Oops, sorry Guybrush, I really did not mean to offend you in particular.
Even though I do think the topic was not that interesting (hence my first phrase), the rest of my comment was not really to your attention. As I don't recall being annoyed by your attitude in your post, you did not seem so much as a "smart ass".
But hey, as you noticed I'm a smart ass too.
I just think this piracy's monologues don't really belong here.
I shouldn't have replied at all (I knew that but I'm too much^of a big mouth for that too happen)^^.
But Really Guybrush, I was not really aiming my reply at you.
Sorry
No problem dude. I misunderstood
I think this thread has really ran out of control now, guess it's a matter of time before it gets closed. It started as a "protect TOMI" and became too serious and political / philosophical. I should stop opening threads on tricky arguments like this.
I download games for my PSP and DS. I do this because I wish there were demos for them and since this is not the case, it's the only way I can see if I like them before I purchase (which I also do). I don't have this problem for my 360 since most games have demos and there's only a few games I'm interested in.
If you've got a Wii connected to the internet you can use the Nintendo Channel to download DS demos that are transmitted via Wi-Fi directly to your DS.
If you've got a Wii connected to the internet you can use the Nintendo Channel to download DS demos the will be transmitted via Wi-Fi directly to your DS.
I think he need a DSI. Ds doesn't have that feauture but I am not sure
Applying excessive DRM, copy protection, or whatever tag you want to give to the infringement of consumer rights does absolutely nothing positive for a game, developer or publisher.
Having a serial key or using your telltale account to register the game is adequate enough. Anti-piracy measures are worse than useless and some people will pirate even if developers were giving their game away. DRM just creates animosity and bad feeling, which fuels piracy more.
Much better to create a good relationship with the people who will actually pay than punish them for the sake of imaginary lost sales.
Speaking of Nintendo DS and piracy I just read that there was a fake leak of Dragon Quest IX which bricks your DS by overwriting firmware which is actually kind of funny.
The malware,virus,trojan can be powerful allies when combating piracy though it is a little too dark side of the force to actually use :P. I agree with some of the other posters though about it not making a huge difference. I think telltale has established themselves as a pretty respected company. Most people don't mind paying for something of quality.
People who really actually care about the game won't pirate it.
Actually I do both. I buy it and use the purchased game to play, but I get a cracked copy as a backup just in case TTG disappears. I know they say they will release a DRM free version of their games if they leave the business, but I want to make sure 20 years from now, I can still play it.
TTG's DRM is pretty painless. For other companies, I have to use the cracked version, instead of my purchased version so I (as a loyal purchaser) am not annoyed by the copy protection.
His anti-copyright views are based on an extreme-left-wing/communist "anti-copyright" ideal and this is well known, all I'm doing is stating a fact. "Copyright" is a right-wing ideal. It's the belief that when someone creates something themselves they have the right to sell their work for profit and to control how it is manufactured/released. Calling me a fascist does not change that quantifiable fact. I believe - strongly - that the person who creates something has the right to sell it for profit. That's believing in copyright.
How do you reconcile this absurd statement with my support of private property rights?
Maybe you should look up "libertarianism" sometime, that is if you're done with your 'beliefs' and want some actual information.
Yes, it is modified. Recompiled microcode is not the same bit pattern as the original code. It does not (usually) change the intended results of the program but it is none the less a change, just as a translation into another language would be a change to a novel. And as you yourself just said, if you signed a typical EULA you have a contract saying you will not modify those instructions. Violating that is breaking a contract, not copyright law. If the code is unencrypted and you can manage to the the code in runnable form without signing an EULA you are not breaking any law by flipping bits on your HDD to your hearts content.
Right, and if you take into account that the task scheduler has to break up your program into code blocks and execute it 'not-as-intended' in order to facilitate multitasking and multiprocessing (for those of us with multiple cores) the argument falls apart completely.
The code can never 'execute as intended', because as savy computer users will know, computers all have different hardware, and much of this hardware likes to (or must) interrupt the program flow frequently to modify memory -- in order to keep your hardware responding.
And if it is accepted that the system must break up the code into blocks and run it intermittently with other code, all of which uses the same system resources, then it becomes absolutely inevitable that you will be running 'modified code' most of which will be readily flipping bits in memory.
Anyway, it was an interesting argument, and I'm glad people are so passionate about making sure Telltale gets their dues -- This IMHO, is the most compelling reason why copyright is unnecessary.
Don't copy that floppy! In 1992 they were claiming software piracy would ruin the industry. Since then it's exploded to become some 80% of all internet traffic, and yet the industry is the largest it's ever been, and growing at an increasing rate.
Hate to break it to most of you, but Yandros is pretty much dead on with the vast majority of his copyright law information.
No he's not. He's taken one thing out of context. A Computer program is still protected under copyright, and the owner retains all rights to that program. You can't copy it without authorization, and you can't distribute it without authorization. You can modify it yourself on your own PC but that's about the extent to what you can legally do with it under the law amounts to. You certainly can't modify it ("crack it") and then distribute it on the internet, that's against the law.
Copyright holders have the exclusive right to use/distribute their work, and can authorise/prohibit others to use/distribute their work. I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't matter that "LaunchOfTheScreamingNarwhal_Setup.exe" is/contains a demo, TellTale still have the right to write me a cease-and-desist letter for distributing it. They own the copyright to it.
Yes, the code of programs on your hard drive/CD-ROM/floppy/whatever are copied several additional times and modified during the regular course of simple execution (i.e. running) of the software.
And this was one thing that was tested when photocopiers were made legal, and then again with Modchips by the High Court of Australia - in both instances they found that a copy in "RAM" does not constitute creating a copying of the work for legal purposes. That is - if you photocopy something you're not allowed to you can be charged for the photocopy, but not for creating a copy of it within the photocopier's RAM. But of course, being such an expert you already know this.
These layers of mandatory additional copies is why we have EULAs in the first place. Since we have to, by the nature of out computer architechture, have the rights to make further copies beyond the physical disc we purchased it is required that we enter into some for of contractual agreement with the copyright owner. At least that was how one of the initial court rulings hashed out. Particular ins & outs of different aspects of that have changed back and forth over the past 40 years or so.
That's not really the reasoning behind EULA's. Legally, as you well know, it's been tested in many countries in court and demonstrated that copies that exist in RAM do not generally constitute an act of creating a copy, although it's important to remember that it may be used in the process of an act of copying a program.
His point about changing the demo data on his HDD to change it into the full game... he is again, correct. Those bits are his physical property, and if he wants to flip them around basic copyright law can't do anything about that. His newspaper analogy is pretty apt there. The New Yorker can't prevent me from gluing my face onto the cover of my copy of their magazine. Now if that data is encrypted and that encryption provides "effective copy protection" then bypassing that encryption runs into the DMCA restrictions and is illegal. Even if what you want to do with the data is still 100% legal, you are still not allowed to break the encryption. This is probably why TTG put in place their very basic copyright control. By putting even a simple encryption into their game they gain a HUGE additional tool to swing at someone if they do ever need to combat some particular instance of copying.
The DMCA is ONE interpretation of a 1996 WIPO treaty. Basically the way Australia interpreted the treaty was to define a "technological protection measure" (TPM) in such a way that its purpose must be to prevent copying (not for other purposes such as preventing it being used on other systems, etc). The USA interpreted it differently and passed the DMCA which defines a "TPM" as (basically) any piece of technology designed to limit user access to it.
No he's not. He's taken one thing out of context. A Computer program is still protected under copyright, and the owner retains all rights to that program. You can't copy it without authorization, and you can't distribute it without authorization. You can modify it yourself on your own PC but that's about the extent to what you can legally do with it under the law amounts to. You certainly can't modify it ("crack it") and then distribute it on the internet, that's against the law.
You are mistaken.
My argument was that a legally obtained instance of any program code can be modified without breaking the law, regardless of what those modifications are. (Unless the software is obtained by contract.)
I encourage you to re-read my arguments and verify this for yourself.
Actually I do both. I buy it and use the purchased game to play, but I get a cracked copy as a backup just in case TTG disappears. I know they say they will release a DRM free version of their games if they leave the business, but I want to make sure 20 years from now, I can still play it.
TTG's DRM is pretty painless. For other companies, I have to use the cracked version, instead of my purchased version so I (as a loyal purchaser) am not annoyed by the copy protection.
I do this as well. I own all the Telltale games with the exception of Bone (which I have never pirated) and I get them on release day from Telltale. I also have a cracked version of every game as well. I'm just being practical.
Right, and if you take into account that the task scheduler has to break up your program into code blocks and execute it 'not-as-intended' in order to facilitate multitasking and multiprocessing (for those of us with multiple cores) the argument falls apart completely.
I'd certainly wish the task scheduler did that. But last I checked it was up to the programmer to actually split execution into threads and/or launch several processes by hand to make code execute on more than one core in parallel...
And all the task scheduler really does is switch between tasks; it doesn't alter the code any more than an interrupt handler does if you move your mouse.
That said, the problem with "people altering the code" isn't that they're altering it - if you want to do it, grab yourself a debugger and hack away at it, no-one will prevent you from doing that.
It's just that most people instead of doing that use pre-made hacks (i.e. cracks) by other people, and it's sharing those that's the problem. You can change all you want with the code, you're just not entitled to share the changed version.
It's just that most people instead of doing that use pre-made hacks (i.e. cracks) by other people, and it's sharing those that's the problem. You can change all you want with the code, you're just not entitled to share the changed version.
No, you're not. Not even if the "crack" is your own program that modifies a file existing on a person's PC. I thought you said you were an "expert" on copyright law? If you're talking about a DLL file that modifies the program code in RAM then you may be right (as I've previously said that "copy" is not generally governed by the same law as a physical copy) - and there would be many innocent "patches" out there designed to make more use of a program, rather than to pirate it. But it still doesn't mean that it's legal. For instance, and this is just one of a few examples I can think of, the copyright proprietor has the right to release the game on whatever systems they choose. To release a "patch" that modifies the program code to enable it to run natively on another system (for instance, to allow it to run on Linux or Mac or Windows 95, etc) is clearly breaching the copyright proprietor's sovereign right to release the game on that system. Another example would be translations - the translation itself is protected under copyright, even if it doesn't exist. So you cannot write a patch to re-write the dialogue of the game (whether written or spoken) in another language as only the copyright proprietor has the legal right to do that - and as the dialogue itself is copyrighted.
Another example is to make the game run at a higher resolution - now I've patched my own copy of EMI to do that (as well as to run without the CDs), without breaking the law. But I cannot legally distribute it because only LEC has the right to release the game at a higher resolution. I can distribute it anyway, but LEC has the right to send me a cease and desist letter if I do.
I can think of a multitude of reasons why this is important, but here's one. It means that Big Corporation "A" cannot try to thwart their competitor Company "B" by putting patches up on the web that allow their competitor's game to be pirated.
I'm happy to defend your right to do whatever you want to the fullest extent of the law, but you're digging yourself a pretty big hole here by trying to assert that people have the right to distribute program cracks; it just isn't true. Here's one final example I can think of:
Let's say Company "A" uses a program but doesn't wish to license a technology by Company "B" because it's expensive (although it will enhance their program's compatibility and/or efficiency). They think they can get around this by releasing a "patch" that enables their executable to access the code of Company B's DLL file which people can legally obtain themselves from Company B's website. Although writing a patch for their own program this is still illegal because it is trying to avoid licensing. In fact it doesn't matter who wrote the patch, it is still illegal.
No, you're not. Not even if the "crack" is your own program that modifies a file existing on a person's PC. I thought you said you were an "expert" on copyright law? If you're talking about a DLL file that modifies the program code in RAM then you may be right (as I've previously said that "copy" is not generally governed by the same law as a physical copy) - and there would be many innocent "patches" out there designed to make more use of a program, rather than to pirate it. But it still doesn't mean that it's legal.
If I write a software program then I hold the copyright to that program, and your position works against you. Just because a program I write happens to modify another program doesn't make my program illegal. It may be illegal to use in some cases, but it is not illegal to write or share or distribute, provided it does not contain any unauthorized third party code.
I'm happy to defend your right to do whatever you want to the fullest extent of the law, but you're digging yourself a pretty big hole here by trying to assert that people have the right to distribute program cracks
This is self contradictory. If people cannot distribute cracks, which are 100% their own code, then their 'right to copy' their own sovereign work is being violated by what you are claiming is itself copyright law. -- Does copyright law entitle the author to distribute his own, original work or not?
Speaking of Nintendo DS and piracy I just read that there was a fake leak of Dragon Quest IX which bricks your DS by overwriting firmware which is actually kind of funny.
lol i really dont know where you got your facts... but you cant really overite a modern ds' firmware without shorting out a part in the battery.
Yawn, can we get back to topic, which was pirating ToMI.
But if you insist talking about the copyright laws in general I ask you one favour, since copyright legislation is different in every country it would make sense if everyone of you would state about which legal code he/she is talking about. Since Guybrush Threepwood is Italian I assume that he is talking about copyright laws of Italy and the EU. I don't know about which laws Yandros and others are talking about. Although Yandros mentioned Common Law so he is probably from the UK or from some former British colony.
I remember when Zeno Clash (a small-time indie game) released, the developers went on popular torrent/piracy websites and nicely asked the pirates to purchase their game if they liked it. It was definitely a different anti-piracy strategy that a lot of pirates respected. I think they gained some sales from that stunt.
Yep, I tried to talk about pirating TOMI but everything went out of control now.
Obviously, as you said, I was speaking about italian laws.
There are harsh laws against piracy here, although they don't always get applied.
So it's likely that my thoughts about piracy are due to the anti-piracy politics I've always been breathing here.
More DRM is a bad thing. Trust me. What they've got so far is bad enough, but it's bearable.
There's a psychological impact DRM-free stuff has, and that is no one wants to pirate it because they don't feel like they have to. Why do you think GOG is doing so well?
I remember when Zeno Clash (a small-time indie game) released, the developers went on popular torrent/piracy websites and nicely asked the pirates to purchase their game if they liked it. It was definitely a different anti-piracy strategy that a lot of pirates respected. I think they gained some sales from that stunt.
The foundation of copyright law is internationally standardized via a set of treaties (Berne Convention & Universal Copyright Convention). But you are also correct in your objection, because local laws often do have some degree of precedence over copyright law. (Which is partly where my argument comes from.)
America is/was a British colony, and the constitution is a common law document. Common law is pretty standard throughout the anglosphere, partly due to it's necessity for trade, but also due to shared culture.
There's a psychological impact DRM-free stuff has, and that is no one wants to pirate it because they don't feel like they have to.
I would disagree with the statement that no-one wants to pirate DRM-free stuff. Prince of Persia (2008) was reported to be released without DRM, for example, and plenty of people pirated that game. The only people who would feel guilty about pirating a DRM-free game but not others, are the people who started pirating games because they believe they are rebelling against DRM policies. In this case, their excuse for pirating has evaporated.
I believe a DRM-free game would be pirated less than a game with DRM, but most people who pirate games regularly would not think twice about whether a game is DRM-free or not.
This is self contradictory. If people cannot distribute cracks, which are 100% their own code, then their 'right to copy' their own sovereign work is being violated by what you are claiming is itself copyright law. -- Does copyright law entitle the author to distribute his own, original work or not?
Except that the crack program violates the copyright of the original program, the crack software whether yours or someones else's is illegal simply by existing. It is illegal to distribute a program designed to alter the copywritten information of another piece of software unless said software was issued with a GPL. This is like 1st week copyright law stuff.
Except that the crack program violates the copyright of the original program, the crack software whether yours or someones else's is illegal simply by existing. It is illegal to distribute a program designed to alter the copywritten information of another piece of software unless said software was issued with a GPL. This is like 1st week copyright law stuff.
It's not illegal to distribute machine code or source code that you have authored, regardless of what the code does. Except for a few minor exceptions in certain parts of the world when the code pertains to cryptography.
Find me the law and I will agree with you.
Needless to say, if it were the case that 'programs designed to alter the copywritten information' were illegal, all debuggers would be illegal and all trainers would be illegal, as would hex editors for that matter.
It is illegal to distribute a program designed to alter the copywritten information of another piece of software unless said software was issued with a license allowing this. This is like 1st week copyright law stuff.
Fixed that for you - the GPL actually disallows distributing changes only in binary format; you have to at least supply the source code for your changes on request... and there's oodles of other, non-GPL licenses (BSD, MPL, X11, Artistic License, etc.) equally allowing the code and or binary to be changed.
Needless to say, if it were the case that 'programs designed to alter the copywritten information' were illegal, all debuggers would be illegal and all trainers would be illegal, as would hex editors for that matter.
The distinction is that those pieces of software work on code in memory, they don't permanently alter the program. As far as debuggers if you alter the code of the software either through the debugger or based on the information given you cannot redistribute you alterations without a license or consent from the copyright holder.
Makes it a crime to circumvent anti-piracy measures built into most commercial software.
· Outlaws the manufacture, sale, or distribution of code-cracking devices used to illegally copy software.
I don't believe the DMCA (which is US statue law) applies to people outside the US, unless you fall under a DMCA treaty.
As stated on that website the law makes it illegal to use cracks. It also makes it illegal to manufacture or sell 'devices used to illegally copy software' -- as far as I know this excludes devices that simply modify software but do not illegally copy it.
I don't believe the DMCA (which is US statue law) applies to people outside the US, unless you fall under a DMCA treaty.
As stated on that website the law makes it illegal to use cracks. It also makes it illegal to manufacture or sell 'devices used to illegally copy software' -- as far as I know this excludes devices that simply modify software but do not illegally copy it.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
This includes software cracks, anything that circumvents DRM or anti-piracy measures in software is illegal,plain and simple. Yes this particular set of laws only apply to the US, but there are similar laws in the UK. I can't speak to other regions of the world, but obviously certain countries are fairly lax in the creation or policing of laws pertaining to other peoples work.
The reality of the whole situation though is that even though some software may be easy to copy or crack it's a rotten thing to do, most of the software released is put out on a very narrow margin and there are people that are affected when software is pirated. It's easy not to care when you get a free game, but it's a douchey thing to do.
People who really actually care about the game won't pirate it. Plus, Telltale does such a good job of offering extras if you buy it from them that the majority of people will buy it from them. Hell, look at the servers from July 7th. Plenty of people bought this game.
I agree with that. Poor sales leads to less chance for games. And gamers don't want to see good companies go down. There will be piracy, but there will be purchases too. I don't think TellTale has anything to worry about.
Sorry...I don't agree with encouraging TTG to expend more resources trying to make the games more "pirate-proof". It's IMPOSSIBLE. Practically every form of security game makers have tried has been outwitted.
It's unfortunate, but piracy is out there, and it's not going anywhere. There's not much they can do to prevent it. But the thing is that TTG has a very loyal fanbase, and we have people that love the game they put out, that are willing to plunk down their money to support them. I'll gladly buy every game they put out as long as they keep up their reputation of quality and fun.
The people that pirate...well, that's what karma is for.
This includes software cracks, anything that circumvents DRM or anti-piracy measures in software is illegal,plain and simple. Yes this particular set of laws only apply to the US, but there are similar laws in the UK. I can't speak to other regions of the world, but obviously certain countries are fairly lax in the creation or policing of laws pertaining to other peoples work.
The reality of the whole situation though is that even though some software may be easy to copy or crack it's a rotten thing to do, most of the software released is put out on a very narrow margin and there are people that are affected when software is pirated. It's easy not to care when you get a free game, but it's a douchey thing to do.
I actually agree with you. I was only debating the legalities.
Sorry...I don't agree with encouraging TTG to expend more resources trying to make the games more "pirate-proof". It's IMPOSSIBLE. Practically every form of security game makers have tried has been outwitted.
Also, if they make Monkey Island pirate proof 3/4ths of it's population would have to be ripped out...
Comments
It's getting worst and worst.
Stop wasting your brilliant brains here, if you think you have anything interesting to say about piracy.
The thread was for sharing opininions about the piracy of TOMI. Now is seems is more like if piracy is illegal or not.
I feel some sarcasm? Enlighten me with YOUR brilliant brain.
Even though I do think the topic was not that interesting (hence my first phrase), the rest of my comment was not really to your attention. As I don't recall being annoyed by your attitude in your post, you did not seem so much as a "smart ass".
But hey, as you noticed I'm a smart ass too.
I just think this piracy's monologues don't really belong here.
I shouldn't have replied at all (I knew that but I'm too much^of a big mouth for that too happen)^^.
But Really Guybrush, I was not really aiming my reply at you.
Sorry
I think this thread has really ran out of control now, guess it's a matter of time before it gets closed. It started as a "protect TOMI" and became too serious and political / philosophical. I should stop opening threads on tricky arguments like this.
scnr...
If you've got a Wii connected to the internet you can use the Nintendo Channel to download DS demos that are transmitted via Wi-Fi directly to your DS.
I think he need a DSI. Ds doesn't have that feauture but I am not sure
Ds Phat
Having a serial key or using your telltale account to register the game is adequate enough. Anti-piracy measures are worse than useless and some people will pirate even if developers were giving their game away. DRM just creates animosity and bad feeling, which fuels piracy more.
Much better to create a good relationship with the people who will actually pay than punish them for the sake of imaginary lost sales.
The malware,virus,trojan can be powerful allies when combating piracy though it is a little too dark side of the force to actually use :P. I agree with some of the other posters though about it not making a huge difference. I think telltale has established themselves as a pretty respected company. Most people don't mind paying for something of quality.
Actually I do both. I buy it and use the purchased game to play, but I get a cracked copy as a backup just in case TTG disappears. I know they say they will release a DRM free version of their games if they leave the business, but I want to make sure 20 years from now, I can still play it.
TTG's DRM is pretty painless. For other companies, I have to use the cracked version, instead of my purchased version so I (as a loyal purchaser) am not annoyed by the copy protection.
How do you reconcile this absurd statement with my support of private property rights?
Maybe you should look up "libertarianism" sometime, that is if you're done with your 'beliefs' and want some actual information.
Right, and if you take into account that the task scheduler has to break up your program into code blocks and execute it 'not-as-intended' in order to facilitate multitasking and multiprocessing (for those of us with multiple cores) the argument falls apart completely.
The code can never 'execute as intended', because as savy computer users will know, computers all have different hardware, and much of this hardware likes to (or must) interrupt the program flow frequently to modify memory -- in order to keep your hardware responding.
And if it is accepted that the system must break up the code into blocks and run it intermittently with other code, all of which uses the same system resources, then it becomes absolutely inevitable that you will be running 'modified code' most of which will be readily flipping bits in memory.
Anyway, it was an interesting argument, and I'm glad people are so passionate about making sure Telltale gets their dues -- This IMHO, is the most compelling reason why copyright is unnecessary.
Don't copy that floppy! In 1992 they were claiming software piracy would ruin the industry. Since then it's exploded to become some 80% of all internet traffic, and yet the industry is the largest it's ever been, and growing at an increasing rate.
Don't copy that floppy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xfqkdh5Js4
Copyright holders have the exclusive right to use/distribute their work, and can authorise/prohibit others to use/distribute their work. I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't matter that "LaunchOfTheScreamingNarwhal_Setup.exe" is/contains a demo, TellTale still have the right to write me a cease-and-desist letter for distributing it. They own the copyright to it. And this was one thing that was tested when photocopiers were made legal, and then again with Modchips by the High Court of Australia - in both instances they found that a copy in "RAM" does not constitute creating a copying of the work for legal purposes. That is - if you photocopy something you're not allowed to you can be charged for the photocopy, but not for creating a copy of it within the photocopier's RAM. But of course, being such an expert you already know this. That's not really the reasoning behind EULA's. Legally, as you well know, it's been tested in many countries in court and demonstrated that copies that exist in RAM do not generally constitute an act of creating a copy, although it's important to remember that it may be used in the process of an act of copying a program. The DMCA is ONE interpretation of a 1996 WIPO treaty. Basically the way Australia interpreted the treaty was to define a "technological protection measure" (TPM) in such a way that its purpose must be to prevent copying (not for other purposes such as preventing it being used on other systems, etc). The USA interpreted it differently and passed the DMCA which defines a "TPM" as (basically) any piece of technology designed to limit user access to it.
You are mistaken.
My argument was that a legally obtained instance of any program code can be modified without breaking the law, regardless of what those modifications are. (Unless the software is obtained by contract.)
I encourage you to re-read my arguments and verify this for yourself.
I do this as well. I own all the Telltale games with the exception of Bone (which I have never pirated) and I get them on release day from Telltale. I also have a cracked version of every game as well. I'm just being practical.
And all the task scheduler really does is switch between tasks; it doesn't alter the code any more than an interrupt handler does if you move your mouse.
That said, the problem with "people altering the code" isn't that they're altering it - if you want to do it, grab yourself a debugger and hack away at it, no-one will prevent you from doing that.
It's just that most people instead of doing that use pre-made hacks (i.e. cracks) by other people, and it's sharing those that's the problem. You can change all you want with the code, you're just not entitled to share the changed version.
But you are entitled to share the crack.
Like I said, you can modify the executables all you want, but you can't share the result as you have no license to do so.
Another example is to make the game run at a higher resolution - now I've patched my own copy of EMI to do that (as well as to run without the CDs), without breaking the law. But I cannot legally distribute it because only LEC has the right to release the game at a higher resolution. I can distribute it anyway, but LEC has the right to send me a cease and desist letter if I do.
I can think of a multitude of reasons why this is important, but here's one. It means that Big Corporation "A" cannot try to thwart their competitor Company "B" by putting patches up on the web that allow their competitor's game to be pirated.
I'm happy to defend your right to do whatever you want to the fullest extent of the law, but you're digging yourself a pretty big hole here by trying to assert that people have the right to distribute program cracks; it just isn't true. Here's one final example I can think of:
Let's say Company "A" uses a program but doesn't wish to license a technology by Company "B" because it's expensive (although it will enhance their program's compatibility and/or efficiency). They think they can get around this by releasing a "patch" that enables their executable to access the code of Company B's DLL file which people can legally obtain themselves from Company B's website. Although writing a patch for their own program this is still illegal because it is trying to avoid licensing. In fact it doesn't matter who wrote the patch, it is still illegal.
If I write a software program then I hold the copyright to that program, and your position works against you. Just because a program I write happens to modify another program doesn't make my program illegal. It may be illegal to use in some cases, but it is not illegal to write or share or distribute, provided it does not contain any unauthorized third party code.
This is self contradictory. If people cannot distribute cracks, which are 100% their own code, then their 'right to copy' their own sovereign work is being violated by what you are claiming is itself copyright law. -- Does copyright law entitle the author to distribute his own, original work or not?
But if you insist talking about the copyright laws in general I ask you one favour, since copyright legislation is different in every country it would make sense if everyone of you would state about which legal code he/she is talking about. Since Guybrush Threepwood is Italian I assume that he is talking about copyright laws of Italy and the EU. I don't know about which laws Yandros and others are talking about. Although Yandros mentioned Common Law so he is probably from the UK or from some former British colony.
Obviously, as you said, I was speaking about italian laws.
There are harsh laws against piracy here, although they don't always get applied.
So it's likely that my thoughts about piracy are due to the anti-piracy politics I've always been breathing here.
There's a psychological impact DRM-free stuff has, and that is no one wants to pirate it because they don't feel like they have to. Why do you think GOG is doing so well?
The foundation of copyright law is internationally standardized via a set of treaties (Berne Convention & Universal Copyright Convention). But you are also correct in your objection, because local laws often do have some degree of precedence over copyright law. (Which is partly where my argument comes from.)
America is/was a British colony, and the constitution is a common law document. Common law is pretty standard throughout the anglosphere, partly due to it's necessity for trade, but also due to shared culture.
I would disagree with the statement that no-one wants to pirate DRM-free stuff. Prince of Persia (2008) was reported to be released without DRM, for example, and plenty of people pirated that game. The only people who would feel guilty about pirating a DRM-free game but not others, are the people who started pirating games because they believe they are rebelling against DRM policies. In this case, their excuse for pirating has evaporated.
I believe a DRM-free game would be pirated less than a game with DRM, but most people who pirate games regularly would not think twice about whether a game is DRM-free or not.
Except that the crack program violates the copyright of the original program, the crack software whether yours or someones else's is illegal simply by existing. It is illegal to distribute a program designed to alter the copywritten information of another piece of software unless said software was issued with a GPL. This is like 1st week copyright law stuff.
It's not illegal to distribute machine code or source code that you have authored, regardless of what the code does. Except for a few minor exceptions in certain parts of the world when the code pertains to cryptography.
Find me the law and I will agree with you.
Needless to say, if it were the case that 'programs designed to alter the copywritten information' were illegal, all debuggers would be illegal and all trainers would be illegal, as would hex editors for that matter.
np: The Cool Kids - Don't Trip (The Bake Sale)
:eek:
Hi The Boo,
I don't believe the DMCA (which is US statue law) applies to people outside the US, unless you fall under a DMCA treaty.
As stated on that website the law makes it illegal to use cracks. It also makes it illegal to manufacture or sell 'devices used to illegally copy software' -- as far as I know this excludes devices that simply modify software but do not illegally copy it.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
This includes software cracks, anything that circumvents DRM or anti-piracy measures in software is illegal,plain and simple. Yes this particular set of laws only apply to the US, but there are similar laws in the UK. I can't speak to other regions of the world, but obviously certain countries are fairly lax in the creation or policing of laws pertaining to other peoples work.
The reality of the whole situation though is that even though some software may be easy to copy or crack it's a rotten thing to do, most of the software released is put out on a very narrow margin and there are people that are affected when software is pirated. It's easy not to care when you get a free game, but it's a douchey thing to do.
I agree with that. Poor sales leads to less chance for games. And gamers don't want to see good companies go down. There will be piracy, but there will be purchases too. I don't think TellTale has anything to worry about.
It's unfortunate, but piracy is out there, and it's not going anywhere. There's not much they can do to prevent it. But the thing is that TTG has a very loyal fanbase, and we have people that love the game they put out, that are willing to plunk down their money to support them. I'll gladly buy every game they put out as long as they keep up their reputation of quality and fun.
The people that pirate...well, that's what karma is for.
I actually agree with you. I was only debating the legalities.