Soldato
So if you have permission to drive your dads car as far as you're concerned you have permission to drive anyones? Makes perfect sense to me, here take my keys.dbmzk1 said:
Are no-cd patches illegal?
- Thread starter Energize
- Start date
JBeck said:
I hate it when someone uses physical property as a similar reference to software. When you buy a piece of software, you are entitled to that license.
It doesn't matter if you make two copies of it (master, backup) as long as you only use the one license. Strange about 10 years ago all companies recommended in the manual to make a master copy. It is only recently new laws have been introduced to make it illegal to make a backup. This is nothing to do with illegality, it is sheer greediness on the software companies side. Another example is a PC from high street, the original Windows CD is not included but the files are in a sub directory on your HD (this is the "copy") you are entitled to burn those onto CD-R, and you have the slip of paper with code/license number. The CD-R you would burn of is legal. For example if I buy Windows 95 and make a copy onto CD-R, and snap my original the backup is still legal because I have my keycode/license. You are not paying for the cost of the CD (your car analogy) you are paying for the license. It's the same for music, RIAA are trying to screw us over with DRM stating ripping/encoding is illegal. bzzt. Wrong. Morally there is nothing wrong with buying a CD, ripping & encoding to your MP3 player. And the issue with paying thousands for DRM music which will be useless if your computer is stolen, lose ipod. DRM music sucks. I would only buy downloaded music if it were DRM free. That way I can easily transfer onto a new PC or MP3 player without any concerns.
Morals and legal laws are usually totally different and ignored by those with common sense, or general totalian countries if you want to look at extreme end. For example if it's illegal to scratch your nose would you follow this law? ie some laws in Southern US states (porn, anal/oral sex, masterbating etc)
No CD's are morally fine, if I wrote my own software and a customer used a no-CD patch to get around it I would have no problems with that. It's a right pain to insert the original CD (that you can't make a backup of) Safedisc causes problems with certain drives also. And if you have a laptop with 50 games that you paid for do they expect you to carry your entire games collection whilst you're out? What if they get nicked? Course all originals...and they won't replace the discs for a small charge (say £2) nah tough luck have to rebuy the game.
Last edited:
Soldato
Indeed you simply can't compare software to a car like that.
A no-cd patch is not circumventing copy protection, it is simply a way to use the software without inserting the CD first. For example I use one with BF2, but I still have a valid CD key, required to actually play the game online, and still have a retail copy of the game and licence to use it. Regardless of what the actual law says, no one is going to be prosecuted for using a no-cd patch in such a way. I'm not talking about copying a CD here, just using a patch to stop it being needed to run the software.
Interestingly though, there is actually some debate as to whether CD copy protection itself is legal or not. Legally you are allowed to make a copy of anything you buy, a DVD move, a audio CD, a game CD etc, as long as it is for your personal use. Copy protection stops you from doing that so the theory is its breaking the law. It even stops them being played at all on some systems/setups. So, for example, to copy a CD or even to make it playable on your home stereo in some cases, you would have to break the law to get around something that could well be against the law in the first place.
In the end though, people are always going to argue its legality, based on their views of laws that don't actually mean anything, the morality it all and basically... does it really matter?!
A no-cd patch is not circumventing copy protection, it is simply a way to use the software without inserting the CD first. For example I use one with BF2, but I still have a valid CD key, required to actually play the game online, and still have a retail copy of the game and licence to use it. Regardless of what the actual law says, no one is going to be prosecuted for using a no-cd patch in such a way. I'm not talking about copying a CD here, just using a patch to stop it being needed to run the software.
Interestingly though, there is actually some debate as to whether CD copy protection itself is legal or not. Legally you are allowed to make a copy of anything you buy, a DVD move, a audio CD, a game CD etc, as long as it is for your personal use. Copy protection stops you from doing that so the theory is its breaking the law. It even stops them being played at all on some systems/setups. So, for example, to copy a CD or even to make it playable on your home stereo in some cases, you would have to break the law to get around something that could well be against the law in the first place.
In the end though, people are always going to argue its legality, based on their views of laws that don't actually mean anything, the morality it all and basically... does it really matter?!
Associate
Dolph said:
To the extent I understood that piece of legalistic drivel (which is not very much
), it seems that bypassing copy protection is still NOT illegal, but PUBLICISING information on how to do it IS:I don't seen anything in there against cracking software for personal use. So in theory if you've cracked it yourself and don't publicise or sell the instructions on how to do it you're fine, unless there's something against personal use somewhere in the rest of that document which I didn't manage to read before my brain melted and dribbled out my ears from legalistic terminology overdose.
And while the EULA does indeed forbid bypassing copy protection even for personal use, breaking the EULA is not a criminal offense, and the publisher or distributor would need to take you to civil court to penalise you for doing so.
Associate
My brain hurts....
But I got a bit more out of that document. Basically,
Bypassing copy protection could come under "testing", as long as you're doing it for your own interest and not publicising the information. What puzzles me is the "loading, displaying, running, transmitting or storing the program" bit, because, while you couldn't be hacking or reverse-engineering a piece of code while "loading, displaying or running" it, you're ALWAYS storing it on you HDD, so when would this condition NOT apply?
The lawmakers seem to have thought there would be situations where this wouldn't apply because there's an amendment further up which says
What amused me was the following:
(my emphasis)
Which, in plain language, means that the publisher of a computer program is allowed to apply any kind of copy protection they want, even if said kind of protection would make the software completely unusable! And you wouldn't even be able to complain to your old chum the Secretary of State!
Can you imagine the conversation in Ubisoft's HQ?
'Merde, zey have cracked our latest copy protection already! What shall ve do?'
'Let's make our game discs 8" across!'
'But zey von't even fit in ze disc drive!'
'So?'
There might be some more info buried in there but I can't read any more of it, it's making my brain dry up.
But I got a bit more out of that document. Basically,
Bypassing copy protection could come under "testing", as long as you're doing it for your own interest and not publicising the information. What puzzles me is the "loading, displaying, running, transmitting or storing the program" bit, because, while you couldn't be hacking or reverse-engineering a piece of code while "loading, displaying or running" it, you're ALWAYS storing it on you HDD, so when would this condition NOT apply?
The lawmakers seem to have thought there would be situations where this wouldn't apply because there's an amendment further up which saysWhat amused me was the following:
(my emphasis)
Which, in plain language, means that the publisher of a computer program is allowed to apply any kind of copy protection they want, even if said kind of protection would make the software completely unusable! And you wouldn't even be able to complain to your old chum the Secretary of State!
Can you imagine the conversation in Ubisoft's HQ? 'Merde, zey have cracked our latest copy protection already! What shall ve do?'
'Let's make our game discs 8" across!'
'But zey von't even fit in ze disc drive!'
'So?'
There might be some more info buried in there but I can't read any more of it, it's making my brain dry up.
Man of Honour
dbmzk1 said:
How can you say a No-CD patch doesn't circumvent copyright protection? The copyright protection there is to check the CD is in the drive, so a No-CD patch blatently breaks the copyright protection. Therefore, they are illegal, unless specifically made and distributed by the makers themselves.
dbmzk1 said:
No you're not. The EUCD 2003 states that you cannot make a backup copy of any game, movie, audio cd etc you buy, even for personal backup use. You *are* allowed to make a copy of software, if you can do so without circumventing the copyright protection on the CD (assuming there is any).
Soldato
A fact often ignored is that you do not actually own the software. The EULA or the Software license allows you to play the respective companies software on your system under there rules. You own the CD/DVD but not the software on it.
That is why they charge you sometimes to replace a game at a menial cost. I had issues with BF 1942 and the CD's cracking. They ended up sending me 3 sets in total.
No CD Patches are illegal regardless of how enforcable/unenforcable the law is. As for the moral argument if I want to play a game without putting the CD in and I should be allowed, its a nonsense. Lazy if nothing else
That is why they charge you sometimes to replace a game at a menial cost. I had issues with BF 1942 and the CD's cracking. They ended up sending me 3 sets in total.
No CD Patches are illegal regardless of how enforcable/unenforcable the law is. As for the moral argument if I want to play a game without putting the CD in and I should be allowed, its a nonsense. Lazy if nothing else
Associate
Loki said:
Yep very lazy
I use no cd cracks for all my games. Its convenient. And yes I buy all my games.its stupid making no cd things illegal and ill give u an example
Quake 4!!!
I bought the game for £35 when it was released, take it home put it into PC *waits* nothing no autorun. Great i think ive got a dodgy copy so i try it in the laptop just to see if its my PC or the copy, *flash* oo we have an autorun now fantastic. But no it doesnt work in my pc! I google for information and supposely, now this is the good bit. People are having issues playing Q4 with there dvd drives as it doesnt like some and will NOT run no matter what u try Well done ID
So in the end to play the game I had BOUGHT! i had to rip the CD to laptop as an iso and network it to my PC and as it wouldnt load the orig cd "Please insert DISC" i had to use a bloody No-CD thing just to play it!
Altho illegal sometimes u got no choice!
Quake 4!!!
I bought the game for £35 when it was released, take it home put it into PC *waits* nothing no autorun. Great i think ive got a dodgy copy so i try it in the laptop just to see if its my PC or the copy, *flash* oo we have an autorun now fantastic. But no it doesnt work in my pc! I google for information and supposely, now this is the good bit. People are having issues playing Q4 with there dvd drives as it doesnt like some and will NOT run no matter what u try
Well done IDSo in the end to play the game I had BOUGHT! i had to rip the CD to laptop as an iso and network it to my PC and as it wouldnt load the orig cd "Please insert DISC" i had to use a bloody No-CD thing just to play it!
Altho illegal sometimes u got no choice!
Soldato
If I am not mistaken that would have been the Starforce Copy protection on the Media. Simillar issues experienced with some of the Splinter Cell series also. Quit ironic as its supposed to stop copying and it turns people to no-cd patches
Soldato
I agree they should be legal but unfortunately they aren't. If they were legal then developers might as well not bother requiring the disc to be in the drive anyway. People who pirate the games aren't going to be stopped by the fact that no-cd cracks are illegal, so they may as well just legalise them.
My personaly opinion on all of this is that if you have bought the game from a retailer then I don't see a problem with using a 'crack' just so you don't have to use / damage the cd everytime you want to play it.
I also do not see a problem with making a backup copy of the cd/dvd in case you lose your master copy.
I also do not see a problem with making a backup copy of the cd/dvd in case you lose your master copy.
Soldato
Interesting logic thereoweneades said:I suppose its legal as you have to pay for it?!
Anyway it might be legal in the USA but doesn't mean it is here.
Caporegime
oweneades said:I suppose its legal as you have to pay for it?!
Want to buy a watch?
Permabanned
dbmzk1 said:
I'd love to know where people keep finding this, as it comes up at least once everytime this debate occurs.
My bet is on a US website of some sort, as I think this is the case in the US, and people just don't pay attention to the origin of what they read online.
Where ever it is they are finding it, it is not the case in the UK!
Soldato
I think it used to be true in this country but it has been superceded by european law I think.divine_madness said:I'd love to know where people keep finding this, as it comes up at least once everytime this debate occurs.
My bet is on a US website of some sort, as I think this is the case in the US, and people just don't pay attention to the origin of what they read online.
Where ever it is they are finding it, it is not the case in the UK!
Man of Honour
divine_madness said:I'd love to know where people keep finding this, as it comes up at least once everytime this debate occurs.
My bet is on a US website of some sort, as I think this is the case in the US, and people just don't pay attention to the origin of what they read online.
Where ever it is they are finding it, it is not the case in the UK!
I don't think it's legal in the US either, as I believe the EUCD was brought into effect to bring Europe more in line with the US's equivalent, the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act). I'm not fully up to speed on the US laws though, I spend enough time trying to get my head around our own!
Psyk said:
Yup, as I said further up the page
Soldato
And i hate it when people don't understand the original post and make some bone remark. EA gave him permission to use a no cd on THEIR game, how does that give him permission to crack one made by Konami? Answer = It doesn't.squiffy said:
As above, read and understand what you've read, before commenting. You are saying that one company gives you permission then that gives you the right to do it to any companies game, same analogy as the car scenario.dbmzk1 said: