Legal way to play CIV without the DVD?

[lutzj]

Do not accept the license agreement at first; just copy all of the files to a virtual drive, then install. Then you are not in breach of contract because you didn't contradict it after agreeing to it.

 

[warpus]

To those who have sent me links to no-cd cracks.. Thanks! It wasn't really needed, I know exactly where to get this stuff.. but it was a nice gesture though, so thanks anyway

I will not be using any one of these cracks, however.

I will continue to get annoyed at Firaxis and 2K as I'm prompted to insert my BTS DVD into my DVD-drive each and every time I want to play the game.

This is likely to annoy me enough to never want to buy games from them again.

Ah well.

 

[Rheinmetall]

You could always buy another DVD-drive for your computer and let the BTS DVD sit in there for all eternity.

 

[mdwh]

If companies provided an alternate way to install software then there would be no point to the EULA. And just because it's unreasonable, doesn't mean that a company can't file a legal suit.

Well companies can sue for any reason I like, just as I can sue illram for the £1000 he now owes me, but that doesn't mean it will be successful.

 

[lutzj]

You could always buy another DVD-drive for your computer and let the BTS DVD sit in there for all eternity.

Your brilliant idea makes me fell all stupid inside... why did nobody think of that for an entire page of posts?

 

[mdwh]

Yes it has, in the U.S. 3rd circuit at least. ProCD case.

What a worrying country you live in. Still, good for me - you now owe me £1000

(I do wonder what would happen in this case if someone _else_ published the ProCD information, who had not agreed to the EUL...)

You do agree to them by clicking yes. That's a contract, they made an offer and you accepted. You can return it or not install it if you don't agree.

I sure did. I made an offer, and you accepted. You could have not replied if you didn't agree.

Your example is not analogous. What you're talking about has no value, and you don't possess the right to exclude people from the thread. IOW, you're not offering me a product or a service worth what you're asking, nor do you own what you're offering.

And they don't have the right to exclude me from using software I have a legal right to use. That only applies if they are offering me the software. Otherwise, what they offer me is no different to me offering you the ability to reply to this thread.

Either the ProCD ruling applies to all cases - in which case you owe me. Or, as I suspect, it only applies to the ProCD EULA - in which case, it's not true that any arbitrary EULA is necessarily valid, rather, it's up to the court to decide in each case.

A license agreement is a contract. A license is also a contract.

Only if you agree to it.

If you edit it, it's a new agreement that the other party has to agree with, which I doubt they ever would.

But they do agree to it - if they can arbitrarily decide that I "agreed" by clicking a button, how about if I write "If you install when I click 'install' you agree to the edited EULA"? If it's good enough for me, it's good enough for them.

If you reply to this message, you agree to pay me another £1000.

Another point to note is that the ProCD case was upheld because the person had the ability to return it. Do software companies always offer refunds? Given the fears of piracy where someone copies and then returns it, I though they didn't, but I may be wrong?

I've got a crappy buggy Medieval Total War I bought a few years ago - perhaps I'll try returning that and claim I don't agree to the EUL, to get my money back...

 

[Souron]

I think that the difference between digital agreements like an EULA, or the agreement you made when joining this forum, and written agreements is that written agreements are signed with ink, where as digital agreements are signed with a click of a button.

We should except that digital signatures of this sort are valid, as otherwise online retail would be illegal.

@mdwh
Claiming that if I press an arbitrary button or sequence of keys would not qualify as an agreement to a contract. Pressing a button specifically designed for that purpose could be. So if you made a web page with a button that costs £1000 to click, that would be legal as long as you don't force me to press it. Claiming that anyone who replies to your post owes you money is not.

 

[illram]

(I do wonder what would happen in this case if someone _else_ published the ProCD information, who had not agreed to the EUL...)

They'd be sued for copyright infringement.

And they don't have the right to exclude me from using software I have a legal right to use. That only applies if they are offering me the software.

They aren't offering you the software? What are they offering you then? Assuming you can read it before you pay for it, how do you have the legal right to use it if you don't agree to their terms of use?

Now, paying for it an then reading the EULA is different than the above, I agree. However, the unfortunate reality of modern software transactions is that you are buying the right to use the software, you are not buying the software itself. Do I think it's fair that you are basically buying the right to look at an agreement, and that if you disagree you have to actually go get your money back and can't use the software? No, I think it's bullsh*t. Especially when you consider that no software vendor ever accepts opened software. Technically the manufacturer has to refund you. Still, it's bullsh*t, I agree. I asked my law professor about this when we went over this case, and he said no one has challenged "shrinkwrap agreements" (what those are called) in any other jurisdiction, this is all we have to go on. So, this is the status quo, unfortunately. I am totally behind you challenging this somewhere else other than the 3rd circuit, and you should.

HOWEVER, if you are talking about software where you see the agreement and then have the choice to pay for it, I don't think you can question that. Or, as is more common, software where you have to agree before dowloading and installing. You read it, you agreed, you paid and/or you installed it. Done deal. When I buy a game on Steam, I have the opportunity to read the EULA before paying and downloading. If I didn't like the terms I shouldn't have agreed, and I am liable if I violate those terms.

I've got a crappy buggy Medieval Total War I bought a few years ago - perhaps I'll try returning that and claim I don't agree to the EUL, to get my money back...

If you installed it that means you agreed. Sorry bud.

 

[.Shane.]

I will not be using any one of these cracks, however.

Why not? Its defacto legal and completely ethical.

Your brilliant idea makes me fell all stupid inside... why did nobody think of that for an entire page of posts?

Because its not brilliant. Its ******** that companies force you to go around their archaic, misguided EULAs that punish people who respect the law and treat the consumer like a defacto criminal.

The best answer in this thread is steam. That's what I wish I'd of done.

 

[illram]

deleted, pointless

 

[warpus]

Why not? Its defacto legal and completely ethical.

Alright, so I probably will.

I will probably also never buy another Civilization game.

And yes, I know it's not really fair to single out a particular game publisher when all of them do exactly the same thing.. But hey.. whatever.

I bought a product and I'm not happy with the way it works. So I do the only thing I can - I protest by not giving them any more of my money.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Your brilliant idea makes me fell all stupid inside... why did nobody think of that for an entire page of posts?

I did it and after about a year leaving the disc in whenever I wasn't using the drive for something else and a ring formed in the middle of my disc. A portion of it became corrupted. I called support and they don't cover that. Maybe that only happens with my drive model. I'm not sure but its just I warning.

 

[illram]

CD crack = illegal in the US, for the hundredth time.

 

[Zelig]

CD crack = illegal in the US, for the hundredth time.

Yeah, but most people don't live in the US.

And illegality does not equate immorality or unethical behaviour.

 

[Souron]

CD crack = illegal in the US, for the hundredth time.

It would depend on the EULA.

For example, if the EULA does not explicitly state that the game must be played with the CD in the drive, but does state that the software cannot be modified, then it would still be legal to create a virtual drive that pretends to be the CD.

 

[lutzj]

When I buy a game on Steam, I have the opportunity to read the EULA before paying and downloading.

If you buy it on Steam, then you have all the game files on your computer, so you have nothing to worry about unless you had originally planned to pirate the game, in which case you don't give a damn about the EULA. Keep in mind that this thread is about legally getting around the CD check, not debating the merits of EULAs.

 

[illram]

deleted, pointless again, i've said it enough.

 

[Speedo]

CD crack = illegal in the US, for the hundredth time.

Can you name one instance of someone being prosecuted for using a no-CD crack?

 

[lutzj]

Are you a mod?

Yeah, I'm Thunderfall in disguise

 

[illram]

Can you name one instance of someone being prosecuted for using a no-CD crack?

Nope. Laws still on the books though, that's all I'm sayin.