f1shlips

I'm getting my A$# handed to me, which is fine. I know the pace is slower, I need to supress, I can't run as far, etc... I think I'm making progress (de-gameyfing my tactics), but what is the average time it should take for me successfully take the VLs in a 900 and 1500 pt attack, respectively? Also, it seems like I need to utilize my armor earlier, ie: less cautiously than in CMBO. Is this true? Would the CMBB troops rout at the sight of schoolboys armed with slingshots? ... me thinks so.

>I'm sure a lot of people like it ( [Mad] ). Well, I've said my piece, pimped out www.digitalconsumer.org. I could discuss this issue forever, and MrSpkrs erronious interpretation of the word property as it applies to this discussion really had me roused up. But, we've had this discussion before and it really doesn't belong here. In close and off topic, but I'd like to mention the Nevada Freedom Riders, a state lobbyist group I started with some friends. We're now 15 people strong (woohoo), but now we can cover ever day of the legislative session in person, unlike last session in which we missed 15 days of the 120. You don't have to accept the things you don't like about this country, there are avenues to change them.

>I'm sure we would all love to hear how you have a system that costs the same or less and will do as much to deter casual game piracy As I'm sure your aware, Microsoft tends to use some sort magick key for most of their end-user purchased software and of course there's the online stuff for registering WinXP (non bulk licenses of course, powerfull consumers like Dell wouldn't put up with it). I've got a bulk license for WinXP with Dell, who is the reseller, that states specifically in the contract that I must obtain ("fufillment" is the term they use in the contract) the media from somewhere else, they just give me the licenses. My ownership isn't verified by the CD, its done through another entity. >Perhaps you prefer a 'dongle' and all the issues that stem from that method of copy protection ? USB dongles aren't too bad for my needs, but they can be used to limit the software from running under emulation/binary replacement on other platforms. Also, I would assume that due to the cost they're obviously not realistic for a game like CMBO. >Admittedly it would be nice to have another method to ensure that people playing the full version have actually paid for it. But almost any other method is even more easily compromised or more expensive. It is trivial to copy a CD. It takes 5 minutes on my pc. 5 minutes to break something seems like something that could be categorized as 'easily compromised'. >Also you're not obliged to play CM. And their not obliged to sell it. In fact if no one sold their software, no one could steal it. It's the same argument on either side, the consumer and the content owner. I feel there are certain rights both sides are entitled to, unfortunatly those rights aren't codified into law yet, hence my vocal advocacy. >The software on your computer is not owned by you per say, Yes it is, if my computer gets stolen and the CMBO CD goes with it, I will be the one calling the police. It is my property, now I don't have an absolute right to do whatever I want with this property. Just like I can't build the brothel I've always wanted on the land I own, there's laws and regulations against it. I think there should be laws and regulations against software companies doing whatever they can to limit my ability to run their software how I see fit. Other groups people agree with me, www.digitalconsumer.org is one such group of people. >Copy protection is a necessity nowadays. If you say so. Copy protection was apparently a necessity in the 80's and 90's too, I spent many times running through specific pages in manuals looking for code words or peering through red lenses at uncopyable peices of dark paper with slightly darker ink. I haven't seen that type of copy protection system in a while, I'd like to see the CD-ROM check disappear the same way.

Existing fair use rights aside, why should you have to? Why should your the authentication of your CMBO purchase be entertwined with the media in which it was transported? http://www.digitalconsumer.org/bill.html

I didn't say it was. It is the matter in which they verify my owenership that disturbs me, the casual assumption that software companies can do whatever they like with my pc. I like to play CMBO on a touch screen pc that used to be a point of sale unit and as such it does not feature a cd-rom, nor is it easy to get one on it. Installing the software wasn't a problem, as it has a network card and I could map a CD-ROM from another pc and install the software. However, a mapped drive does not report itself as a CD-ROM drive to inquiring software. There is no way to legitimatly get CMBO to run on this pc. In the illegitmate category I could A.) remove the cd check or B.) Expend extra hd space and purchase ($$$) software that will allow me mount an image of the CMBO CD. Either way, both Battlefront and I lose. They no longer have the opportunity to verify authenticity, and I've wasted time (or money vis-a-vis plan by removing it. There are other ways to combat casual piracy. [ August 01, 2002, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: f1shlips ]

We've had this discussion (locked down) before. Removing the CD Check from CMBO is a simple matter. I also wish there was a legitimate way to post the removal instructions, patch, or fixed binary... but there's not. Until Battlefront removes it, the only way to work around it is the CD-ROM emulator stuff. I'll never understand why companies think they have the right to render my CDROM unusable for any length of time, given the fact thatCDs are so easily copied. Does locking the CD in my drive actually accomplish anythything other than frustrate CMBO owners? I understand Battlefront's need to protect their property from various types of piracy, but it would seem like an unlock code would work just as well for casual piracy and be less demanding to its customers. But we've had this discussion before.

Do you have to dig fighting holes and fill sandbags to? Is there some sort of speed PM level where ya gotta bust the rust off of your weapons and coat everything with the appropriate amount of CLP. Garsh, an Army game sounds soooo exciting.

Speech: Wow This kind of stuff never happens to me. When I started out as an "Alternative Newbie Reject" I just never considered the fact that I could someday become one of the great 'Newbie Rejects'. I'd like to thank the Academy, the Hollywood Foreign Press, the fine people at Battlefront.com, and expecially my local Diet Coke bottler (I couldn't of done it without you). Ritch

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> especially when the analogy is an almost 100-year old case<hr></blockquote> First sale was codified into law (CFR Title 17 Section 106 - 109) in 1976, the current law itself isn't that old. While I'm not 100% on the exact things you can or cannot do with a book, I do believe that software and a written work are one in the same. In both instances the thoughts of the author are conveyed to the audience via a common language. The ease of which one can copy or reproduce the work is irrelevent, because one intent of the copyright law is to protect those works in the first place. I believe the path that led to software licensing in the first place is the fact that you usually have to make one or more copies of a program to get it to run (at least once on the harddrive and at least once in memory). Installing that cd would be illegal unless the author gave you permission, hence the license. Obviously the authors don't want to allow unlimited copies of software, so the license agreement addresses that issue and the Nth degree issues that follow. Like the question of whether or not you can run more than one copy of word at a time? Some parts of word are single instance, meaning that they only get loaded into memory once for each window of word that appears on your desktop. Other parts use multiple instances loaded into memory. Fostering the confusion futher is the fact that most judges, lawyers, and laypersons do not understand exactly what software is, nor where its actual value is contained. What makes this issue so important and exciting is that it is undergoing solidification as we speak, in both the congress and the courts. I would rather prevent bad (including unconstitutional ones) laws from being enacted than challenge ones that exist. Remember it took 60 years to trump plessey v fergusen with brown v board of education and that decision involved fundamental human rights.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>if you share his view about how copyright should work<hr></blockquote> I do agree with Lessig and his agenda. While I don't have a firm grasp on all the lawyered-in intracies of the system, his primary argument that the 7 or so alterations and extentions to copyright/patents change the rules without giving the people anything in exchange. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>. But you are generally free to do what you want to do with the program...sell it, lend it, give it away. These are the same rights you have when you buy a book.<hr></blockquote> Your statement is contrary to what I've read and understood. Big money licenses, like Microsoft, do not allow you to modify, sell, or lend your Microsoft software. GNU/FSF/etc licenses won't let me redistribute a product for free or sale without the orignal source. The RIAA is trying to stop the "ripping" of music and movies, even for personal use (or more precisely they're trying to capitolise on the digitial age by controlling how the "ripping" is accomplished). Never mind the fact that congress addressed that very same issue in 1992 by adding a tax, that gives money to the media companies, on every blank cd and tape purchased. To go even further into how broken the system has become, if I want to modify my software or even peer under the hood, I can go to jail under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act). If I were to post a document on the internet that discussed how CMBO implements its copy protection, even though the tool they use to implement that protection is publicly documented and well known, I could be prosecuted and jailed. Some college professors involved in research have not published their work for fear of being prosecuted. I can visualize Ralph Nader incarcertated for publishing "Unsafe at Any Speed", or anti-NHTSA folks jailed for mentioning the drawbacks of Hetrick's "People Saver" (air bag). Is discussing the operation of a turbo 400 transmission illegal, how about the manufacturing of modifications and hop ups for that tranny? It could be, if you consider what the DMCA accomplishes. In my mind, the system became contrary when congress began to modify copyright law to promote the financial interests of the copyright holder and gave nothing back to the people in return. Like Lessig said, " Extending the term for already produced speech can't produce more speech...Giving Disney the right to control speech about Mickey for another 20 years in exchange for nothing". <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> You have to be careful about relying on Lessig for copyright information. <hr></blockquote> I'm interested in other viewpoints, but they are difficult to find and Lessig makes his widely available. I know that intense patent/copyright discussions happened 100-150 years ago, but I have been unable to locate anything pertanent to guide my opinions.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Congress shall have the power to "promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." (Const., Art. I, Sec. 8). Seems fairly straightforward. While you can quibble with the copyright act on parameters and time of protection, I think its a bit of a stretch to think the current system is contrary to the constitution. Just my $.02 <hr></blockquote> Well you can trivialize it as a quibble, but any law wich adds or removes restrictions on government behaviour is important. Maby its not important for you to spend your time on (ie- you'd rather fight other battles), but it is important. I can tell you didn't bother to read the comments from Mr. Lessig. The current system is contrary to the constiution.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Patching is illegal and violating License Agreement. <hr></blockquote> Ok, but is the spread of information on how to defeat that protection illegal (pre-DMCA or in your own beliefs)? The way I understand it, software like CMBO may not be entitled to a license agreement. Software companies would like you to think that using software is some sort of priveledge that they grant to you and as I (not a lawyer) have had it explained to me, is does the purchase of software constitute a sale? If it does, there are certain rights that come with a sale that have been upheld in the supreme court. Lawrence Lessig, Chair of something or other at Stanford, was on Slashdot recently talking about the issue in some detail. Here is an exerpted quote: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Back near the turn of the last century, book publishers printed contracts on their books, limiting the ability of the customer to resell or lend his purchases. This practice was halted by the U.S. Supreme court and the consumers right to do what they wish with legitimately purchased copies (with certain limited exceptions) was eventually codified in the US code as part of the '76 Copyright Act. Given that software is a work of authorship protected by Copyright law, how is it that software publishers get away with these old tricks of printing restrictive contracts on their works, claiming assent simply by using the software, denying people their rights under Copyright law? LL: They get away with it because their lobbyists have convinced Congress to change the law. So, for example, the first sale doctrine has been repealed for some content. And it is not being supported with other content. The history is important, however, to remind people about the balance that copyright law has typically tried to draw. We have never until now understood the rights of copyright to be the right of the author (or publisher) to exercise perfect control over copyrighted material. The framers of our constitution gave copyright holders a tiny set of rights; this is not because the framers were communists. We need, as a culture, to remember that copyright is a form of state regulation. And we need, as political culture, to become, with respect to this regulation, a bit more Republican: Where is the regulatory impact statement that shows that this form of regulation does any good? <hr></blockquote> I think software piracy (bulk as well as casual) and copy protection are both morally wrong. In regards to piracy in general, if you take something without the owners permission, regardless of the actual harm, its stealing. Copy protection treats paying customers like criminals and while some forms of protection do deter casual piracy, nothing has ever stopped a determined bulk producer. No key, dongle, or encryption... nothing. (Except crappy software). Personally, it makes me angry that software companies feel that they have the right to lock or use resources on my pc as they see fit, simply to serve their own interests, just because they say so. It also frustrates me that people simply bend over and grab their ankles when reading a legal sounding document and blindly obey. Look at the sale part of www.battlefront.com and tell me where it tells you that CMBO requires the CD to operate? The part about no refunds is easy to find, but I didn't see anything about the cd check? Do you consider this a fair way to operate? "I can do whatever I feel like and you'll like it" Furthermore, I like to fight. I have strong (but not deaf) opinions on current issues. I lobby Nevada's Legislature, I assist in campaigns, and I am currently involved in a several acts of civil disobedience in the state of Nevada just so I can have my day in court and try to have a law overturned. Not that civil disobediance is the only way to challenge bad laws, but it is a viable way. Remember that the founding of this country started with the Boston tea party -- an act of civil disobedience. I think if you start looking into the state of copyright and patent law and compare that to the original intent granted to congress by the constituion (its only 4400 words, read it)and I think you'll see how important a cd check can be. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilence" [ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: f1shlips ] [ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: f1shlips ]</p>

Umm, I'd like to know how BTS feels about it first.. but I can explain to you how to modify your exe to remove the cd check. BTS thankfully didn't put much effort into the check, so it only takes a few minutes to change the necessary 10 bytes or so to bypass the check. The "hard" part (not really), is in calculating the branch offset. I won't distribute a binary, but if BTS states that they don't care about it, I'll email the instructions to anyone who asks. Rebase, Rebase, Rebase!