Xbox Update Confounds Console Pirates

[Wintermoot]

FW update disables piracy no shit!

 

[Jaded Scribe]

It's not legal to back up your discs. It says so right on the warranty that comes with the game. I don't have a game on me right now to write it here, but check the back of the instruction manual. It essentially says "Backing up your game isn't necessary so don't do it."

Isn't game copying for purposes of backup covered by fair use law? Also, see the other reply. If we really are only buying a license, then surely backup copies are necessary.

The company is so supposed to provide free or low cost replacement media, and I've never heard a company NOT providing replacement media assuming proof of purchase like a sales receipt or registration. Always hang on to that stuff, doesn't take up space and can save so much effort later on. Make a folder called "game receipts" and throw it next to your taxes folder. You'll still have that shit in 30 years, guaranteed.

If you lose your windows disc, you can call Microsoft and have a new one sent to you for just the cost of shipping. "Pirates" just make up excuses to get free stuff.

Another way to keep your receipts: Get a new receipt for each game you purchase (if you buy more than one at a time, you can ask for extra copies of the receipt) and then fold it up and tape it inside the case behind the manual. That way you can put your hands on any game's receipt at any time.

 

[ryai458]

Good for you microsoft, dealing with pirates without screwing over paying costumers.

 

[Treblaine]

The company is so supposed to provide free or low cost replacement media, and I've never heard a company NOT providing replacement media assuming proof of purchase like a sales receipt or registration.

What!?!? You mean if I send a scratched disc to Microsoft they will send me a brand spanking new one!?!

If you do that, mail a scratched disc to them, I guarantee you will never get a replacement. You'll be lucky if you even get a response.

LOL @ ur GoogleFail [http://support.xbox.com/en-gb/pages/xbox-360/troubleshoot/games/disc-replacement-program.aspx]. Xbox support has offered that service for over 3 years. Personally I think the shipping and handling fee is a bit steep, but it is there.

-- Steve

"This programme applies only to games published by Microsoft and is subject to availability."

Sounds to me like a rock solid cop out to me.

"LOL @ ur GoogleFail"

Don't be a jerk.

 

[Treblaine]

Take a gander at the actual text of Section 117 as a whole. Apply your common sense to that reading. If you come away under the impression that when it makes reference to "computer programs" it intends to include video games within the meaning of that term, then I'll be more than willing to make reasoned arguments as to why it doesn't. But I suspect that you will not conclude that it does capture video games within its ambit.

But if video games aren't computer programs... then what are they?

 

[Dogstile]

I know in my last move I lost a box full of older PC games, including my original copy of Star Craft, so it's easy to lose the real copy you purchased, if game companies are going to pull the "you don't buy the game, you buy the licence" bullshit they've got to back it up with a way to recover lost media.

I know in my last move I lost a box full of older PC games

I lost a box

I lost

I

I'm not following your logic here. Whether you own the game or the license, you are responsible for it. I can't walk into a bookstore and say "I lost my book. You need to give me a new one."

Why do you think that because you lost something, it's on them to replace it?

Because they insist on games being a license. They've licenses the software to you and it costs just about nothing to redownload it. If you've brought the license and you can get it back with no cost to the company, what's wrong with downloading a new copy?

 

[RowdyRodimus]

Games are not that expensive. End of story.

Buy the games, guys. If you don't believe in trust, then rent them or borrow them from a friend or something. They usually have demos, too.

The demo for Force Unleashed 2 would have been no indication that you were paying $59.99 + tax for a game you'd finish in the same night you brought home.

What do Americans and Canadians pay for sales Tax? Wikipedia has a pretty cryptic article about it and it's not clear what is exempt.

Anyone know if you have to pay sales tax on games bought via Steam IN the USA?

I realise that in the UK games have to sell at £45 ($72) to equal the same amount as they sell for in USA, considering our 20% sales tax (actually a V.A.T) and the weak British pound. I remember when it was Two dollars to the pound, those were the days.

I live in Canada, and in the province of Ontario, our sales tax is 13%

In the States it varies not just from state to state but from city to city. Where I live sales tax is 9.25% but I can drive for 5 minutes either way and pay 7.35% or 10.75%. So when I have a big purchase I go to the 7.35% place otherwise I just stay in the spot I am. It might not sound like that's a lot, but when you figure that the median wage is $22,000 a year in the city I live in paying $60+9.25% sales tax is actually more for us than a place where the average wage is $50-75K a year.

 

[JDKJ]

I'm not a fan of piracy, but what about the people who were just using backups?

It's not legal to back up your discs. It says so right on the warranty that comes with the game. I don't have a game on me right now to write it here, but check the back of the instruction manual. It essentially says "Backing up your game isn't necessary so don't do it."

Bzzzt, wrong. Admittedly, as it falls under fair use it's what's known as an affirmative defense, kind of like justifiable homicide, but it's still legal.

It's not any fair use that I can identify under Section 107. What makes you think it's a fair use? If it's Joe Gamer making back-up copies of games just to be safe, then it's not for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research as provided for by Section 107. If it's not done for one of the purposes listed by Section 107, then it's not a fair use.

You do realize that fair use, before somebody codified parts of it into a law, was merely a bunch of judges saying that people have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to do X? So, just because it's not covered under Section 107 does not mean that it doesn't qualify as fair use.

The fact remains that Section 107 is a codification of the judicial decisions which constituted the doctrine of fair use and that any well-reasoned analysis need consider (a) the purposes listed by the statute and thereafter if needed (b) the four factors listed by the statute. Section 107 is the touchstone of any proper fair use analysis.

Can you point me to one unauthorized use of copyrighted material to which a claim of fair use was raised and recognized and which didn't fall neatly into one of the purposes listed by Section 107 and which didn't involve a resulting benefit to the public (as opposed to a purely private and personal benefit such as results from making back-up copy of video games for safety's sake)?

 

[Jaded Scribe]

I know in my last move I lost a box full of older PC games, including my original copy of Star Craft, so it's easy to lose the real copy you purchased, if game companies are going to pull the "you don't buy the game, you buy the licence" bullshit they've got to back it up with a way to recover lost media.

I know in my last move I lost a box full of older PC games

I lost a box

I lost

I

I'm not following your logic here. Whether you own the game or the license, you are responsible for it. I can't walk into a bookstore and say "I lost my book. You need to give me a new one."

Why do you think that because you lost something, it's on them to replace it?

Because they insist on games being a license. They've licenses the software to you and it costs just about nothing to redownload it. If you've brought the license and you can get it back with no cost to the company, what's wrong with downloading a new copy?

If you can redownload it legitimately, fine. My problem is this guy saying that companies HAVE to let you back it up in case you lose it. They don't have to do any such thing. And it seems that those that make these copies for piracy FAR exceed the number of people who back it up for legit reasons.

All these people quoting the Fair Use act also fail to understand that the law says that legally, making back ups is not a crime. Nowhere does it say that a company MUST let you make backups of their data.

 

[JDKJ]

Take a gander at the actual text of Section 117 as a whole. Apply your common sense to that reading. If you come away under the impression that when it makes reference to "computer programs" it intends to include video games within the meaning of that term, then I'll be more than willing to make reasoned arguments as to why it doesn't. But I suspect that you will not conclude that it does capture video games within its ambit.

But if video games aren't computer programs... then what are they?

Video games are computer programs. That doesn't meant that computer programs, as the term is used in Section 117, are video games. For example, the Constitution speaks of "citizens of the United States" and certain rights they enjoy. As that term is used by the Constitution in certain places, it means that that an undocumented alien, fresh over the U.S.-Mexico border, enjoys the right of due process, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, right to counsel, etc., etc. But an undocumented alien isn't what comes to most minds when the term "U.S. citizen" is used. I suspect that the exact opposite meaning comes to mind. I say all of this to say that what a particular term in a law means -- or doesn't mean -- is what the legislature intended it to mean and not necessarily its popular meaning.

To make the case more clear, the term "computer program" as used in Section 117 goes back to 1980. Was it possible in 1980 to commonly find personal computer-based commercial video games? I don't think so. Is it therefore likely that when the law was being drafted and the term was being used, that the drafters didn't intend for it to refer to an almost non-existent technology? I think so.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

I know in my last move I lost a box full of older PC games, including my original copy of Star Craft, so it's easy to lose the real copy you purchased, if game companies are going to pull the "you don't buy the game, you buy the licence" bullshit they've got to back it up with a way to recover lost media.

I know in my last move I lost a box full of older PC games

I lost a box

I lost

I

I'm not following your logic here. Whether you own the game or the license, you are responsible for it. I can't walk into a bookstore and say "I lost my book. You need to give me a new one."

Why do you think that because you lost something, it's on them to replace it?

Because they insist on games being a license. They've licenses the software to you and it costs just about nothing to redownload it. If you've brought the license and you can get it back with no cost to the company, what's wrong with downloading a new copy?

If you can redownload it legitimately, fine. My problem is this guy saying that companies HAVE to let you back it up in case you lose it. They don't have to do any such thing. And it seems that those that make these copies for piracy FAR exceed the number of people who back it up for legit reasons.

Actually, if it is a license, then they do have to provide you with a backup copy of the software at minimal cost. It's part of the law that covers licensing. Otherwise it falls under first sale. Which it does anyway since contracts agreed to after the fact are not valid. If you could return games for the purchase price from the manufacturer if you did not agree with the EULA than the EULA would be valid. You cannot.

Which games have no refund policy for lack of agreement? I have not personally seen one that does not.

 

[JDKJ]

I know in my last move I lost a box full of older PC games, including my original copy of Star Craft, so it's easy to lose the real copy you purchased, if game companies are going to pull the "you don't buy the game, you buy the licence" bullshit they've got to back it up with a way to recover lost media.

I know in my last move I lost a box full of older PC games

I lost a box

I lost

I

I'm not following your logic here. Whether you own the game or the license, you are responsible for it. I can't walk into a bookstore and say "I lost my book. You need to give me a new one."

Why do you think that because you lost something, it's on them to replace it?

Because they insist on games being a license. They've licenses the software to you and it costs just about nothing to redownload it. If you've brought the license and you can get it back with no cost to the company, what's wrong with downloading a new copy?

If you can redownload it legitimately, fine. My problem is this guy saying that companies HAVE to let you back it up in case you lose it. They don't have to do any such thing. And it seems that those that make these copies for piracy FAR exceed the number of people who back it up for legit reasons.

Actually, if it is a license, then they do have to provide you with a backup copy of the software at minimal cost. It's part of the law that covers licensing. Otherwise it falls under first sale. Which it does anyway since contracts agreed to after the fact are not valid. If you could return games for the purchase price from the manufacturer if you did not agree with the EULA than the EULA would be valid. You cannot.

Which games have no refund policy for lack of agreement? I have not personally seen one that does not.

If you ain't getting a straight-up refund, you're at least getting credit. Either way, the seller's taking that crap back and you're not out of pocket.

 

[JDKJ]

Take a gander at the actual text of Section 117 as a whole. Apply your common sense to that reading. If you come away under the impression that when it makes reference to "computer programs" it intends to include video games within the meaning of that term, then I'll be more than willing to make reasoned arguments as to why it doesn't. But I suspect that you will not conclude that it does capture video games within its ambit.

But if video games aren't computer programs... then what are they?

Video games are computer programs. That doesn't meant that computer programs, as the term is used in Section 117, are video games. For example, the Constitution speaks of "citizens of the United States" and certain rights they enjoy. As that term is used by the Constitution in certain places, it means that that an undocumented alien, fresh over the U.S.-Mexico border, enjoys the right of due process, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, right to counsel, etc., etc. But an undocumented alien isn't what comes to most minds when the term "U.S. citizen" is used. I suspect that the exact opposite meaning comes to mind. I say all of this to say that what a particular term in a law means -- or doesn't mean -- is what the legislature intended it to mean and not necessarily its popular meaning.

To make the case more clear, the term "computer program" as used in Section 117 goes back to 1980. Was it possible in 1980 to commonly find personal computer-based commercial video games? I don't think so. Is it therefore likely that when the law was being drafted and the term was being used, that the drafters didn't intend for it to refer to an almost non-existent technology? I think so.

Is it really your argument that there were no video games prior to 1980?

No. My argument is as I stated in writing. And which doesn't come anywhere close to saying that there were no video games prior to 1980. Perhaps you should read what I wrote. If you're even beginning to think that I'm arguing that there were no video games prior to 1980, then you couldn't have possibly read what I wrote -- at least, not carefully.

 

[Treblaine]

Take a gander at the actual text of Section 117 as a whole. Apply your common sense to that reading. If you come away under the impression that when it makes reference to "computer programs" it intends to include video games within the meaning of that term, then I'll be more than willing to make reasoned arguments as to why it doesn't. But I suspect that you will not conclude that it does capture video games within its ambit.

But if video games aren't computer programs... then what are they?

Video games are computer programs. That doesn't meant that computer programs, as the term is used in Section 117, are video games.

Of course "ALL computer programs aren't video games" just as "Rabbits are mammals" but "All Mammals are not rabbits". Just want to clear that up because of your odd choice of wording there.

For example, the Constitution speaks of "citizens of the United States" and certain rights they enjoy. As that term is used by the Constitution in certain places, it means that that an undocumented alien, fresh over the U.S.-Mexico border, enjoys the right of due process, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, right to counsel, etc., etc. But an undocumented alien isn't what comes to most minds when the term "U.S. citizen" is used. I suspect that the exact opposite meaning comes to mind. I say all of this to say that what a particular term in a law means -- or doesn't mean -- is what the legislature intended it to mean and not necessarily its popular meaning.

Don't mix up the Bill of Rights and the Constitution (which was a declaration of independence). Due process and all those laws are worded universally in the Bill of Rights:

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: ?No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.?

To make the case more clear, the term "computer program" as used in Section 117 goes back to 1980. Was it possible in 1980 to commonly find computer-based commercial video games? I don't think so. Is is therefore likely that when the law was being drafted and the term was being used, that the drafters didn't intend for it to refer to an almost non-existent technology? I think so.

Yes, computer games - even as computer programs - exited long before 1980.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_in_video_gaming

Apple II had been out for 3 years by 1980 and was home to some of the most important video games in video game history.

An anyway, you can't declare a law is no longer a law because circumstances change, you are second guessing the legislatures. Either way, the legislature knew that video games existed and knew that they were computer programs.

Come on. The internet wasn't around in 1789, does that mean the First Amendment doesn't apply to the Internet?