I would like to copy the CD

[Executor]

Originally posted by Venger
Are you sure about the sub-channel data being the only required special adjustment (besides DAO+RAW, which is just REQUIRED to copy games these days)? I could swear when I copied Civ3 it had some weak sectors just like a Safedisc v2 game...

I got my copy just the same, mind you...

Venger

CD Media World says that sub-channel is the only requirement for copying Safedisc 2. Could be wrong, though.

[Venger]

Yeah that's REAL wrong. The new Safedisc uses weak sectors to make the CD burner screw up on the copy. Sub channel data still needs to be read, but that alone will not get you a good copy. I had to use BetaBlocker on my Mitsumi 4804TE drive to get it to copy Civ3. I burned 3 coasters prior to it...BetaBlocker looked at the CloneCD image, found the weak sectors, and fixed them so the burn works. Voila, I have an unscratched, unscathed Civ3 CD while I beat up my Civ3 copy...

Venger

[Elowan]

BetaBlocker seems to be unavailable at the moment - BTW.

To copy the CivIII CD, merely copy all the CD files onto your HD and then burn your copy(s).

Then DL and install the NoCD patch from gamecopyworld.

Don't give away the copies either! Infogrames is entitled to their due.

I'd like a Ferrari but I can't afford it so I do without. No one will give me one either! Poop!

[Simple Girl]

use weak sectors amplifier in latest clone cd version, then you can use usual burners

[Venger]

Originally posted by Simple Girl
use weak sectors amplifier in latest clone cd version, then you can use usual burners

Weak sector amplification is in the new CloneCD? WOOHOOO!!!!

Venger

[Jack_www]

In the United States you can make one copy of the software you have for back up purposes. This is what I have read in the Licence agreements in all the software I own. You cant make as many copies as you like for your own personal use as some in European countries say that they can do legaly.

[kailhun]

Originally posted by sophist


Well, read your End User License Agreement (EULA). It's a contract. And it says, "thou shalt not reverse engineer this holy software." Or something like that.

Nope. In the United States, and I believe most other nations, software is covered by contract law, not by property law.

I will say it again, because people seem to be missing this important point and imagining the law is what it should be and not what it is. You have a contract with Infogrames. You do not own Civ3; Firaxis does. You are renting the software from Firaxis (through the intermediary of Infogrames). Firaxis/Infogrames agree to provide certain things. You agree to give them money and abide by the EULA. Nowhere does the contract state that you have the right to make backup copies. Nor does it state that Firaxis/Infogrames have to provide you with a replacement in case your original goes bad. Sorry.

But in Europe we have art. 1 of the first protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Council of Europe Treaty, not EU although you have to have signed this treated to be able to join the EU, and the EU does indirectly enforce this treaty.):

'Article 1 – Protection of property

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.'

A right is a piece of property under this article, which means that my right to use the software which i've bought under the licensing agreement is protected by this article. Any law which interferes with this right has to be applied in a way that does nog violate this article or not at all.
Copyrighting a cd is therefore not protected by law as it does not fall under the public interest to do so.
Furthermore a contractual provision forbidding me to make backup copies also violates this article, and therefore violates the 'algemeen belang'(public interest)/'openbare orde'(publoc order?) which are grounds for setting aside a contractual provision under Dutch law (and I suspect most continental European law as it is all based on the french Code Civil).

My conclusion is that I should be allowed to make backups for personal use and that Infogrames copyright protection is in violation of my Human rights.
As would be making software illegal needed to make these personal use backups.

This is what happens when you don't vote.

Speaking of voting: If the Merkins are so powerful and can indirectly influence the way The Netherlands should be governed (which they can and do), shouldn't the Dutch people get to vote on who the Merkin Prez. should be? Under the same conditions as a state? 'We live in a democarcy' after all. So how many 'electoral votes' does a state with 17 million people get?

/me climbs off soapbox once more.

Dito.

Robert

[sophist]

Originally posted by kailhun


'Article 1 – Protection of property

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.'

A right is a piece of property under this article, which means that my right to use the software which i've bought under the licensing agreement is protected by this article. Any law which interferes with this right has to be applied in a way that does nog violate this article or not at all.
Copyrighting a cd is therefore not protected by law as it does not fall under the public interest to do so.
Furthermore a contractual provision forbidding me to make backup copies also violates this article, and therefore violates the 'algemeen belang'(public interest)/'openbare orde'(publoc order?) which are grounds for setting aside a contractual provision under Dutch law (and I suspect most continental European law as it is all based on the french Code Civil).

My conclusion is that I should be allowed to make backups for personal use and that Infogrames copyright protection is in violation of my Human rights.
As would be making software illegal needed to make these personal use backups.

Are you sure that the law would define that software CD as your property? You mentioned the license, so I doubt it, but if it does, well, that's great. And I expect that would probably kill the market for proprietary software. Regardless, I don't see how this helps you until you get an affirmative ruling that this is what it means in this particular case.

Originally posted by kailhun
Speaking of voting: If the Merkins are so powerful and can indirectly influence the way The Netherlands should be governed (which they can and do), shouldn't the Dutch people get to vote on who the Merkin Prez. should be? Under the same conditions as a state? 'We live in a democarcy' after all. So how many 'electoral votes' does a state with 17 million people get?

17 million people? Lessee... New York has 18 mill, so that would give you just under 31 House representatives and 2 Senators. 33 Electoral votes. Wanna join up?

[sophist]

OWNERSHIP; COPYRIGHT: Title to the Software and the Documentation, and patents, copyrights and all other property rights applicable thereto, shall at all times remain solely and exclusively with Infogrames Interactive and its licensors, and You shall not take any action inconsistent with such title.The Software and the Documentation are protected by United States,Canadian and other applicable laws and by international treaty provisions. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved to Infogrames Interactive and its licensors.


1) Infogrames owns this bizitch
2) You can't do nothin' with it unless they tell you that you can

So we get to:


OTHER RESTRICTIONS: You may not cause or permit the disclosure, copying, renting, licensing, sublicensing, leasing, dissemination or other distribution of the Software or the Documentation by any means or in any form, without the prior written consent of Infogrames Interactive. You may not modify, enhance, supplement, create derivative work from, adapt, translate, reverse engineer,decompile,disassemble or otherwise reduce the Software to human readable form.


Further up in the same document is


LIMITED LICENSE:You are entitled to download or install, and operate this Software solely for your own personal use, but may not sell or transfer reproductions of the Software or Documentation to other parties in any way.You may download or install, and operate one copy of the Software on a single terminal connected to a single computer.You may not network the Software or otherwise use it on more than one computer or computer terminal at the same time.


That's pretty clear. It does not say anything about allowing you a backup. Everyone here who has made such a backup has violated the license agreement ("You may not cause... the ... copying... of the software."). I don't know how broad "cause" is, but it could also include telling people how to make such unauthorized copies. I don't want this to be how this works, but it is. Pretending otherwise will solve nothing. I plan on making a backup because I don't want to be left in the lurch if my CD gets scratched, but I'm going to do it knowing what it means.

[kailhun]

Originally posted by sophist


Are you sure that the law would define that software CD as your property? You mentioned the license, so I doubt it, but if it does, well, that's great. And I expect that would probably kill the market for proprietary software. Regardless, I don't see how this helps you until you get an affirmative ruling that this is what it means in this particular case.

When you buy a book, music cd or computer program you are buying two things: the carrier (paper, cd, floppy whatever) and the right to use the interllectual material (read the story, listen to the music, run the software).The subject of this discussion is the latter. This right is a piece of property and is protected as such by the aforementioned art. 1.

17 million people? Lessee... New York has 18 mill, so that would give you just under 31 House representatives and 2 Senators. 33 Electoral votes. Wanna join up?

Wow, 33 electoral votes. That would make us one of the biggies right? As to joining. Would you really want a state that is on the way to legalizing drugs, and makes the ownership of guns illegal? (public interest exception of art. 1 apllies here I think.).

Robert

[kailhun]

Originally posted by sophist
OWNERSHIP; COPYRIGHT: Title to the Software and the Documentation, and patents, copyrights and all other property rights applicable thereto, shall at all times remain solely and exclusively with Infogrames Interactive and its licensors, and You shall not take any action inconsistent with such title.The Software and the Documentation are protected by United States,Canadian and other applicable laws and by international treaty provisions. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved to Infogrames Interactive and its licensors.


1) Infogrames owns this bizitch
2) You can't do nothin' with it unless they tell you that you can

a. Just because the contract says something does not mean they're right.
b. Not all contractual provisions are as solid when held up to the cold light of the law.
c. Infogrames has sold you the right to use the game. That is not mentioned above and that is what we're talking about here. It would be odd if Infogrames could sell something and still retain ownership. That right you own. It's all yours.

So we get to:


OTHER RESTRICTIONS: You may not cause or permit the disclosure, copying, renting, licensing, sublicensing, leasing, dissemination or other distribution of the Software or the Documentation by any means or in any form, without the prior written consent of Infogrames Interactive. You may not modify, enhance, supplement, create derivative work from, adapt, translate, reverse engineer,decompile,disassemble or otherwise reduce the Software to human readable form.

In so far that this restriction is in violation of art. 1 of the Convention, it is non-applicable (the restriction that is, not art.1).

Further up in the same document is


LIMITED LICENSE:You are entitled to download or install, and operate this Software solely for your own personal use, but may not sell or transfer reproductions of the Software or Documentation to other parties in any way.You may download or install, and operate one copy of the Software on a single terminal connected to a single computer.You may not network the Software or otherwise use it on more than one computer or computer terminal at the same time.

See previous remark. The law is of higher rank than a contract and a treaty is of higher rank than a law. So a treaty could set aside a law and a law could set aside a contractual provision.

That's pretty clear. It does not say anything about allowing you a backup. Everyone here who has made such a backup has violated the license agreement ("You may not cause... the ... copying... of the software."). I don't know how broad "cause" is, but it could also include telling people how to make such unauthorized copies. I don't want this to be how this works, but it is. Pretending otherwise will solve nothing. I plan on making a backup because I don't want to be left in the lurch if my CD gets scratched, but I'm going to do it knowing what it means.

Doesn't need to allow you. Your right to protect your property (right to use the software) allows you to backup a cd for personal use. Any law or contractual provision that infringes on this right is non-applicable.

I also know what it means. We are however in disagreement on the legal position.

Robert

[ElitePersian]

Is it gonna be possible to apply the upcoming patch if im using the NO-CD crack?
cause i did a full install with the CD and i lost the CD itself and i didnt make any backup copies.
im worried this will be a problem.

[Dire Wolf]

No, the No-CD 'patch' will not work with any updated executables. Most No-CD patches perform a CRC16/32 check on the executable before attempting to apply the patch. If it didn't, you'd probably end up with a useless/broken executable.

BTW How the hell do you lose a CD so quickly? You know how many times I've heard that? "I installed xxx program and then lost the CD," or "I installed xxx but can't find my serial number! Please give me yours." etc.

When I was younger, I'll admit that I bought some software from someone who used to make copies of games like Zork, Ultima, etc. At the time game software was very new (we are talking early 80s) and since I was only 12 at the time I didn't know any better.

In my teens I'd download a warez game to try it out. If I liked it, I'd go out and buy a legal copy. Back then there were no stores that allowed you to return software and it was opened. Back then it was easy to copy games so it kind of made sense.

Now that I write software, I find my outlook on copyright-laws to be a bit different. I strongly dislike warez. Most game developers put a lot of hard work into their products and deserve to make money. Alas, there seems to be many publishing houses/game developers that rush their products to market. Who really protects the consumer from these wrong-doers? n the software industry it seems we focus so much attention on protecting the "corporation" that we forget about the "consumer."

For instance, in the automotive industry, if Ford sold a model of car that had defective brakes (or tires), no one would dispute that they'd be liable for a lawsuit. But what of the publisher/developer that releases a half-finished product full of obvious bugs? Sure software has bugs; software is too complex to be completely bug free. Still, there is a level of acceptability that I measure a product by and quite a few games don't measure up. All too often do we see expensive games released that require a patch or some convoluted hoop-jumping, to make them work. The problem with software is that there is no effective way to rally against unscrupulous publishers/developers. Most people would go to court after spending $20K on an unsafe vehicle but who would really go to court over a $50 game? Granted, there was a court case against Ultima Online but I can't remember what happened there.

Another problem that doesn't sit well with me is when a publisher/developer expects you to buy a copy of a game for each computer that it will run on. Granted, this gripe only applies to game software. In my opinion, if all the computers are located in the same residence, that game should be allowed to run on any number of computers at the same time. My wife and I enjoy playing LAN games together. Considering the lack of quality and life-expectancy of most games, who would really want to buy two copies? As I already stated, non-entertainment software such as word processors, operating systems, etc should require separate licensing. The difference with this software is that they are long term use (typically used for longer than 6 months.)

The software industry is cracking down on piracy. I think "we" should also be cracking down on them. It seems the law is all for software companies, even when they are in the wrong. So who will protect the consumer?

BTW I'm in no way attacking Firaxis here. My frustration is more directed at developers like Cornered Rat Studios, makers of the bug-filled, virtually non-playable World War 2 Online.

[dr.charm]

In defense of Cornered Rat - are you saying that frisbee isn't a fun game

More seriously, whatever happened to spawning? AoE had it, so did at least Starcraft. That solves the problem beautifully, shame no one does it anymore. If I want to LAN I will seek out a no-cd crack so that I can play the game I purchased with a friend.

Cheers,

Dr. Charm

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by Raleigh
Although I can't dispense legal advice as a lawyer (at least not for another 12 months) I think that general US copyright law permits the copying of software for "backup" purposes.

However, an individual contract might be able to modify that general provision (that's where I am unclear). In theory this means that as long as Infrogames doesn't forbid such copying it is legal. In any event, even if their contract forbid it, you probably would only be liable commercially not criminally as long as you did not distribute the copy.

Exactly, creating a personal backup for your own use is legal I believe, but there is no law preventing a publishing company from doing something to the cd to make it hard to copy. (this is normal with most software in the US and I presume with this game, but don't take my word for it.)

[ElitePersian]

Are you saying im LYING? FYI i DID buy the damn CD and payed 70 bucks for it, i bought the stupid LE and im dead broke, and i lent the CD to my friend and he lost it, and now i cant even get the damn patch.
I dont know what i can do.

[sophist]

Originally posted by kailhun

When you buy a book, music cd or computer program you are buying two things: the carrier (paper, cd, floppy whatever) and the right to use the interllectual material (read the story, listen to the music, run the software).The subject of this discussion is the latter. This right is a piece of property and is protected as such by the aforementioned art. 1.

There is an army of lawyers that will differ with you on that. You are not buying the medium. I am absolutely certain that is the way it works in the United States based on having read other similar license agreements and some of the relevant law (not just the laws, but cases and explanations). Try looking at it this way: suppose civ3 were only available as a download? Should that change its legal status? In that case you get nothing physical at all.

Originally posted by kailhun
Wow, 33 electoral votes. That would make us one of the biggies right? As to joining. Would you really want a state that is on the way to legalizing drugs, and makes the ownership of guns illegal? (public interest exception of art. 1 apllies here I think.).
Robert

Well, c'mon over. But I think I'm in the minority here. Besides, the corruption all the way across the ocean would be killer. Best to wait until the patch comes out. Although we could use those luxuries....

[sophist]

Originally posted by kailhun


a. Just because the contract says something does not mean they're right.
b. Not all contractual provisions are as solid when held up to the cold light of the law.
c. Infogrames has sold you the right to use the game. That is not mentioned above and that is what we're talking about here. It would be odd if Infogrames could sell something and still retain ownership. That right you own. It's all yours.

a) true. there are many contracts that have clauses that are superseded by state and national laws in the United States. This, however, is not one of them

b) I know of no challenge to this sort of contract that has held up.

c) You agree that Infogrames has sold the right to use the game, not the game itself. They determine how you are allowed to use it. They retain ownership; you've just paid for certain privileges. You pay rent on a flat; does that make it yours? You can make the argument that it's an ongoing payment structure... so? The Brits paid China for a 99 or 150 year lease on Hong Kong, but that doesn't mean they owned it. You didn't buy the product. You bought a license of the product. Buying the product to do whatever you wished with it would cost millions of dollars. Clearly you did not do that.

Originally posted by kailhun
In so far that this restriction is in violation of art. 1 of the Convention, it is non-applicable (the restriction that is, not art.1).

But it's not your property, so that article does not apply.

Originally posted by kailhun
Doesn't need to allow you. Your right to protect your property (right to use the software) allows you to backup a cd for personal use. Any law or contractual provision that infringes on this right is non-applicable.

It's still not your property. Very few things are bought and sold like software, so it's tough to come up with good analogies. Hmmm... how about a driver's license? That gives you the right to drive on public roads. But it doesn't mean you can do anything you want with a car. And you don't own the license; the state can revoke it at any time.

Distinctions that people seem to be missing: a license is not the same thing as ownership. Being allowed to do something by the law is not the same thing as barring non-legal means that prevent you from doing that. I'll repeat it one more time: You own nothing but a license, which is an abstract concept defined by your End User License Agreement. You don't necessarily own the physical medium itself, but that doesn't matter. If you own a book, that doesn't mean you can do what you like with the contents (distribution, for example). You may own the book, but you don't own the information in it. This is a subtle but important distinction. If you truly owned the CD and all information on it, it would be perfectly legal for you to distribute it, modify it, reverse-engineer it, etc. When companies buy software, rather than buying licenses, they pay lots of money. They buy ownership. They buy the rights. They do not get a license restricting what they can do because they are the owners. You are not the owner of the software. You purchased a license which defines what you can and cannot do with the CD-ROM bearing the software (and the other materials). Some of those restrictions are superseded by laws in your area, but I would seriously doubt there's a law that states that Infogrames cannot make that impossible with technological means.

The entire proprietary software industry is based on selling licenses that have a subset of ownership rights. They sell some rights and keep others from you. That's how it works. If you don't like that, well, there are several things you can do. 1) You can boycott the software. 2) You can lobby for changes in the law. 3) You can use a Free Software alternative. If you seriously think that you have the right to make a backup copy, call up Infogrames and ask them. When they say you don't, call up a lawyer. He'll also say you don't. Sorry.

[Acemo]

Originally posted by Simple Girl
use weak sectors amplifier in latest clone cd version, then you can use usual burners

Even with the amplify weak sectors on, I am not able to make a backup. Would you be able to provide all the Clone CD settings that you used?

[kailhun]

Originally posted by barefootbadass


Exactly, creating a personal backup for your own use is legal I believe, but there is no law preventing a publishing company from doing something to the cd to make it hard to copy. (this is normal with most software in the US and I presume with this game, but don't take my word for it.)

Normal doesn't make it legal.

Robert

[kailhun]

Originally posted by sophist


There is an army of lawyers that will differ with you on that. You are not buying the medium. I am absolutely certain that is the way it works in the United States based on having read other similar license agreements and some of the relevant law (not just the laws, but cases and explanations). Try looking at it this way: suppose civ3 were only available as a download? Should that change its legal status? In that case you get nothing physical at all.

I'd say that you are buying the medium. That CD, the plastic and the silvery stuff (whatever a CD is amde), is yours.
If it was purely downloadable it would change nothing about the right to use the program. The Cd is simply a way to gain access to the software for which you have bought a right to use. Downloading it is simply another way. I for example have bought Homesite 4 this way. But i copied that onto two harddisks and a zip and wrote down the serial number (need that to install it).
I should be allowed to copy Civ III in the same way so that if one copy of the program gets damaged, I still have another lying around so that I can still use the right that I have bought to use the program. The medium involved in gaining access to software (Cd, floppy, download) should not interfere with my right to use the rights I have bought.
Therefore I should be able to copy Civ III regardless of the fact that the medium that has been used has been sabotaged so that I can not guarantee myself the use of the software.


A point I haven't addressed before is that I realise that removing copy-protection may not be in the best interest of the exploiter Infogrames. However copy-protection is not in the interest of the gamer/consumer. As the situation now stands practice is tilted against the gamer/consumer (and illegally so IMO). It is this that I protest to.
Because computer-companies such as Infogrames disregard the interest and rights of gamers, copy-protection is illegal and the fact that copy-protection doesn't work against pirating (IMO all that, of course, I am stating that copy-protection must be removed and that infogrames could succesfully be taken to court on that account (if anyone had the time/money to do so, and could be bothered; myself I'd rather be playing civ III).

Robert

[kailhun]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by sophist


a) true. there are many contracts that have clauses that are superseded by state and national laws in the United States. This, however, is not one of them[QUOTE]

Yes it is.

b) I know of no challenge to this sort of contract that has held up.

Nor have I. But nearly no-one has tried. Never on this basis. And there's a first time for everything.
Untill the early 80's hardly anyone had heard of the Convention on Humand rights. But it was picked up and has had a major impact on every European legal system since then with articles 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (Right to a fair trial) and 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) in the lead. Having to take human rights into account has become a serious headache for governments here as these articles can be applied in any court directly.

c) You agree that Infogrames has sold the right to use the game, not the game itself. They determine how you are allowed to use it. They retain ownership; you've just paid for certain privileges. You pay rent on a flat; does that make it yours? You can make the argument that it's an ongoing payment structure... so? The Brits paid China for a 99 or 150 year lease on Hong Kong, but that doesn't mean they owned it. You didn't buy the product. You bought a license of the product. Buying the product to do whatever you wished with it would cost millions of dollars. Clearly you did not do that.

The flat is not mine, but the right to live there is (bought and paid for). It is mine, mine, all mine and cannot be interfered with regardless of contractual provisions.
Infogrames owns the game but has sold me a right to use it. That right is mine, mine, all mine and cannot be interfered with regardless of contractual provisions.

Okay, perhaps not as strictly as I have formulated above. A contract can hold certains provisions that limit the use I can make of rights. Not even the right of ownership is absolute. The interest of others can limit my use. But my interests have to be taken into account as well. The seller does not have carte blanche to dictate to me what I can and cannot do.
As the copy-protection and 'Thou shallst not copy' provisions interfere with my right to protect my right to use software that i have bought (it is the right ot use I have bought, not the software itself), it is illegal. The provision is null and void, non-applicable or the application is limited and the copy-protection must be removed.

But it's not your property, so that article does not apply.

Yes it is.

It's still not your property. Very few things are bought and sold like software, so it's tough to come up with good analogies. Hmmm... how about a driver's license? That gives you the right to drive on public roads. But it doesn't mean you can do anything you want with a car. And you don't own the license; the state can revoke it at any time.

While I have that right is it protected under art. 1 of the Convention. My right to drive can be revoked by revoking the license (which just gives the right to drive). But the public interest exception applies here.

Distinctions that people seem to be missing: a license is not the same thing as ownership. Being allowed to do something by the law is not the same thing as barring non-legal means that prevent you from doing that. I'll repeat it one more time: You own nothing but a license, which is an abstract concept defined by your End User License Agreement. You don't necessarily own the physical medium itself, but that doesn't matter. If you own a book, that doesn't mean you can do what you like with the contents (distribution, for example). You may own the book, but you don't own the information in it. This is a subtle but important distinction. If you truly owned the CD and all information on it, it would be perfectly legal for you to distribute it, modify it, reverse-engineer it, etc. When companies buy software, rather than buying licenses, they pay lots of money. They buy ownership. They buy the rights. They do not get a license restricting what they can do because they are the owners. You are not the owner of the software. You purchased a license which defines what you can and cannot do with the CD-ROM bearing the software (and the other materials). Some of those restrictions are superseded by laws in your area, but I would seriously doubt there's a law that states that Infogrames cannot make that impossible with technological means.

The entire proprietary software industry is based on selling licenses that have a subset of ownership rights. They sell some rights and keep others from you. That's how it works. If you don't like that, well, there are several things you can do. 1) You can boycott the software. 2) You can lobby for changes in the law. 3) You can use a Free Software alternative. If you seriously think that you have the right to make a backup copy, call up Infogrames and ask them. When they say you don't, call up a lawyer. He'll also say you don't. Sorry.

We are talking about the right to use here. That's it. That is what you buy. I am saying that a bought right to use is protected by art. 1 of the Convention. I am also saying that the seller does not get to decide unilaterally what a buyer can and cannot do with the software. There must be an effective use left (This is not art. 1 stuff, but contract law).
To protect this right to use a buyer must be allowed to make personal backup copies of the software so that he maintains access to the software should his copy become damaged in some way. The right to use does not end (and can IMO not legally end) if the medium used to 'transport' the software becomes damaged.
Right to use->right to maintain access->personal backup copies.
The right to use is property and therefore prtoectd by art. 1, which means that the right to maintain access and the right to make backup copies are also protected by article 1.

As to what lawyers say. The law is adaptive and flexible. It changes all the time. It may not be legal opinion now (mainly because it has never been seriously defended from this angle), but that can change.

Hm, perhaps I should see about writing an article on this.

Robert

[sophist]

Originally posted by kailhun

The flat is not mine, but the right to live there is (bought and paid for). It is mine, mine, all mine and cannot be interfered with regardless of contractual provisions.
Infogrames owns the game but has sold me a right to use it. That right is mine, mine, all mine and cannot be interfered with regardless of contractual provisions.

Well, the right to live there can be interpreted different ways.

Looking at it from another angle... The landlord owns the flat. But he does not own anything in it (assuming unfurnished). He does not own your computer, your desk, or your books (especially not the words in those books!). While he can do anything he wants with the flat itself (so long as it doesn't interfere unreasonably with your right to live there), he cannot do as he wishes with your possessions. Similarly, I submit, even if you do own the physical medium (which I do not grant), you do not have the right do what you wish with its contents; what you can do is strictly specified by the contract/EULA that governs the use of the contents of the CD, manual, etc.

Originally posted by kailhun
But my interests have to be taken into account as well. The seller does not have carte blanche to dictate to me what I can and cannot do.
As the copy-protection and 'Thou shallst not copy' provisions interfere with my right to protect my right to use software that i have bought (it is the right ot use I have bought, not the software itself), it is illegal. The provision is null and void, non-applicable or the application is limited and the copy-protection must be removed.

True. However, the legal system (caveats: as far as I know, in the US and probably in the EU, though to a lesser degree) allows the software publisher to define the extent of your right to use the software. You do not define what falls under the right to use.

Originally posted by kailhun
We are talking about the right to use here. That's it. That is what you buy. I am saying that a bought right to use is protected by art. 1 of the Convention. I am also saying that the seller does not get to decide unilaterally what a buyer can and cannot do with the software.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. First you say you purchased ownership of the media, and now you're saying you purchased a right. How can a right be property? It seems to me that the two things are completely different and therefore is not covered under Article 1 of said Convention.

I agree the publisher does not completely dictate your rights; however, the denial of your free right to copy is one that is allowed the copyright holder. Hence the term copyright: they determine who gets to copy the medium and in what manner they can do so. Of course there are certain guaranteed rights, but the right to copy is not such an affirmative right with regards to software (which is a new and grey area, but the law is conservative).

Originally posted by kailhun
To protect this right to use a buyer must be allowed to make personal backup copies of the software so that he maintains access to the software should his copy become damaged in some way. The right to use does not end (and can IMO not legally end) if the medium used to 'transport' the software becomes damaged.
Right to use->right to maintain access->personal backup copies.
The right to use is property and therefore prtoectd by art. 1, which means that the right to maintain access and the right to make backup copies are also protected by article 1.

Aha! See, here you branch into what should be. I totally agree that this is the way things should be. However, the legal system is on the side of the copyright holder in this case. I don't like it anymore than you do (possibly even less!). I want to convince you that the reality is the way I claim it is so that you will be more effective at fighting it. I'm not arguing that this is a good thing; all I'm saying is that this is the way it is.

Originally posted by kailhun
As to what lawyers say. The law is adaptive and flexible. It changes all the time. It may not be legal opinion now (mainly because it has never been seriously defended from this angle), but that can change.

The law is not that flexible. Especially not when the lawmakers are on the side of the guys with the money. If the law were that flexible, what's the point of law?

[redstar1]

Why wouldn't you have the right to make backup copies? As a previous poster has said you purchased a licence to use the software. Infogrames supply the software on CD, packaged nicely in a little box with some documentation on usage/requirements of the software. I would imagine they cannot then object if you decide to transfer the software (which you have purchased the right to use) onto your harddrive for safe keeping, or onto 8mm tape if you wanted. I can't see it making any difference to them. If however you give your backup to someone else, then you are breaking your licence agreement.

I've had a warez copy of Civ3, still do somewhere, but I purchased my licence to use Civ3 and I have the cd backed up and neatly stored in the little box it origionally came in. Good job too since I left the origional cd in work over the weekend.....

Dave

[redstar1]

Originally posted by ElitePersian
Are you saying im LYING? FYI i DID buy the damn CD and payed 70 bucks for it, i bought the stupid LE and im dead broke, and i lent the CD to my friend and he lost it, and now i cant even get the damn patch.
I dont know what i can do.

Ah, you 'lent' the CD to your friend... presumably with the intention that he should play it? Therefore you have reneged on the licence you agreed with and therefore forego the legal right to play the game.

Dave

[kittenOFchaos]

With friends like that who needs enemies?



I certainly will be copying my civ3 cd for backup...having paid for LE to be shipped it, I don't feel I "owe" it to anyone at Firaxis or Infogram to give them another load of cash should my cd turn defective, be damaged or get lost/stolen.

I won't be giving it to friends, nor selling it as that clearly IS in breach of copyright as it allows more than one user to use the software having only one sale been made (if this was allowed computer game publishing would die off!).

I wonder though, are you allowed to make copies to give to members of your family e.g little brothers and the like so they can play at the same time as you...

I think I'll use my disgression and wonder if any nice police officers turn up (though at home the police are forever turning up as we are continuously getting broken into! just wait till I get home from university to protect our property again)

[ElitePersian]

Originally posted by redstar1


Ah, you 'lent' the CD to your friend... presumably with the intention that he should play it? Therefore you have reneged on the licence you agreed with and therefore forego the legal right to play the game.

Dave

Umm.....NO, i lent it to him so he could try it out to see whether he likes to decide whether to buy his own copy. and he ended up losing it on the bus. so im using the NO-CD crack now, but i dont think i'll be able to apply the patch with this NO-CD crack, unless they release an updated version of the crack...right?

[redstar1]

Originally posted by ElitePersian


Umm.....NO, i lent it to him so he could try it out to see whether he likes to decide whether to buy his own copy. and he ended up losing it on the bus. so im using the NO-CD crack now, but i dont think i'll be able to apply the patch with this NO-CD crack, unless they release an updated version of the crack...right?

Ummmm, so you lent it to him so he could play the game. He could easily have gotten the NO-CD crack as well..... Of course people do this all the time and Infogrames aren't going to do anything about it but we are debating what we are legally entitled to do having agreed to the licence by installing the game. You my friend, whether you intended to or not, have broken your licence agreement with Infogrames and consequently no longer have the right to play the game. So its a good job your friend 'lost' your cd, though i bet he knows where it is. Get him to buy you a new one, re-install and hey presto, a new licence agreement.

Dave

[sophist]

You don't have the right because:
1) they say you cannot copy it. now, that may be subject to being overridden by various laws, but
2) they utilize a copy protection device, and any method of backing up the CD involves circumventing this copy protection device, which is illegal under the DMCA.

They can object. They probably won't object... But laws are funny things. Every now and then they decide they should be enforced. Granted, enforcement of that aspect on you is impractical, but it is not impractical to send a cease-and-desist to Apolyton (making them take this thread down with its handy info) or gamecopyworld or whoever else tells people how to make backup copies, because those copies could be used for Evil. That's the problem. It's not that they're mean and don't want you to have backups. It's that the same way used to protect you can also be used to defraud them. Given the choice between losing money to stolen software and losing money to unhappy consumers, they chose the former. And rightly (strictly from a financial perspective), too, as I don't see anyone not buying the game legitimately because it's not readily copyable (yeah, there's all that information up there on how to do it, but 95% of people wouldn't know that).

Originally posted by redstar1
Why wouldn't you have the right to make backup copies? As a previous poster has said you purchased a licence to use the software. Infogrames supply the software on CD, packaged nicely in a little box with some documentation on usage/requirements of the software. I would imagine they cannot then object if you decide to transfer the software (which you have purchased the right to use) onto your harddrive for safe keeping, or onto 8mm tape if you wanted. I can't see it making any difference to them. If however you give your backup to someone else, then you are breaking your licence agreement.

[redstar1]

Originally posted by sophist
You don't have the right because:
1) they say you cannot copy it. now, that may be subject to being overridden by various laws, but
2) they utilize a copy protection device, and any method of backing up the CD involves circumventing this copy protection device, which is illegal under the DMCA.

This has been discussed before and it contravenes European Law. To my knowledge the DMCA is an American law and the european equivalent (EUCD) and the UK Copyright, Design and Patents act 1988 allow copyright holders to protect against piracy but make no allowance nor hinderance to copies for personal use.

Of course any copy can be used for Evil. Thats the unfortunate reality of the current way we procure and use software. Publishers are to a certain degree trusting us not to pirate the intellectual property we buy the right to use. However, just because someone else might copy a cd to sell to his mates at school doesn't, and shouldn't mean that I can't make a copy of Civ3, or Windows2000 etc in case something foul should befall the origional media. I recall a story from my University days where a colleague had purchased a student licence to use Cold Fusion for a multimedia project. Due to the Uni computer system he had to install it every time he wanted to use it. His bag got stolen with the CD in it. Allaire refused to believe he was a customer and charged him another £65 or so to send out another CD. Fact is they knew he was a customer as they sent him the same activation key. Now I'm not suggesting Infogrames would be guilty of this but I refuse to be held to ransom, or to be inconvenienced should the media they sold me fail.

You are correct. Noone is going to avoid buying the game because it isn't easily copied. The fact that it is difficult to copy can only be a good thing as far as Infogrames is concerned and as far as Firaxis and therefore the loyal civ fans are concerned. I would be perfectly happy and would welcome any measure that removes piracy altogether but I reserve the right to protect my right to use software I have paid for and if that means ensuring I have a working copy of the software on any media I choose then so be it. I don't see how anyone can object to that.

Dave