I would like to copy the CD

[sophist]

Originally posted by redstar1

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.

Yup. But I don't doubt that there are lobbying efforts underway to get the EU's laws to be similar. Here's hoping they fail.

So does this mean that you can sue Infogrames in Europe for violation of the above laws? I sure hope it does.... Just because piracy is a problem doesn't justify them shoving a broken solution down our throats.

Originally posted by redstar1

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.

And nobody would object if there was a way to discriminate between you and the unscrupulous pirate (as you know). But until that happens, you and I are SOL. Well, not really, but things aren't as they should be.

[redstar1]

Originally posted by sophist


Yup. But I don't doubt that there are lobbying efforts underway to get the EU's laws to be similar. Here's hoping they fail.

So does this mean that you can sue Infogrames in Europe for violation of the above laws? I sure hope it does.... Just because piracy is a problem doesn't justify them shoving a broken solution down our throats.

I'm sure there probably are. Chances are they will fail. The EU commissioners are a funny lot. The EU is also by its very existance anti-American and so tend to do things the opposite way (sometimes for the better, sometimes the worse) than the US.

Infogrames aren't breaking any laws by providing copy protection. It is their right to protect their intellectual property from theft. As I mentioned the law makes no help nor hindrance to me or you making personal copies therefore whether or not we physically can is entirely up to us.

And nobody would object if there was a way to discriminate between you and the unscrupulous pirate (as you know). But until that happens, you and I are SOL. Well, not really, but things aren't as they should be.

Of course not. Things are never as they should be until something gets done. I can't see anyone taking this up as a cause as its matters very little in the long run. Infogrames probably don't care if you make a copy for yourself but they have to try and protect themselves with CP measures and cover themselves with the terms of the licence. They aren't going to come out and say 'Yeah, its ok really' either.

The fact that a lot of people believe the product is substandard and unfinished is another issue, and one that has been ongoing for a long time. Hopefully the advent of the xbox and the seeming inability to easily patch games will bring a bit more sense to the industry.

Dave

[Nadexander]

Originally posted by kailhun

Not only is it allowed as in not forbidden by any law. It is your right as buyer of software. My right has been infringed by the copyright protection on the CD. Curses. I wish this infringment to stop.

Robert

Actually in the US the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) makes circumventing copy protection (even for your own personal use) illegal. Sucks, dont it? A russian academic was arrested in the US for publishing a paper on how a certain form of copy protection could be circumvented. Around here the government is completely on the side of patent-holders irrespective of who actually has the "right" to what information.

[sophist]

Originally posted by redstar1


I'm sure there probably are. Chances are they will fail. The EU commissioners are a funny lot. The EU is also by its very existance anti-American and so tend to do things the opposite way (sometimes for the better, sometimes the worse) than the US.

Gee, I sure hope that the EU has more reason to exist than as a reaction against the US.

I hope the EU can do the right thing here. They've demonstrated their economic power before where the US government failed (blocking the merger of Sprint and MCI, for example). If they state that this sort of solution is too restrictive of the rights of their people, they might be able to force a change that would benefit us on this side of the pond.

[redstar1]

Originally posted by sophist


Gee, I sure hope that the EU has more reason to exist than as a reaction against the US.

I hope the EU can do the right thing here. They've demonstrated their economic power before where the US government failed (blocking the merger of Sprint and MCI, for example). If they state that this sort of solution is too restrictive of the rights of their people, they might be able to force a change that would benefit us on this side of the pond.

The EU does not exist as a reaction against the US but its existence gives member states and Europe as a whole the ability to take on the US. Things that US companies, probably backed up by the US govt have been getting away with for years are now being questioned and overturned. The price of CDs is a good example. The EU believes that the US does not and never will have European interests at heart (and why should it) and so we all need to work together to ensure that we can compete in the global marketplace.

At the end of the day, its all about the Benjamins

Thankfully the British, Germans and French along with the rest can now sing from the same song sheet and force the US into doing things our way in some cases. Before we were all just a large number of smallish trading partners. Now we are one very large trading partner.

Dave

[kailhun]

Originally posted by sophist


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.

Perhaps, but the contract/EULA is not applicable is so far that it is in violation of higher ranking law.

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.

What falls under right to use is defined by what the parties agree to (in theory; in practice it's mostly what one part unilaterally decides) and by law. I'm saying the law gives you a right to copy in order to maintain access to 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.

You did both: ownership of the plastic and the right to use the software. I'm just saying both aren't linked in the sense that you can only use the right with the medium you bought at the same time in the same contract.

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.

A right is considered property under art. 1. It took me a while to grasp this myself, but it's true.

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.

In dutch it is called 'auteursrecht' (authorsright). By your reasoning that would mean Infogrames can't decide anything and
all rights belong to the author (Firaxis).
It is dangerous to define a legal term on the basis of the meaning it has in daily life. These often differ.

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).

True, very grey and so much conservative but serving the needs/interests of the powerful/rich. I see no reason why the law should be made/interpreted in this way. In interpreting law all interest should be taken into account. Sometimes this means that laws must be changed, but fortunately software-users have art. 1 on their side and my positive interpretation (which is not as weak as you think, even though it's chances are slim; I wouldn't bank on it.).

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.

We agree on what should be. I disagree however that the picture is as bleak as it is ussualy painted. Gamers should not think that they are now safe from prosecution if they get caught with personal backup copies (especially if you have 100 of them in the back of your car). But software companies should not think that they are safe either and that copy-protection will never be acted against by European courts/governments (as the application of art. 1 is limited to member of the Council of Europe.)

The testcase would be if someone were to advertise that they are willing to break every copy-protection to give legal owners copies of their software. Just bring it in and they will copy it for you. Either the system will come crashing down or the courts will enforce the right for software companies to copy-protection. At this moment I'd say the odds are even.

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?

Ah, the eternal debate: should laws be rigid so that all can know the law and application is clear, or should the law be flexible and take into account the concrete situation at hand (omstandigheden van het geval into account)? The Dutch law goes for the latter. The concrete situation can always justify deviation from the law on the grounds of 'justice and equity' (redelijkheid en billijkheid).
SO the flexibilty is there, but not needed. But justice and equity could mean that copy-protection is allowed regardless of art. 1 as it is needed to prevent the software industry from collapsing. For that to succeed the industry would have to show that the lack of copy-protection would lead to a large scale increase in the pirating of software, and that they would not recoup these losses by raising their prices and that this would lead to a collapse of the software industry. Not to mention the fact that it is in the public interest that the software industry remains (after all not allowing slavery would collapse the slavers-industry, but it is not in the public interest to keep slavery so the exception of art. 1 does not apply.).

As to what the point of law is. B******d if I know.


Robert

[Akka]

Originally posted by redstar1


The EU does not exist as a reaction against the US but its existence gives member states and Europe as a whole the ability to take on the US. Things that US companies, probably backed up by the US govt have been getting away with for years are now being questioned and overturned. The price of CDs is a good example. The EU believes that the US does not and never will have European interests at heart (and why should it) and so we all need to work together to ensure that we can compete in the global marketplace.

At the end of the day, its all about the Benjamins

Thankfully the British, Germans and French along with the rest can now sing from the same song sheet and force the US into doing things our way in some cases. Before we were all just a large number of smallish trading partners. Now we are one very large trading partner.

Dave

Don't dream too much on it. For now, the EU is stuck in petty little rivalries with each country trying to get a bigger share. And don't even talk about English being part of the UE they are more able to sink it than to help it.
Well perhaps that a day the Europeans people will be able to grow up and unite themselves, and then to show the world their true power (nearly 50 % more people than USA after all, and in the third first places in nearly all the economic, industry and research points), but until then the US will keep it's place...

[sophist]

I will be one of the first to agree with you that the US needs to be brought down a notch or two. I thought we had a terrible way of dealing with other nations even before September 11 made it obvious.

Originally posted by redstar1

Thankfully the British, Germans and French along with the rest can now sing from the same song sheet and force the US into doing things our way in some cases. Before we were all just a large number of smallish trading partners. Now we are one very large trading partner.

Dave

[sophist]

Originally posted by kailhun

Perhaps, but the contract/EULA is not applicable is so far that it is in violation of higher ranking law.

What falls under right to use is defined by what the parties agree to (in theory; in practice it's mostly what one part unilaterally decides) and by law. I'm saying the law gives you a right to copy in order to maintain access to the software.

Prove it. Over here they are not in violation.

Originally posted by kailhun

In dutch it is called 'auteursrecht' (authorsright). By your reasoning that would mean Infogrames can't decide anything and
all rights belong to the author (Firaxis).
It is dangerous to define a legal term on the basis of the meaning it has in daily life. These often differ.

Actually, I think Infogrames has the copyright. Or they have some partial control over the copyright. It's not the same thing, though. Firaxis granted Infogrames certain rights in exchange for their money and distribution and promotion.

Originally posted by kailhun

True, very grey and so much conservative but serving the needs/interests of the powerful/rich. I see no reason why the law should be made/interpreted in this way. In interpreting law all interest should be taken into account. Sometimes this means that laws must be changed, but fortunately software-users have art. 1 on their side and my positive interpretation (which is not as weak as you think, even though it's chances are slim; I wouldn't bank on it.).

No reason it should be besides that lawyers have been able to convince judges and lobbyists have been able to convince lawmakers that this is the way it should be. That's what you have to fight. Interpreting the law your way might be fun, but it's not practical.

Originally posted by kailhun
We agree on what should be. I disagree however that the picture is as bleak as it is ussualy painted.

It isn't that bleak right now. But things are headed slowly in that direction and it's easier to stop them now, before it becomes the status quo.

Originally posted by kailhun

The testcase would be if someone were to advertise that they are willing to break every copy-protection to give legal owners copies of their software. Just bring it in and they will copy it for you. Either the system will come crashing down or the courts will enforce the right for software companies to copy-protection. At this moment I'd say the odds are even.

In the US, someone who did that would get nailed to the wall faster than you can blink.

Originally posted by kailhun
For that to succeed the industry would have to show that the lack of copy-protection would lead to a large scale increase in the pirating of software, and that they would not recoup these losses by raising their prices and that this would lead to a collapse of the software industry. Not to mention the fact that it is in the public interest that the software industry remains (after all not allowing slavery would collapse the slavers-industry, but it is not in the public interest to keep slavery so the exception of art. 1 does not apply.).

But someone has to make the credible challenge that forces them to justify their actions. Who's going to do that? You? Me? I don't think we have the money.

Check out this website:

http://www.digitalinnovations.com/


I have a Game Doctor and it has repaired not only my damaged game CD's, but also my windows 98 CD. This product sort of negates the need for making backups IMHO. I do agree that the software publishers have way too much legal protection. Consumers have basically no legal recourse when they receive a sub-par software product filled with bugs. Is there even a consumer's rights clause for purchased software?

[sophist]

While convenient, it seems unreasonable for us to have to pay extra money to a third party in order to make a backup. A solution, just not optimal.

Plus it seems like this wouldn't necessarily work in all cases. Suppose you somehow broke your CD. Then you're SOL.

Originally posted by number6
Check out this website:

http://www.digitalinnovations.com/


I have a Game Doctor and it has repaired not only my damaged game CD's, but also my windows 98 CD. This product sort of negates the need for making backups IMHO. I do agree that the software publishers have way too much legal protection. Consumers have basically no legal recourse when they receive a sub-par software product filled with bugs. Is there even a consumer's rights clause for purchased software?

[kailhun]

Originally posted by sophist


Prove it. Over here they are not in violation.

Overe here they are.

Actually, I think Infogrames has the copyright. Or they have some partial control over the copyright. It's not the same thing, though. Firaxis granted Infogrames certain rights in exchange for their money and distribution and promotion.

Infogrames probably does have the copyright.

No reason it should be besides that lawyers have been able to convince judges and lobbyists have been able to convince lawmakers that this is the way it should be. That's what you have to fight. Interpreting the law your way might be fun, but it's not practical.

Laws that violate higher ranking laws are not-applicable. A national law (protecting copy-protection) is in violation of art. 1 (protection of right to use, in my interpretation) and therefore non-applicable in any region where art. 1 applies (which is most of Europe but not the US)

It isn't that bleak right now. But things are headed slowly in that direction and it's easier to stop them now, before it becomes the status quo.

In the US, someone who did that would get nailed to the wall faster than you can blink.

But not as fast as a gay man.

But someone has to make the credible challenge that forces them to justify their actions. Who's going to do that? You? Me? I don't think we have the money.

Very true, that's why this discussion is academic. Nobody will challenge a software company for two reasons:

1. It's too easy to get a copy regardless of copy-protection therefore challenges in court are not needed.

2. Nobody is willing to spend the time, money or effort to challenge Software companies. If a CD gets damaged you can buy a new one or not play the game anymore (enough other games out there).

Robert

[Travathian]

I'd appreciate it if all of you debating the whole copyright thing would please post your legal degrees. Otherwise, shut up. Cause unless you've checked case history, precedence, etc you don't know what you're talking about.

I've read 'A Brief History of Time' by Stephen Hawking, does that make me an astrophysicist? Uh no?

And to try and keep this post from being a total trolling flame . . .

I've noticed everyone mentioning CloneCD to make 'backup' copies. Does no one use anything else? Is this hands down the best software to 'backup' my cds?

[sophist]

Originally posted by kailhun

Overe here they are.

That's not really proof...

Originally posted by kailhun

Laws that violate higher ranking laws are not-applicable. A national law (protecting copy-protection) is in violation of art. 1 (protection of right to use, in my interpretation) and therefore non-applicable in any region where art. 1 applies (which is most of Europe but not the US)

It's like one of them quantum things. Until you actually make a determination, it's not necessarily so. At least when it comes to something as ambiguous and slippery.

[sophist]

And you are....? Nobody asked you to read this thread. You don't need a legal degree to know the law. That's insane.

What case history? What precedence? If we're so ignorant, enlighten us. Otherwise you'll just be another (more-or-less) anonymous Internet poster criticizing without contributing.

Originally posted by Travathian
I'd appreciate it if all of you debating the whole copyright thing would please post your legal degrees. Otherwise, shut up. Cause unless you've checked case history, precedence, etc you don't know what you're talking about.

I've read 'A Brief History of Time' by Stephen Hawking, does that make me an astrophysicist? Uh no?

[sophist]

[duplicate. can't delete for some reason]

[Pachabel]

While it's not illegal to make a backup copy for personal use, in no way under the law are you guaranteed a right to make a copy.

Nice attempt at an extrapolation, though, I suppose.

[greggbert]

If you keep a good secret, and if you're not too rich, or make too much money off it, you can pretty much do anything.

Law enforcement does not have the time to prosecute people making backup copies of their CD Roms, and the Software Publsher's Legal Counsel doesn't have time to sue.

The only way your gonna get busted for copying a CD is

1) You sell it to people publicly.
2) You have or sell or promote a product or service that makes it very easy for people to do it themselves.
3) You are in the process of getting busted for some other, more serious offense, and they want to hold you in jail until they charge you for that one.

[sophist]

Originally posted by Pachabel
While it's not illegal to make a backup copy for personal use, in no way under the law are you guaranteed a right to make a copy.

Stated far more succinctly than I did.


Greggbert: all true, but it's offensive that these laws even exist. And you never know when they'll start enforcing them.