevailing ones.

      frob

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    3. Re:I hope this gives you enough background... by BobSutan · · Score: 1

      Ah, now I see the distinction between the two. Thanks for putting it into perspective.

      --
      "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
  401. What I find funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... is that you think that anyone gives a crap about your stupid opinion. Why do you go back to your troll hidey hole with your disingenuous "piracy" rhetoric?

  402. EULAs have in fact been upheld several times by kiddygrinder · · Score: 1

    There was an example of a company who produced unlicensed add-ons to starcraft and possibly other games, Blizzard got em shut down via them violating the EULA for the world editor to sell the levels

    --
    This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
  403. Re:Sir, would you kindly allow me to use my softwa by slcdb · · Score: 1
    Where's your resentment towards the thieves? Don't they figure into this whole equation?
    Why would you expect him to resent the thieves? He may not have any direct relationship with any of them. He does have a direct relationship with the company whose product he has purchased. I think his resentment is directed in the right place.
    --
    Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.