Can you play CM with out the CD?

[phil stanbridge]

I know it asks for the cd as a form of copy protection, but this is very annoying a times. My cd hasn't seen the light of day in months, and it's in need of some air and a spring clean..

I was wondering if there's some kind of *patch* that allows you to run without the cd?

[Schrullenhaft]

No.

I believe that this is only possible when playing a multiplayer TCP/IP game and the host has already started up.

If you find any Warez cracks I'm sure BTS would like to know where you found them (emailed and not posted on the forum - of course).

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Schrullenhaft ]</p>

[f1shlips]

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!

[rum]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by phil stanbridge:

I know it asks for the cd as a form of copy protection, but this is very annoying a times. My cd hasn't seen the light of day in months, and it's in need of some air and a spring clean..

I was wondering if there's some kind of *patch* that allows you to run without the cd?<hr></blockquote>

Patching is illegal and violating License Agreement.

But what you can do w/o violating EULA (at least i believe its legal) - is to create full CD image and save it on the HD.

Mount CD image before playing and enjoy.

[Priest]

Funny why would you want to take it out, CDs are meant to be put in CD ROMS and played. If you want to play CMBO then put in the CD. If you do not then take it out.

[f1shlips]

<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>

[mensch]

The only suggestion I have is make a disc image on your HD (I do that for most of my games). Why? well one I like playing music while I play (depending on the mood) two, it saves disc wear (ever drop your CD while puting it in the tray? I have it sucks got a scuff on my CM disc) and three saves the CD-RW Drive wear (I replaced one CD Drive since I constantly played CM 24-7).

Now the down sides of this is you have a chunk of around 600MB used up on your drive, but if you have a 40-60Gig drive this should be no problem. Heck I made a disc image of one of my fav CD that I can fire up without searching for it in my LARGE collection and play happly my CM with march songs a going.

[Philistine]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by f1shlips:

{snip}

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.

<hr></blockquote>

Actually, the controversy is more over "shrink wrap licenses" which are essentially license agreements not seen prior to sale. There is conflicting authority on whether these will be upheld.

Patching (or cracking), however, is not permissible regardless of the EULA. Anything which you do to modify the program in a way not provided for in the program causes a "derivative work" which violates the copyright.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

{snip}

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"<hr></blockquote>

Well the minimum system requirements state that a CD drive is required. I do consider this a fair way to operate, particullary since I don't believe I've bought a single game in the last year that does not require a CD to be in the drive. The only game I can remember buying in the past 2 years which did not require a CD was "Armies of Armegeddon", which, interestingly enough, was originally published by Battlefront.

CD checks do not bother me. What bothers me are CD protection schemes which actually interfere with the game and, depending on hardware, prevent the game from being played. In those cases, I agree with you. However, merely having a CD check doesn't seem to be a problem.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

{snip}

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.

<hr></blockquote>

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

--Philistine

[f1shlips]

<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.

[Andrew H.]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by f1shlips:

The current system is contrary to the constiution.<hr></blockquote>

Nonsense. The case Lessig is talking about stands for the proposition that some licenses can be so restrictive that they are unenforceable. This doesn't mean that any license is unenforceable; it is very clear that some licenses are enforceable.

Most EULAs are vaguely patterned after the case Lessig was talking about; their key point is that you can only have one copy of a software program (plus a backup, maybe) at a time. 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. Of course, you don't have the right to make identical copies of a book and sell them, lend them out,or give them away. And you can't do that with software, either.

So it would seem that if you made an image of the CMBO CD on your hard drive, you would have two copies of the program (and you wouldn't have made the copy for backup purposes), so you would be violating the user agreement. This would be enforceable. On the other hand, if you wrote an additional program that made CMBO run without the CD in the computer, I don't see how that would violate the licensing agreement.

You have to be careful about relying on Lessig for copyright information. He's a smart man, but he definitely has an agenda (by which I mean a particular view of how he would like copyright to work). A lot of people share his views, which is fine, but it would be a mistake to consider his view of how copyright should work as being how copyright does work, or will work. He's been mostly wrong about how most recent computer copyright cases would turn out, for example, so it's risky to rely on him for information about what copyrights mean (because appellate judges keep telling him that he's wrong).

On the other hand, if you share his view about how copyright should work, and you want ammunition to support your view, he's not a bad source for that.

[f1shlips]

<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.

[SpazManOught]

Ok...About a month ago I posted a similar question but got no answer. So I had to figure this out for myself, but this only works for Mac users.

1) Download and install an app called disk copy from apples website or the versiontracker website, run the application.

2) Drag the CD icon from your desktop into the little window. follow prompts and wait while a cd image is created.

3) eject CM disk. then double click on the CD image Icon you just made. This mounts the image and you can now run the game as normal.

The image takes up about 300 Mb of space I think, with compression you can get this down to 299 Mb but it takes about a hour to make the image, so its not worth it.

You can also get an app called babysitter which will mount the image, change your monitor res and colour depth and then launch the game all in one smooth action. All this software is free for Mac users, I think you can get similar apps for windows but you will have to pay.

This procedure could be used to make illegal copies of the disk and an image of the disk on your harddrive may be in breach of the copyright but hell I dont read those things.

[Andrew H.]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by f1shlips:

I'm interested in other viewpoints, but they are difficult to find and Lessig makes his widely available.<hr></blockquote>

It can be difficult to find articles on the web that describe intellectual property law in general terms. Probably the best thing to do is look for the opinions in the court cases discussing copyright law. Here's a link to the court of appeals ruling in the DeCSS case, for example. DeCSS case.

I think that the opinion is pretty well written and should be fairly understandable to reasonably intelligent people. It has some decent background information in it, too.

When reading Lessig (and others) on copyright, it's probably worthwhile to keep in mind that he is usually talking about two separate issues(although he often doesn't make this distinction clear). The first issue is whether copyright-related laws are "good" laws or "bad" laws; the second issue is whether copyright related laws are constitutional.

It's important to know whether a law is good or bad so that you can know whether to write your legislator and tell him or her how to vote. But the constitution doesn't prohibit bad laws (obviously), so the mere fact that a law is bad doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. I think Lessig blurs these two things sometimes.

You can also find copies of the DCMA on the web. Relevant portions of it can be worthwhile to read as well.

[rlh1138]

Just taking an opportunity to educate myself here - Mr. Hedges and Mr. Fishlips(?) - in reading your exchanges (and thank you both for steering yourselves away from a certain tone) I read the following:

'Most EULAs are vaguely patterned after the case Lessig was talking about; their key point is that you can only have one copy of a software program (plus a backup, maybe) at a time. 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. Of course, you don't have the right to make identical copies of a book and sell them, lend them out,or give them away. And you can't do that with software, either.

So it would seem that if you made an image of the CMBO CD on your hard drive, you would have two copies of the program (and you wouldn't have made the copy for backup purposes), so you would be violating the user agreement'

In reading that I wondered, and am hoping to get your opinion on, ... If I buy a book, do I or do I not have the right to make a copy (or 12), to read in the bathtub so as not to get the orginal wet, or to put under my bed, just cause I want to. And so on. I would have thought I did, as long as it was for me - That is, nobody else would even know about it - 'cause I wasn't going to lend them, or sell them, or even show them to anybody? And, by extension, if I got a new CD burner and just wanted to burn 12 copys of CM, cause it's my favorite game and just looking at them sitting there pleases me - am I violating something. (Besides common sense)

Thanks for any thoughts -

[Andrew H.]

You do have the right to make multiple xerox copies of books and keep them around your house. But this probably doesn't mean that you have the right to do the same with computer programs (assuming its barred by an EULA, of course).

I think this is just one shortcoming of reasoning by analogy, especially when the analogy is an almost 100-year old case. The "first sale" case (I can't remember the real name of the case) really only talked about selling, lending, or giving away books, but it (in those pre-xerox days) didn't talk about making copies of books. I don't think you can interpret the case to mean that EULAs are invalid unless they allow you to do everything with a program that you can do with a book. Although there may be certain things that they can't prohibit you from doing.

I'm not sure if that's much of an answer. I also don't know about the more restrictive EULAs f1shlips described above -- to the extent I read EULAs, they've mostly just been game EULAs.

[f1shlips]

<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.

[Madmatt]

This is not the place for such discussion gentlemen.

Soneone earlier asked for our OFFICIAL position and here it is.

Discussions on how to circumvent our copy protection (i.e. CD CHECK) of any of our products, past, current and future are prohibted in this forum. If you disregard our wishes your posting privledges will be revoked.

In the past we have contacted websites and individuals that posted such CD HACKS and demanded them to remove those files as they are in violation of our stated copyrights.

There you have it, I am now closing this thread down.

Madmatt