Slightly worrying article

[exponent8246]

Hi all,

Ive just had a read of this article which doesnt bode well for the DRM issue!!

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/assassin-s-creed-DRM-ubisoft-piracy,news-32813.html


Any comments???:-?

[Onkel Neal]

Some of you are going to hate this.

Understatement :haha:

[Darkreaver1980]

Well, if the new DRM ist allmost not crackable than i will buy it any day

[Seafireliv]

Looks like UBI KNEW it would be controversial and went ahead anyway. Their jester must`ve told the boss that everything will be alright and not worry about the `few` rebels who will be upset- Everyone else will buy!

Methinks yonder jester will be losing his head soon.

[Hitman]

You know, I think that the best solution for fighting effectively piracy and not bothering legitimate users is easy: Set death penalty for pirating games. Once two or three pirates have gone in front of a firing squad after summary trial, the rest of us will be able to enjoy in peace our games :DL

[Onkel Neal]

You know, I think that the best solution for fighting effectively piracy and not bothering legitimate users is easy: Set death penalty for pirating games. Once two or three pirates have gone in front of a firing squad after summary trial, the rest of us will be able to enjoy in peace our games :DL


I love you, man :salute:

Even better (because it's legal and such, lol) would be to have the developers make a special pirate copy of the game and have many people release it into the wild. After x number of days, the game erases the hard drive and sends an e-mail to the FBI.

[exponent8246]

Originally Posted by Hitman
You know, I think that the best solution for fighting effectively piracy and not bothering legitimate users is easy: Set death penalty for pirating games. Once two or three pirates have gone in front of a firing squad after summary trial, the rest of us will be able to enjoy in peace our games


I second that opinion mate!!! Excellent!:yeah:

[Heretic]

Looks like UBI KNEW it would be controversial and went ahead anyway. Their jester must`ve told the boss that everything will be alright and not worry about the `few` rebels who will be upset- Everyone else will buy!

Methinks yonder jester will be losing his head soon.

Well of course they knew it would cause a sh*tstorm. I'm sure they have it all planned that just need to stick it out for X weeks or X months and it will all blow over. They've made the calculations and done all the marketing research and focus groups and all the stuff corporations do before they spend a dime on anything. They believe that in the long run, they'll lose less sales to piracy than they'll lose to DRM. Time will tell.

[Nisgeis]

All these 'new' articles seem to just quote the original PC Gamer article - are they the only ones given a review copy of AC2 and Settlers VII? Someone else must have one by now.

[Platapus]

The platform requires a permanent Internet connection. We know this choice is controversial but we feel is justified by the gameplay advantages offered by the system and because most PCs are already connected to the Internet.

Has Ubi described what these gameplay advantages are for the customer. Clearly there are advantages for Ubi, but I am not understanding what they mean by gameplay advantages.

I can tolerate the internet connection requirement if it is just something that Ubi, the owners of software, want. But if they are justifying this requirement by claiming that there are some gameplay advantages for ME, I would be interested in knowing what these advantages are.

[Nisgeis]

Platapus, the advantage is being able to save your games online, so you can play from any computer. I DO NOT PERSONALLY BELIEVE THIS IS AN ADVANTAGE. The other advantage is that there is no limit to the number of PCs you can install this on, though you can only play on one at a time.

EDIT: Made it REALLY clear that I don't agree that this is an advantage. Sheesh last time I try and answer a factual question!

[piri_reis]

Yes, nothing new. The thing is the PCGamer is about AC2, not SH5.
We don't have solid info on how this works, other than Neal showing us some disconnected playtime, which could mean the OSP will differ among different games..

[mookiemookie]

Platapus, the advantage is being able to save your games online, so you can play from any computer. The other advantage is that there is no limit to the number of PCs you can install this on, though you can only play on one at a time.

Which to people like me (with one gaming computer to install and play the game on) means absolutely no benefit at all.

[Platapus]

Platapus, the advantage is being able to save your games online, so you can play from any computer. The other advantage is that there is no limit to the number of PCs you can install this on, though you can only play on one at a time.

Which to people like me (with one gaming computer to install and play the game on) means absolutely no benefit at all.

Me too, but I guess this does qualify as gameplay advantages to someone. :yep:. No requirement that all gameplay advantages have to apply to all gameplayers.

[Nisgeis]

Which to people like me (with one gaming computer to install and play the game on) means absolutely no benefit at all.

Likewise. I'm just trying to stay calm and balanced this evening :DL.

[Nordmann]

I simply loved Ubi's statement, especially the last line.

"our goal is to deliver the best gaming experience to our customers, anywhere, anytime."

Anywhere and anytime, as long as you have a net connection.

[TDK1044]

If "Piracy" is a slang term for copyright infringement, the unlawful reproduction of the work of another, often for the purpose of re-distribution and profit.......

How is paying $50 for a game, not reproducing or copying it in any shape or form, but instead defeating inappropriate software restrictions designed to force you to play it online instead of on your own computer....how is that piracy?

I do NOT want to open a discussion here on a subject that will get members banned, but I feel that the term Piracy is cast with too wide a net sometimes.

[Heretic]

If "Piracy" is a slang term for copyright infringement, the unlawful reproduction of the work of another, often for the purpose of re-distribution and profit.......

How is paying $50 for a game, not reproducing or copying it in any shape or form, but instead defeating inappropriate software restrictions designed to force you to play it online instead of on your own computer....how is that piracy?


I would think the ones sharing the games are guilty of copyright infringement. The ones downloading are guilty of theft, morally if not legally. Your example probably falls under the EULA somehow. It's certainly not theft or copyright infringement, so not piracy.

*edit* and we're probably not allowed to talk about it, in any case.

[TDK1044]

I would think the ones sharing the games are guilty of copyright infringement. The ones downloading are guilty of theft, morally if not legally. Your example probably falls under the EULA somehow. It's certainly not theft or copyright infringement, so not piracy.

*edit* and we're probably not allowed to talk about it, in any case.

Excellent post, Heretic. :)

[GREY WOLF 3]

and reported that the games aren't at all friendly towards gamers with shoddy internet connections. "If you get disconnected while playing, you're booted out of the game. All your progress since the last checkpoint or savegame is lost, and your only options are to quit to Windows or wait until you're reconnected," the site reported.

:o"If you get disconnected while playing, you're booted out of the game:haha: I will definitely buy it NOW like sh*t:rotfl2::rotfl2:

[Heretic]

Here's confirmation the DRM implementation is not same in each game.


If my internet connection goes down during play, will I lose my progress?
That depends on the way the systems have been implemented. The two examples we have now, Assassin's Creed 2 and Settlers VII, show differing implementations. In Assassin's Creed, if your connection cuts out, you'll be taken back to the last checkpoint. "With Settlers, your game will resume exactly where you left off," says Ubisoft's spokesperson.


from: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=235596

Other than that , nothing really new. Same old PR swill we've all seen before.

[onelifecrisis]

Here's confirmation the DRM implementation is not same in each game.



from: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=235596

Other than that , nothing really new. Same old PR swill we've all seen before.

Great news, potentially. Thanks for sharing. BTW I think you should make a new thread for that.

[Nisgeis]

Here's hoping the game autosaves regularly, as you won't be able to save when your connection drops.

[onelifecrisis]

Here's hoping the game autosaves regularly, as you won't be able to save when your connection drops.

Do we know that for sure? We know the game saves locally as well as to the server. In fact the whole "save to server" thing is optional IIRC. But the question remains as to whether local saves are possible while disconnected.

[Seafireliv]

Here's hoping the game autosaves regularly, as you won't be able to save when your connection drops.

For a game like SH5 where you`re patrolling for hours on end, it would need to autosave to their server at least every 5 minutes. Ridiculous.



I simply loved Ubi's statement, especially the last line.



Anywhere and anytime, as long as you have a net connection.


Exactly and how can a person`s gaming experience be enjoyable under these circumstances? The whole shenanigins puts me off just thinking about it. Games should not stress a person out with such restraints.

Not buying. I don`t care how much UBI don`t care.

[petherf]

Games i like i buy, and l buy a lot of them!
Games i like i buy for the stability and for the manual.
Games i will try i download from warez- sites ,closed ones
And i like simulators-games,
I buy the DCS Black shark
First the ruskie version, then the English download version
Then the Dvd- version .then the manual from russia( in english)
I will buy the next one FC 2.0 and later on the A-10C
And i will buy the Silent hunter 5, And i dont like the DRM
I have pre-order it
So i download a lot of games from pirate sites that i havent buy if i have a chanse i just try them. And i think it*s a lot of people like me, we just try out the games!
I hope i dont get banned for this post now!
Sorry for my poor english, whorse than a 7 years child i know
English is int my first La....... Swedish is. :stare:

[Nisgeis]

Do we know that for sure? We know the game saves locally as well as to the server. In fact the whole "save to server" thing is optional IIRC. But the question remains as to whether local saves are possible while disconnected.

Nothing's certain and it's hard to tell what they currently have, the quote that Heretic posted was quite woolly and unclear. It says that if your AC2 connection drops, you will continue from the last checkpoint - so that either means if your connection drops, then when the game resumes from paused mode, you will be back at the last checkpoint having lost all progress since the checkpoint, even though your PC hasn't been turned off. Or it means that if you lose your net connection and quit out, you will resume from the last check-point, which makes more sense if you quit the game for the last checkpoint (autosave) to be the resume point.

For Settlers 7, it says "With Settlers, your game will resume exactly where you left off,". It sounds very strange for AC2 to kill your progress, if Settlers 7 is able to carry on regardless. But anyway, it only says resume, which could mean resume from net loss and not shutting the game down, or it could mean shutting the game down and later starting the game up again. It doesn't seem quite strange if Settlers 7 is able to save your game state anytime, that AC2 doesn't. It doesn't make a lot of sense to kill progress just for a blip in your connection.

So, that's two ways they have implemented it, so either we'll lose all progress since last save, or lose nothing at all. Hard to say. If it's the former I hope it autosaves :DL. I hope it's the latter though, where we'll not lose progress, but simply be unable to carry on. Well, I don't hope for that, but that's the lesser of two weevils.

I think I read that the save feature saves both locally and on the server, but you have to be online and verified to save. I can't remember where I saw that, if I did, as it's lost in the depths of the gawd-awful DRM thread. I haven't read the results of Neal's six minute test yet.

[scrapser]

Ubisoft is not the only company taking this approach...Take Two is including it in Bioshock 2. I really hope it blows up in their faces big time. I've been gaming for 25 years and this new DRM crap is about as smart as playing horseshoes in a minefield.

[MGR1]

Games i like i buy, and l buy a lot of them!
Games i like i buy for the stability and for the manual.
Games i will try i download from warez- sites ,closed ones
And i like simulators-games,
I buy the DCS Black shark
First the ruskie version, then the English download version
Then the Dvd- version .then the manual from russia( in english)
I will buy the next one FC 2.0 and later on the A-10C
And i will buy the Silent hunter 5, And i dont like the DRM
I have pre-order it
So i download a lot of games from pirate sites that i havent buy if i have a chanse i just try them. And i think it*s a lot of people like me, we just try out the games!
I hope i dont get banned for this post now!
Sorry for my poor english, whorse than a 7 years child i know
English is int my first La....... Swedish is. :stare:

Well, judging from his Avatar, I think he just did!:doh:

NEVER admit to anything like that on this site!:down:

Better still, don't do it!

As for the DRM, I'm more concerned with the impact on my phone bill if I buy SH5.

I'm not made of money!

Mike.

[Kapitanleutnant]

Platapus, the advantage is being able to save your games online, so you can play from any computer. The other advantage is that there is no limit to the number of PCs you can install this on, though you can only play on one at a time.

So the "benefits" are exactly the same as the standard for every single PC game that was released since the PC was invented up until around 2005.
It seems we've taken a step backward somewhere along the line. :hmmm:

[Nisgeis]

So the "benefits" are exactly the same as the standard for every single PC game that was released since the PC was invented up until around 2005.
It seems we've taken a step backward somewhere along the line. :hmmm:

Yes, it's now more hassle to own a legitimate copy than a pirate version. I don't subscribe to the Ubisoft mantra, just answering the question as to what Ubisoft say are the advantages.

[tater]

Platapus, the advantage is being able to save your games online, so you can play from any computer. The other advantage is that there is no limit to the number of PCs you can install this on, though you can only play on one at a time.

You can save games online NOW. There are services to do this, or you could simply target a network directory for save games, right?

I can install SH4 on any PC that I put the disk in, but only 1 at a time.

I'm not seeing any advantage.

[Blacklight]

I would seriously NEVER consider buying a game with a DRM like this. Seriously. What's going to happen if 6-7 years from now, or even 10 years from now, I decide to crack open my Silent Hunter 5 to have another go. Will the required server and service that I need to connect to still be around or am I screwed when they change or remove their servers in the future ?

I can't tell you how many games I have that are older that have that "Click here to automaticly update" button, but can't update because the company changed or removed their servers and some of these games are only 5-6 years old.

[difool2]

I love you, man :salute:

Even better (because it's legal and such, lol) would be to have the developers make a special pirate copy of the game and have many people release it into the wild. After x number of days, the game erases the hard drive and sends an e-mail to the FBI.

I guess the impact would likely be less than my imagination wants to think, but has releasing bogus pirate copies (either by a dev company itself or "counterpirates") ever worked? IIRC there were a few games released fairly recently which had built in limitations if they were pirated-I guess the warez types would just circle the wagons and "everybody" would know which sites had copies that worked (and which didn't), but if I was more technically minded I'd almost be inclined to throw together some code which subtly porks gameplay in a bunch of weird ways, and try to disseminate it anywhere I could-eventually if taken to the logical extreme nobody would ever know which copies were the good ones and which ones were the bad. [Note to Neal & co. I'm just indulding in idle speculation here understand]

The best part of this is that the resulting "bugs" would immediately indicate who was using the warez, as they would be coming on a subsim message board and complaining that the sun never moved in the sky or that his torpedoes only traveled at 5 knots (and hence he could never hit anything), or something. Scarlet Letter and all that.

[IanC]

<snip> if I was more technically minded I'd almost be inclined to throw together some code which subtly porks gameplay in a bunch of weird ways, and try to disseminate it anywhere I could-eventually if taken to the logical extreme nobody would ever know which copies were the good ones and which ones were the bad. [Note to Neal & co. I'm just indulding in idle speculation here understand]

The best part of this is that the resulting "bugs" would immediately indicate who was using the warez, as they would be coming on a subsim message board and complaining that the sun never moved in the sky or that his torpedoes only traveled at 5 knots (and hence he could never hit anything), or something. Scarlet Letter and all that.

They already tried something similar with a game (forget which one), it would crash, somewhere half way through, if it wasn't a legal copy. What happened? Well it totally backfired on the company, people started to complain about the crashes and the game got a reputation as 'unstable'. :lol:

[Highbury]

It's been done in more then one game, some more successful then others.

I still remember players getting laughed (and booted) off the server in the original Op Flashpoint for asking "what does FADE (http://www.codemasters.com/news/?showarticle=500&territory=EnglishUSA) mean?" :har:

[IanC]

So i download a lot of games from pirate sites that i havent buy if i have a chanse i just try them.

Smart move admitting that, right after a moderator and the owner of this site, talked about tying pirates to a pole and shooting them. :roll:

[Highbury]

Smart move admitting that, right after a moderator and the owner of this site, talked about tying pirates to a pole and shooting them. :roll:

He's already been keelhauled lad.. look away.. :yep:

[IanC]

He's already been keelhauled lad.. look away.. :yep:

I'm projecting my hatred of DRM, from Ubi to dead bloated pirate bodies. I might even poke him with a stick later. :D

[Hitman]

a moderator and the owner of this site, talked about tying pirates to a pole and shooting them. :roll:

Come to think of it, I wouldn't like that you all think I am a badly discriminating guy :nope:

So I correct my initial post: You don't really need to shoot the pirates.

You can hang them, behead them, electrocute, poison, drown, or impale. That's it, I think nobody is discriminated any longer :smug:

[Gatt]

Platapus, the advantage is being able to save your games online, so you can play from any computer. The other advantage is that there is no limit to the number of PCs you can install this on, though you can only play on one at a time.

Those advantages are obviously bulls*it since I play only singleplayer and I already can install SH3 and IV on different PC's.

The real reasons are they want more control on players, modding, patching and eventually sell you more u-boat types and war years.

[Nisgeis]

I editted my post, as people keep quoting it... I don't think the stated 'advantages' are real advantages at all. I was just answering the question of 'What did Ubisoft say were the advantages'. I won't be doing that again!

[goldorak]

You people don't get Ubisoft. They are simply getting in with the times.

We have :


The war on drugs
The war on terrorism
The war on piracy (the real one on the high seas)
The war on climate change
The war on evolution


and now courtesy of Ubisoft the latest


The war on your paying clients


:D

[Frederf]

Platapus, the advantage is being able to save your games online, so you can play from any computer. I DO NOT PERSONALLY BELIEVE THIS IS AN ADVANTAGE. The other advantage is that there is no limit to the number of PCs you can install this on, though you can only play on one at a time.

EDIT: Made it REALLY clear that I don't agree that this is an advantage. Sheesh last time I try and answer a factual question!

Certainly if it was an honest feature then it would be an option to save online or save offline. It's not optional because it's not customer service it's customer screwus. Also the Trojan Horse needed at least some very tiny surface appeal. Can hardly sell poison to people if you don't at least tell them it tastes good.

If "Piracy" is a slang term for copyright infringement, the unlawful reproduction of the work of another, often for the purpose of re-distribution and profit.......

How is paying $50 for a game, not reproducing or copying it in any shape or form, but instead defeating inappropriate software restrictions designed to force you to play it online instead of on your own computer....how is that piracy?

I do NOT want to open a discussion here on a subject that will get members banned, but I feel that the term Piracy is cast with too wide a net sometimes.

You're very right, circumventing protection to access your owned product is not piracy. Similarly you can't get arrested for breaking into your own house :) If the DMCA of 2001 is interpreted harshly it's illegal but would be named a violation, not piracy.

They already tried something similar with a game (forget which one), it would crash, somewhere half way through, if it wasn't a legal copy. What happened? Well it totally backfired on the company, people started to complain about the crashes and the game got a reputation as 'unstable'. :lol:

Operation Flashpoint and the copy protection was called FADE. A lot of real bugs were pananoidly thought to be FADE while proper FADE effects were thought to be bugs. A clever but misguided system.

[Hitman]

riginally Posted by TDK1044 http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images_acpb/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1273691#post1273691) If "Piracy" is a slang term for copyright infringement, the unlawful reproduction of the work of another, often for the purpose of re-distribution and profit.......

How is paying $50 for a game, not reproducing or copying it in any shape or form, but instead defeating inappropriate software restrictions designed to force you to play it online instead of on your own computer....how is that piracy?

I do NOT want to open a discussion here on a subject that will get members banned, but I feel that the term Piracy is cast with too wide a net sometimes.


Just to clarify: For me a pirate is just someone who STEALS, i.e. gets the product and uses it without having paid for it. No difference for me between the guy who downloads a cracked game or who goes into a shop and sneaks away with one under his jacket.

Using cracks on legitimatelly bought copies is just a EULA infrigement, but not piracy. And of course, it tends to promote and make it easy for pirates to obtain the mans to get illegal copies of software, but is not piracy itself.

In any case, you guys should know that f.e. here in Spain (Dunno about other countries) paragraph 270.3 of our criminal code considers delictive simply to posses, and of course create and spread programs or hardware that are specifically destined to eliminate the protection set by copyright holders in their works. I.e. creating or even posessing a game crack in Spain is not just illegal, but also a criminal offence.

[difool2]

You people don't get Ubisoft. They are simply getting in with the times.

We have :


The war on drugs
The war on terrorism
The war on piracy (the real one on the high seas)
The war on climate change
The war on evolution


and now courtesy of Ubisoft the latest


The war on your paying clients


:D

That's what I was getting at last night. Software companies need to go right after the pirates and their sites and wage war on the correct target, rather than their paying clients (as you put it). Perhaps my idea is too pie-in-the-sky, but DRM has it completely backasswards.

[Frederf]

Just to clarify: For me a pirate is just someone who STEALS

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the EVEN MORE PICKY distinction that piracy isn't theft (stealing). Stealing requires that the original owner is deprived of the stolen good. Piracy doesn't do that with the original product unless you get rather abstract.

[Sailor Steve]

But the pirate is (in theory at least) stealing potential revenues from the company.

[IanC]

But the pirate is (in theory at least) stealing potential revenues from the company.

Potential and very real revenues.

[Nisgeis]

But the pirate is (in theory at least) stealing potential revenues from the company.

For a start, you can't steal revenue, as that's just not even possible, in the same way that you can't steal distribution costs. Also, you can't just make something up and call it a crime. You could say that the pirates were 'murdering' the sales of a game. But would the crime REALLY be murder? Laws are written down for a reason, so hysterical corporations can be laughed at. Whenever they say piracy is theft, they are lying. Piracy is murder! Piracy is genocide... does that sound worse? It's just as made up. But hang on, I mustn't buy something from someone on the market, who has an accent and is selling cheap DVDs, as it might be a copy, even though it looks like it's an original, because he might be funding terrorism. You know, that's damn scarey, so it's much safer to not pay for anything. That superstore chain - maybe they're funding terrorism as well? How can one tell?

If I were to goto my next door neighbours car, break into it and hotwire it, then drive round in it all night, then be pulled over by the police... that's not theft. If THAT'S not theft, then how is copying a game theft? THEFT has a very clear definition in the law and no matter how hard people try to tell you otherwise, it will not change, UNLESS there is a change in the law.

[IanC]

For a start, you can't steal revenue, as that's just not even possible, in the same way that you can't steal distribution costs. Also, you can't just make something up and call it a crime. You could say that the pirates were 'murdering' the sales of a game. But would the crime REALLY be murder? Laws are written down for a reason, so hysterical corporations can be laughed at. Whenever they say piracy is theft, they are lying. Piracy is murder! Piracy is genocide... does that sound worse? It's just as made up. But hang on, I mustn't buy something from someone on the market, who has an accent and is selling cheap DVDs, as it might be a copy, even though it looks like it's an original, because he might be funding terrorism. You know, that's damn scarey, so it's much safer to not pay for anything. That superstore chain - maybe they're funding terrorism as well? How can one tell?

If I were to goto my next door neighbours car, break into it and hotwire it, then drive round in it all night, then be pulled over by the police... that's not theft. If THAT'S not theft, then how is copying a game theft? THEFT has a very clear definition in the law and no matter how hard people try to tell you otherwise, it will not change, UNLESS there is a change in the law.

Nisgeis what are you talking about. You're splitting hairs and double talking like a lawyer would.
Piracy of games costs the game companies money. End of story.

[Nisgeis]

Nisgeis what are you talking about. You're splitting hairs and double talking like a lawyer would.
Piracy of games costs the game companies money. End of story.

What's this now? War on truth? It's not double talk, it's single talk about the LAW. There are no hairs being split - the law is extremely clear. It's not theft. You don't even own the game you pay for, you merely have a license for it. Can you steal a license? No. Regarldess of how much the pirates cost the games companies, that does not change the discussion at hand - piracy is not legally theft and no matter how much people say it is, it will not make it so. Piracy is also not genocide and piracy is also not a lemon scented bathroom detergent, no matter who says so. If you wish to argue a point, argue it, but within the realms of reality. It does no good to argue from a utopian point where all pirates are castrated and they are convicted of murder. That's not real.

Yes, people who do not pay for a game instead of paying for a game cost the company money, but they don't cost revenue and that doesn't make it theft, legally. I'm not saying that's good, I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying that's the way it is.

If you can show me a single case where someone has been charged with theft over, say, music downloads, then I'll concede the point. There have been a lot of people in trouble over that recently.

[Sailor Steve]

Good points. On the other hand how did the record companies' suits against the free download sites turn out?

Still, you argue that it's not illegal. Do you also contend that it's not wrong?

[Nisgeis]

Good points. On the other hand how did the record companies' suits against the free download sites turn out?

Still, you argue that it's not illegal. Do you also contend that it's not wrong?

I did NOT say it wasn't illegal. I said it was NOT theft. It's also not genocide. It's also not murder. The record companies suits were not for theft were they? Saying it's a particular crime, doesn't make it that crime is my point.

I'll pose you this.

Question 1. You buy a game. Can you create a backup version of it, in case your original CD gets scratched?

Question 2. If that CD has a system designed to stop you copying that CD, can you still make a backup copy of it?

Question 3. If you have a game installed on your hard disk and you backup your computer's hard drive, are you in breach of copyright, by creating a backup copy of the game's content?

[tommyk]

I did NOT say it wasn't illegal. I said it was NOT theft. It's also not genocide. It's also not murder. The record companies suits were not for theft were they? Saying it's a particular crime, doesn't make it that crime is my point.


QFT, well said!

[Dowly]

Tee hee, Ubi is really digging their own grave here. If I'd have to bet, I'd say Assassin's Creed II will be the most pirated title from UBI, not for playing it free but to boycott and flip the finger at UBI. And I'm more than happy to take part to that. :nope:

[Sailor Steve]

I did NOT say it wasn't illegal. I said it was NOT theft. It's also not genocide. It's also not murder. The record companies suits were not for theft were they? Saying it's a particular crime, doesn't make it that crime is my point.
Ah. That makes sense.

As to your three questions, I don't know the legal answers to any of them. The moral answer to all three would seem to be "Of course", but even there I'm not too sure.

[Nisgeis]

Morally, of course to all, apart from the last question? :DL. Reality is a cruel mistress and she has no morals and no sense of fair play.

[peabody]

I did NOT say it wasn't illegal. I said it was NOT theft. It's also not genocide. It's also not murder. The record companies suits were not for theft were they? Saying it's a particular crime, doesn't make it that crime is my point.



As much as I agree with your point, the definition of theft is most likely quite different in different countries, so the accuracy of the statement depends on where you live. In the USA the law even differs from state to state.
NO they are not stealing revenue unless they actually go to the bank and get it, but they are stealing code that belongs to Ubisoft without Ubisoft's permission. And it could be charged as theft in some places and not it others.
As for the murder analogy. In the USA there is First degree murder, Second Degree Murder, Manslughter, Vehicular manslaughter.....etc. The result is the same the person is dead. What are they guilty of? I'm not a lawyer.

Here are some definitions just to confuse the issue::03:


Robbery is the taking or attempting to take something of value from another person by use of force, threats or intimidation. It is committed in the presence of the victim.


Burglary is the unlawful entry of a ‘structure’ to commit a felony or a theft. Burglary is commonly known as a "break in," or, "breaking and entering." A ‘structure’ is usually in reference to physical buildings but not cars. Car break-ins or thefts are considered larcenies.

Larceny is similar to burglary. The major difference between the two is that the perpetrator did not illegally enter a structure by using forcible, non- forcible or attempted forcible entry (with the exception of a motor vehicle.)
All thefts of motor vehicles or from motor vehicles (parts, accessories, personal property) are considered larcenies whether the vehicle was locked or unlocked.


Legally, theft is often synonymous with larceny. Again, the definitions vary from state to state and jurisdictions. Consider contacting a legal advisor or a police officer in your area if you would like to learn more about the legal definitions in your jurisdiction.


So I do agree that we may not be using the correct terms but is that really the issue? A major portion of the charge is determined by "intent" also. You used the example of riding around in my car all night long. Your "intent" will determine if it is "Joyriding" or "Grand Theft Auto". But it is still Wrong.


Peabody

[Nisgeis]

Hello Mr. Peabody, nice to see you in the SH5 forums :DL.

The difference between theft as you describe in your house burglary example and piracy, is... imagine if someone entered your home, and took an exact copy of your plasma TV, but left the original in place. They then went upstairs and took an exact copy of your wife's jewellery, but left the original in place. The difference is that in the burglary example, you have been deprived of physical goods, but if the burglar had only taken an exact copy and left you with the original, then you yourself would have suffered no loss, other than a depriciation on the market due to excess goods.

You are right about the intent being the difference in the case of grand theft auto. If it was your intention to permanently deprive the owner of his property, then that is theft, otherwise, it is taking without consent, e.g. you say you were going to give the car back at some point. That's the difference between theft - it's a permanent depriving of property from the rightful owner.

[Frederf]

Yeah, that's all I wanted to point out. It's good to know the real definitions of words and not be lulled into the "soft language" crowd where definitions are matters of personal opinion and mood.

If you really want to get abstract, you could consider software piracy theft if you were to construct the idea of "uniqueness." Say there was only 1 copy of Microsoft Office in the world, and is therefore unique. If you were to pirate that product by making a copy then the product is less unique since there are 2 copies now. In a way there was "theft of uniqueness" as the owner had 100% uniqueness and now only 50% uniqueness. It would be theft since the software pirate stole (permanently removing from the original owner) uniqueness. I suppose you could replace the word "uniqueness" with "rarity."

Question 1. You buy a game. Can you create a backup version of it, in case your original CD gets scratched?

Question 2. If that CD has a system designed to stop you copying that CD, can you still make a backup copy of it?

Question 3. If you have a game installed on your hard disk and you backup your computer's hard drive, are you in breach of copyright, by creating a backup copy of the game's content?If you're talking about the USA:

Title III expands the existing exemption relating to computer programs in section 117 of the Copyright Act, which allows the owner of a copy of a program to make reproductions or adaptations when necessary to use the program in conjunction with a computer. The amendment permits the owner or lessee of a computer to make or authorize the making of a copy of a computer program in the course of maintaining
or repairing that computer. DMCA 1998, Title 3.

Backups are effectively such computer maintenance.

[UnSalted]

Ubisoft is not the only company taking this approach...Take Two is including it in Bioshock 2. I really hope it blows up in their faces big time. I've been gaming for 25 years and this new DRM crap is about as smart as playing horseshoes in a minefield.

Actually Bioshock 2 requires a one-time internet connection and NOT a constant connection. It uses SecuROM which has it's share of detractors but is far less intrusive than Ubi's version. Yes it checks to see if there's a disc in the drive but I can live with that.

Here's the link to 2K games press release about "scaling back" SecuROM DRM for Bioshock 2. Mainly they increased the number of installations from 5 to 15 which should ease the concerns about installing after hardware upgrades:

http://www.2kgames.com/cultofrapture/article/bioshock2drmupdatescaling

[Nordmann]

An increase of 10 installs, big deal, there should not be any limit whatsoever. You've paid for the product, yet some corporate ass is telling you how many times you can install it? Bloody outrageous! It's no wonder PC games are a rarity in shops these days, who wants to buy what equates to a rental product? Hell, I know I don't.

As long as companies continue to shove increasingly restrictive DRM in my face, I will avoid said games, it's not as if I haven't got enough to play through already!

[peabody]

Hello Mr. Peabody, nice to see you in the SH5 forums :DL.

The difference between theft as you describe in your house burglary example and piracy, is... imagine if someone entered your home, and took an exact copy of your plasma TV, but left the original in place. They then went upstairs and took an exact copy of your wife's jewellery, but left the original in place. The difference is that in the burglary example, you have been deprived of physical goods, but if the burglar had only taken an exact copy and left you with the original, then you yourself would have suffered no loss, other than a depriciation on the market due to excess goods.

<snip>

Hi Nigeis, haven't talked in a while. So we may as well have a word war. :har:

Ok, as I read your statement you are implying I have suffered no loss, therefore it is not theft. Again I go back to "it depends on where you live." (I am still trying to figure out how to steal a copy of a wide screen TV and leave the original in place :hmmm:......but I digress)
If my neighbor taps into the cable TV line, I have suffered no loss, the cable company has suffered no loss....BUT it is considered "Theft of Services" at least here. So theft takes on several different meanings.
I am sure in this computer age they have come up with specific laws and terms to apply, so they may use a more specific charge.

But even using the definitions I posted, you need to be a lawyer. Theft is often synonymous with larceny, Larceny is similar to burglary and burglary is entering a building to commit a theft.....didn't we just go in a compete circle?

So usually theft involves "tangible" property and on that point I agree with what you say, and think that the "theft" would actually be a Copyright infringement. Which in my opinion would be much worse for the Pirate to have to deal with, rather than theft. For theft of software at the level of a game would deal with basically the cost of the game, while Copyright Infringement and a good lawyer could be millions of dollars and jail time. So I think you would be better off stealing my TV rather than pirating my game.



Peabody

[jwilliams]

Piracy is the popular term for the illegal activity that is more correctly known as Copyright Infringement. Software piracy involves the violation of license agreements and occurs when you download, copy, fileshare, install, or distribute digitized material in the form of computer software programs and entertainment media without authorization from the owner/creator.

License Not Ownership

The purchase of a computer program or any form of entertainment or artistic expression on any type of media that includes, but is not limited to, CD, DVD, mp3 file, video, or audiotape, simply gives you a license to use your personal copy; purchase does not constitute ownership of the “intellectual property” on the media. The U.S. Copyright Act expressly protects the intellectual property contained on these media and grants the creators exclusive rights to copy, adapt, distribute, rent, and publicly perform and display their works.
Reasonable people would agree that shoplifting any of these products in stores is theft, yet some don't extend that logic to digitized formats. But when you use your personal copy for any purpose beyond what is expressly permitted by the license, you could be committing a federal offense and may be subject to civil and criminal prosecution (see below) as well as university disciplinary action.


Fines and Penalties


What happens when you get charged with software piracy? If a single user gets caught with a pirated copy, chances are you will be hit with a request for damages amounting to three times the retail amount. This has become an arbitrary industry standard. You can also be charged for the full retail amount of each individual product in a software bundle. The maximum penalty under the law is a $250,000 fine and five years in jail, but the law allows for more in extreme cases of software piracy.

[Onkel Neal]

Hello Mr. Peabody, nice to see you in the SH5 forums :DL.

The difference between theft as you describe in your house burglary example and piracy, is... imagine if someone entered your home, and took an exact copy of your plasma TV, but left the original in place. They then went upstairs and took an exact copy of your wife's jewellery, but left the original in place. The difference is that in the burglary example, you have been deprived of physical goods, but if the burglar had only taken an exact copy and left you with the original, then you yourself would have suffered no loss, other than a depriciation on the market due to excess goods.


Nice. So what if we all take a copy of Assassin's Creed II, no one pays for it? That's it, from now on no one buys any game, we all just duplicate the leaked gold and no one loses. Now you will argue that's unrealistic, but it's easy to defend the burglar who only takes a copy.

This reminds me of when I was in a union. When negotiations were breaking down and a strike loomed, there were always a few scabs who announced they would cross the picket line. Fine, then we should call of the strike and all go back. Why should we undergo hardships to get a better concession from the company if Joe Scab is not going to stand with us?

I don't understand why everyone thinks someone else is going to foot the bill for their pleasure. Has the entitlement mentaility really reached this level?

[JScones]

I think a bit more of this might dissuade a few people...

A Queensland man will have to pay Nintendo $1.5 million in damages after illegally copying and uploading one of its new games to the internet ahead of its release, the gaming giant says.

James Burt, 24, of Sinnamon Park in Queensland will pay Nintendo $1.5 million after an out-of-court settlement was struck to compensate the company for the loss of sales revenue.

Nintendo said the loss was caused when Burt made New Super Mario Bros for the Wii gaming console available for illegal download a week ahead of its official Australian release in November last year.

Under Australian law, copying and distributing games without the permission of the copyright holder is a breach of the Copyright Act.

Nintendo applied and was granted a search order by the Federal Court forcing Burt to disclose the whereabouts of all his computers, disks and electronic storage devices in November.

He was also ordered to allow access, including passwords, to his social networking sites, email accounts and websites.

The matter was settled between Burt and Nintendo last month.

Burt will have to pay Nintendo's legal bill of $100,000, the Federal Court in Melbourne ordered on January 27.

Nintendo said in a statement today it was able to trace Burt by using sophisticated technological forensics after the game was uploaded to the internet.

"Nintendo will pursue those who attempt to jeopardise our industry by using all means available to it under the law," it said.

Piracy was a significant threat to the gaming business and the 1400 game development companies who contribute to providing games for the company's platform.

Nintendo Australia managing director Rose Lappin said the illegal upload had marred the release of the new game, which Australia was able to get ahead of other countries, which was unusual.

"It wasn't just an Australian issue, it was a global issue. There was thousands and thousands of downloads, at a major cost to us and the industry really," Ms Lappin said.

"It's not just about us. It's about retailers and if they can't sell the games then they have to bear the costs associated with that.

"Once it's on the internet it's anyone's really."

Ms Lappin said globally the company had a major network against piracy.The sad thing is, the guy allegedly bought the copy legally, albeit a week before release (the retailer inadvertantly put it on the shelf). He succumbed to peer pressure by u/l it to prove he had it. And apparently it wasn't even cracked - it took someone else to find it on the 'net and crack it. The rest, as they say, is history...

[Chad]

That does need to happen more often..

The technology is out there, to trace and get these pirates. Why big corporations don't do anything to the people who actually DO IT, I don't know :down:

[Armistead]

My guess is 90% of people that day they won't buy it...will. That's usually the case and what they're counting on.

I'll probably buy it down the road after a patch or two, unless complaints are really bad, but I'm a Fleetboat man, so no big deal to me.

I can't wait to read all the post of all those that said they wouldn't buy it after the first few days it's released.

[HundertzehnGustav]

:yeah::rock:

:rotfl2:

he gave in to pressure, to prove he had it.
stupid bugger...

[Lionclaw]

He should have just taken a picture of the box and uploaded that. :haha:

[HundertzehnGustav]

or get his wife to capture a hires photo of him playing it... or a screenshot like Neal did...

geez some people.

To be honest, i wish there were more stupid pirates like that.

[peabody]

I don't understand why everyone thinks someone else is going to foot the bill for their pleasure. Has the entitlement mentaility really reached this level?

Absolutely agree with you Neal. We were just discussing whether or not "technically" or maybe more accurate, "legally", is pirating considered "theft" in the eyes of the law. Nisgeis felt it is not and I agree that is usually is not, it is actually much, much WORSE than theft, it is copyright infringement, which can get you into much more trouble than theft. But the definition of theft is different around the world.

I think most people would consider it wrong and probably even consider it theft, but they would find out real quick the difference if they get caught with a pirated copy of a game that it is not the same as theft of my Milky Way candy bar.

So it was just a discussion of the legal term "theft".

Peabody

[Nisgeis]

If you're talking about the USA:

DMCA 1998, Title 3.

Backups are effectively such computer maintenance.

That's what UK law says as well, but you don't own the game, you only have a license to use it. So, how do you stand in the eyes of the law then?

Nice. So what if we all take a copy of Assassin's Creed II, no one pays for it? That's it, from now on no one buys any game, we all just duplicate the leaked gold and no one loses. Now you will argue that's unrealistic, but it's easy to defend the burglar who only takes a copy.

This reminds me of when I was in a union. When negotiations were breaking down and a strike loomed, there were always a few scabs who announced they would cross the picket line. Fine, then we should call of the strike and all go back. Why should we undergo hardships to get a better concession from the company if Joe Scab is not going to stand with us?

I don't understand why everyone thinks someone else is going to foot the bill for their pleasure. Has the entitlement mentaility really reached this level?

OK, I think I've worked something where the mis-communication is. I was just saying that piracy isn't theft, it's copyright infringement and some people objected to this. I think, and I may be wrong, it's because people are outraged by piracy and want to see the pirates punished, so they see it as the 'harsher' crime of theft and refer to it as theft, as it seems more serious.

The thing is though, that (and this is UK law) the maximum sentence for theft is seven years and that's for a major heist. The maximum sentence for copyright infringement is ten years and an unlimitted fine. It means unlimitted too, not like broadband download unlimitted. If you are charged with copyright infringement, then you face jail and having to payout for the damage you caused (I'm not really sure on how people pay back fines). So perhaps people don't see 'copyright infringement' as a serious crime, or a crime without victims (like shoplifting)? That's why they want to call it theft not copyright infringement, because copyright infringement sounds fluffy compared to theft.

Piracy is damaging to the gaming industry and also the retail industry (for the bricks and mortar shops where you buy them). I don't think anyone is saying that it isn't damaging, apart from the theory of 'word of mouth' recommendations from those that have pirated a game being a benefit. But I think we can all agree that if there were no piracy, then a portion of those that would have pirated the game will now buy it instead, increasing sales figures.

All of the costs of piracy are, under law, recoverable from the people responsible for uploading the games. I'm no expert, but I think the software companies would be better served by going after the people who uploaded the game, who got it from the person who worked at the game company. Then they'd be getting their losses back. They tracked down the guy who cracked the DVD encoding, so why not for games? If piracy really is costing ten sales for every copy bought, then for SH3, which sold 90k in the US, then that's US $36,000,000 claimed in lost 'revenue'. Couldn't they be tracked down with that sort of cash? Unless the figures are nowhere near that. Let's say one pirate copy for one sold, that's still US $3.6 million and just for the US alone and for a niche game like a subsim. Still a nice chunk of change to go investigating with. Why not offer a reward - US $1 million reward for turning in a cracker.

Absolutely agree with you Neal. We were just discussing whether or not "technically" or maybe more accurate, "legally", is pirating considered "theft" in the eyes of the law. Nisgeis felt it is not and I agree that is usually is not, it is actually much, much WORSE than theft, it is copyright infringement, which can get you into much more trouble than theft. But the definition of theft is different around the world.

Yep, much worse. By the way Peabody, I think I would be better off with your TV. Leave the remote next it yeah? Thanks!

[Frederf]

That's what UK law says as well, but you don't own the game, you only have a license to use it. So, how do you stand in the eyes of the law then?

You do actually own the game; the game being the use of the software. All licensing says is that you don't own the software's underlying design. "Use" is still a product and is just as protected as if it was a toaster or a car.

[jwilliams]

If only it was as simple as tracking down the pirate that uploaded the game to a torrent site. I think the problem is that in some counties its not illegal to copy software etc. these torrent sites that host the pirated games are also based in counties where its not illigal to copy others work.