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.

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!

Its all about war....
 

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Potential and very real revenues.

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.

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.

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?

QFT, well said!

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:

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.

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.

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:

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

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.