Can someone here read info on game disks?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I read the rest of the thread and don't remember it being asked, so here goes. You know the little hints that pop up in the lower right corner of the main menu? Could you see if theyre on the disc, and if so, post them?
 
The problem with that argument is that you're not buying the disc itself, but rather you are buying a license to access content on a disc.
Click to expand...

Who the heck told you that? It sounds like you've been playing too many games where they force you to accept an EULA and you are confusing yourself. You are not buying a license, you are buying a disc. If you were buying a license first you'd have to go to gamestop, sign a bunch of paperwork, pay them money, then be granted the disc as part of a contract. Since you pay for the transaction before any EULA is agreed to (which is also not a legal contract and would get shit on in a serious court trial) you could even alter the game to the point where you simply disabled that prompt and thus never had to "agree" to anything.

MMORPG's started the trend of hiding behind fake legal documents to cover their asses, and its more as a deterrent than an actual legal thing. The difference is that with an MMO, they state very clearly that you while you are buying the content on the disc up front at a store, you are paying monthly for the "privelege" of online access that can be revoked at any time. They hold these two transactions seperately and for good reason -- You cannot legally stop someone from playing with the content on their disc.

No, you're buying the disc. The content belongs to you to use personally however you see fit. The only law you can break is if you attempt to re-produce that content and hand it out to people who never payed for it. THAT is piracy.

Now what namco COULD do is get you banned from their online service if they learned you got access to their content, forcing you to play the game offline forever. That is within their power because online play is never guaranteed with a game, as the infrastructure did not come with the purchase of your disc.
 
DeathInMyEyes said:
I read the rest of the thread and don't remember it being asked, so here goes. You know the little hints that pop up in the lower right corner of the main menu? Could you see if theyre on the disc, and if so, post them?
Click to expand...
All the text is compressed. I dunno which format it is.
 
Rikuto said:
<snip>
Click to expand...
I'm sure Namco would love to have consumers go through all the steps you've listed, but at the risk of complicating the buying process they instead decided to go with a opt-out EULA. Here it is: http://www.namco.com/company/eula . It might be best to read up on what you've already (unknowingly) agreed to when you popped the game into your system. Namco's legal approach is nothing new. I believe the video game industry has been selling users licenses rather than the games themselves for about 20-30 years now.

I'm not looking to argue, I only brought it up because it's important that gamers know what they're into when dealing with these huge companies. Any disagreements you might have with Namco's EULA would be better argued in a courtroom rather than on a gaming forum.
 
Yars said:
I'm sure Namco would love to have consumers go through all the steps you've listed, but at the risk of complicating the buying process they instead decided to go with a opt-out EULA. Here it is: http://www.namco.com/company/eula . It might be best to read up on what you've already (unknowingly) agreed to when you popped the game into your system. Namco's legal approach is nothing new. I believe the video game industry has been selling users licenses rather than the games themselves for about 20-30 years now.

I'm not looking to argue, I only brought it up because it's important that gamers know what they're into when dealing with these huge companies. Any disagreements you might have with Namco's EULA would be better argued in a courtroom rather than on a gaming forum.
Click to expand...

I understand you don't want to argue, and you don't have to. It is important people understand the difference between a EULA and a contract though.

I sell you a milk shake with candy floating in it for a dollar. I hand it to you. After I've done this, I tell you that if you eat the candy without giving me an extra dollar, you are a criminal and ill call the police. Before I did this, I wrote down in a notepad under my desk that you are only paying for the privilege to drink the milk contents itself, but not anything extra without approval.

Now tell me, if this situation was brought to a courtroom, doesn't common sense tell you it would be laughed right out of the building?

This is what EULA's attempt to do.

As I said, it is a deterrent and not legally binding. Namco can put anything they like on their website, that does not make it law. You'll notice that there have been very few court cases related that try to conflict with this kind of writing. That is because companies like Namco don't want them to happen -- once it becomes wide-spread news that you can take a dump all over post-sale EULA you open the floodgates for lawyers to try all kinds of stuff to the gaming industry.

The most relevant case I can think of was tecmo vs ninja hacker back in 2005. Ninja hacker used to be a website that made custom hacked skins for DOA and SC2. Some of you remember this story, yes?

Itagaki became butthurt that people were making nude skins of kasumi and ayane, so he sent the legal hounds after ninja hacker claiming they had violated U.S. copyright law and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for reverse engineering his game. The lawsuit was dropped because there wasn't a snowballs chance in hell of it succeeding, but the legal harassment was enough to send the ninja hackers reeling back into the darkness. Tecmo realized during the course of this lawsuit that they didn't have a single thing to back them up legally, and EULA was worthless. Making this known publicly would have damaged the industry though, so they backed out silently.

The illusion is that the EULA carries any worth. It does not. Lawyers are scary and can cost you money just by showing up and threatening things, but the reality is they can't do anything effective in a courtroom with a EULA. This is doubly true when you are not even forced to read and agree to it before you buy something.

It is a flexible, post sales "fake" contract that requires neither signature nor party to be present, and it can change anytime it wants to without your consent. It is a stupid scare tactic and nobody should ever fear it.

It's your game, do what you want with it.
 
With or without a license?

I kid... but a contract is a contract, and a EULA given past the point of sale is not a contract. It doesn't take a lawyer to figure that out.

The purpose of a contract is to create a legally binding agreement between individuals in a manner which can be archived for future reference in case there is a breach in the agreement. But in order to have an agreement, terms have to be laid out first. You cannot agree to terms you do not know or have not ever been presented with. This is why a EULA does not legally work in the gaming industry.

WuHT having posted in response to me must now give me a backrub or relinquish his copy of SCV.

Just because I said this on a website and it is my best interest doesn't mean it's a law either.

And if on that fringe chance you think I'm just talking out of my ass (i know, you do, its alright), you're welcome to look up court cases that involved breach of contracts. Then look up some court cases that involved breach of EULA.

You'll notice hackers are traditionally protected by the courts and the EULA ignored unless they are found to be directly attacking someone elses property or supporting piracy itself. They take piracy pretty seriously and will burn you at the stake for that, even if you're a 12 year old girl downloading boyband songs.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that happened...
 
Rikuto said:
It's your game, do what you want with it.
Click to expand...

So regardless of your interpretation of the law, the law does not change. Feel free to check into the DMCA. You can absolutely be pursued under the DMCA for attempting this "I own this content, I'm allowed to crack it" nonsense.

I'm not sure what GTA's hot coffee has to do with anything else. No one sued RockStar for access to that content and that content was never sold. This is 1,000% irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

A more relevant example would be the DOA Volleyball scandal. Team Ninja threatened to sue the literal pants off of modders for transmitting their original content along with a patch that would remove the clothes from the females in the game. Even though the modders "owned the disc", it did not give the the ability to distribute the material. Modifying the material is 100% legal for their own use. There is a distinct difference and a very clear reason why this was pursued and abruptly halted - not because it would cause irreparable damage to the industry, not because nudes are bad, not because a certain person was emotionally shattered by the fact people wanted to see the girls nude.... but because the threat was enough to get the material taken down and put out of the spotlight. This type of feint is very common and has nothing to do with "a snowball's chance in hell" of succeeding. Team Ninja had nothing to gain monetarily from taking these individuals to court and everything to gain by protecting their property.

Similarly, the original Xbox modders were distributing a modified image that contained property owned by Microsoft. Modifying the console was not the issue - it was distributing this property.
 
So regardless of your interpretation of the law, the law does not change. Feel free to check into the DMCA. You can absolutely be pursued under the DMCA for attempting this "I own this content, I'm allowed to crack it" nonsense.
Click to expand...

Not very successfully, although I am painfully aware of what it is you are speaking of. This was a pretty good history of things. https://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-under-dmca

If you scroll down to the part where it says "Car Product Design Company Attempts to Suppress Competition with EULA" you can see an interesting reference where a EULA was used in court as leverage to keep it from getting dismissed, but it was still settled out of court.

This one too, I find important.

Chamberlain Sues Universal Garage Door Opener Manufacturer

Garage door opener manufacturer Chamberlain Group invoked the DMCA against competitor Skylink Technologies after several major U.S. retailers dropped Chamberlain's remote openers in favor of the less expensive Skylink universal "clickers." Chamberlain claimed that Skylink had violated the DMCA because its clicker bypassed an "authentication regime" between the Chamberlain remote opener and the mounted garage door receiver unit. On Chamberlain's logic, consumers would be locked into a sole source not only for replacement garage door clickers, but virtually any remote control device.

Skylink ultimately defeated Chamberlain both at the district court and court of appeals, but only after many months of expensive litigation. In the words of the court of appeals, Chamberlain use of the DMCA was nothing less than an "attempt to leverage its sales into aftermarket monopolies.
Click to expand...

Why are garage clickers important to the discussion? Well they are not, but it shows that going after someone in court for "authentication bypass" won't always pan out in favor of the prosecutor, even when the DMCA is involved. Finding workarounds with other tools is completely legal. This includes accessing the content you already own on your disc.


While it's been upheld plenty of times, the DMCA is, at it's core, a bunch of unconstitutional garbage and is only ever used in high-profile cases where the prosecutor has more than enough evidence of outright piracy (the automatic instant-win trump card) or just plain foul action that the judge isn't going to allow a good argument of the validity of the law. It shits all over Fair Use, but it's only ever used as a bullying tactic by people like Sony when piracy isn't directly involved.

In cases where the DMCA has proven successful against hackers and modders, it was usually because they were making a profit or costing a profit (selling mod chips, etc). It was actually not successful against emulators like bleam, they simply couldn't afford the prolonged court battle.

The "Scare" with SCV is that distributing unlock codes falls under costing a profit. As a consumer you own the content, and you own the lock, but you do not own the unlock code. Distributing the unlock code which does not come with the game disc IS piracy. The way around this is not to distribute the unlock code but rather remove the lock entirely. It is, after all, "your" lock.

Technicalities.

I'm not sure what GTA's hot coffee has to do with anything else. No one sued RockStar for access to that content and that content was never sold. This is 1,000% irrelevant to the conversation at hand.
Click to expand...

Actually they were sued by an old woman named Folerence Cohen for this very reason, saying that the game had given false advertising and sold her grand kid a filthy sex game. The ESRB (private organization mind you) also forced a re-rate of the game based on the "locked" content and Rockstar was forced to pull all copies of GTA San Andreas off of the shelves and re-rate their game from M to AO until they could re-release the game with the locked content removed. This locked content nonsense is also what spearheaded clinton and thompson's rampage into madness, so yea, I'd say locked content is considered relevant legally.

If people didn't "own" the locked content, they never could have "sold" it, and thus the entire situation never would have happened.

Similarly, the original Xbox modders were distributing a modified image that contained property owned by Microsoft. Modifying the console was not the issue - it was distributing this property.
Click to expand...

Be that as it may (or may not, I don't know of MS's legal holdings over character models for every game on their system and it's a pretty big stretch) MS did not go after NH, Tecmo did.

If M$ could've gotten something out of that, I'm almost certain they would have. To me, that shows a lack of confidence.
 
Rikuto said:
The way around this is not to distribute the unlock code but rather remove the lock entirely. It is, after all, "your" lock.
Click to expand...

Kind of true. It's still a security mechanism under DMCA and you can be charged. It will be successful - that success isn't based on successful lawsuits but rather successful precedence. Companies really have no reason to sue private individuals for large sums of money other than to force a cease and desist. That was the purpose of the Tecmo/Team Ninja deal with the DOA modders. After the whole piracy issue was over, when the modders began distributing patches rather than complete images, there was nothing to be said. The issue was never teh noods, the issue was always a feint to prevent the distribution of modified material.


Rikuto said:
Actually they were sued by an old woman named Folerence Cohen for this very reason, saying that the game had given false advertising and sold her grand kid a filthy sex game. The ESRB (private organization mind you) also forced a re-rate of the game based on the "locked" content and Rockstar was forced to pull all copies of GTA San Andreas off of the shelves and re-rate their game from M to AO until they could re-release the game with the locked content removed.

If people didn't "own" the locked content, they never could have "sold" it to you, and thus the entire situation never would have happened.
Click to expand...

This is still irrelevant. We're talking about disc locked content designed for distribution. The hot coffee content was never designed for distribution and private parties had to go intentionally unlock that content through out of band methods. That doesn't have anything to do with cracking a DLC code. It's not like RockStar can sue individuals that viewed that content for unlicensed viewing when it was never designed to be viewed. That's the difference here.... you might have an implied ownership for Hot Coffee material, but you do not have an implied ownership over being able to circumvent DLC locks designed for distribution and purchase.

Rikuto said:
Be that as it may (or may not, I don't know of MS's legal holdings over character models for a game on their system and it's a pretty big stretch) MS did not go after NH, Tecmo did.

If M$ could've gotten something out of that, I'm almost certain they would have.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what this even means... ? MS didn't sue with or in-place of Team Ninja - they sued some of the original modders for distributing tools that contained Microsoft's property to mod the Xbox - not DOA. Did we get cross-mojonated or something?

I don't remember the whole backstory to Bleam, but I thought at one point there was a question of Bleam actually containing a copy of Sony's BIOS. That's the issue - not that it was emulated, not that emulation is evil, not that emulation is illegal but that they were distributing without rights a property owned by Sony.

Confusing issues is not really helpful. So far, there's been nothing but information inserted about irrelevant issues that only confuse the topic in question and do not actually expand the conversation. All of these examples (from Bleam, Team Ninja, Xbox modding, etc) are absolutely irrelevant to cracking DLC codes. The only relevant thing I could think of that doesn't really have a good precedence was Double Twist. As far as I know, they silently removed it's DRM-removing capabilities without any published threats or settlements with Apple.
 
Kind of true. It's still a security mechanism under DMCA and you can be charged. It will be successful - that success isn't based on successful lawsuits but rather successful precedence. Companies really have no reason to sue private individuals for large sums of money other than to force a cease and desist. That was the purpose of the Tecmo/Team Ninja deal with the DOA modders. After the whole piracy issue was over, when the modders began distributing patches rather than complete images, there was nothing to be said. The issue was never teh noods, the issue was always a feint to prevent the distribution of modified material.
Click to expand...

Lawyer's are indeed scary people who have a special ring of hell reserved for them, but that's pretty much all that be said about that. The important thing to note is that it IS a feint, not a full blown prosecution.

I have no idea what this even means... ? MS didn't sue with or in-place of Team Ninja - they sued some of the original modders for distributing tools that contained Microsoft's property to mod the Xbox - not DOA. Did we get cross-mojonated or something?
Click to expand...

I believe we did.

This is still irrelevant. We're talking about disc locked content designed for distribution. The hot coffee content was never designed for distribution and private parties had to go intentionally unlock that content through out of band methods. That doesn't have anything to do with cracking a DLC code. It's not like RockStar can sue individuals that viewed that content for unlicensed viewing when it was never designed to be viewed. That's the difference here.... you might have an implied ownership for Hot Coffee material, but you do not have an implied ownership over being able to circumvent DLC locks designed for distribution and purchase.
Click to expand...

It is relevant, it shows that all of the content on the disc, locked or not, is the consumer's property.

Why wouldn't you have implied rights to the lock? It's YOUR DISC. Not a license, not an agreement, a disc. You bought it for 60 dollars (probably). Chamberlain Group thought they had express rights to sell garage door clickers to their specific door motor/receiver. This is very similar to post-sale DLC or "making what you already own work". Another company came along with a cheaper universal clicker that bypassed their system and they threw a shit fit about it claiming it was illegal for them to reverse engineer their system. And they lost.

What I'm talking about is even less extreme, because we are not talking about selling alternate DLC access. Just making content you already own accessible.

I don't remember the whole backstory to Bleam, but I thought at one point there was a question of Bleam actually containing a copy of Sony's BIOS. That's the issue - not that it was emulated, not that emulation is evil, not that emulation is illegal but that they were distributing without rights a property owned by Sony.
Click to expand...

If that indeed was the case and they were selling Sony's BIOS, then for once in the history of man Sony actually made a legitimate lawsuit.

Confusing issues is not really helpful. So far, there's been nothing but information inserted about irrelevant issues that only confuse the topic in question and do not actually expand the conversation. All of these examples (from Bleam, Team Ninja, Xbox modding, etc) are absolutely irrelevant to cracking DLC codes. The only relevant thing I could think of that doesn't really have a good precedence was Double Twist. As far as I know, they silently removed it's DRM-removing capabilities without any published threats or settlements with Apple.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to confuse topics, so please understand what I am doing. To have an accurate interpretation of the law you have to look at other court cases which have brought that specific law into question, and how they relate to each other. When you start to see a bunch of different cases and a consistency of how that law is treated in each of them, you begin to understand the extent to which that law can be applied. Lawyer's cite other cases all the time as a basis for their trials, because personally interpreting the exact law every time can result in vastly different outcomes.

I'm posting these to try and show you the overall view of the DMCA, as well as EULA's and how they are actually treated in the legal system. If I have failed in that regard and just confused the living hell out of people, my apologies.
 
ShadGandel said:
That's a very interesting discussion even though I just wanted to know whose boobs are hidden in the game's files.
Click to expand...

inorite

As far as I can tell, there are 2 sets of generic ones.

I did manage to make a topless Hilde, though. Now if I could only recreate it....
 
Is Hilde bewbs the one thing necessary to get this thread back on track again?
hilde-bewbs.jpg
 
Oh, hey, you figured it out?

Whatever I did only changed the top of the body and reset to clothed if you even opened it in CaS.
 
Did you mod the game, or was that a random bug you encountered?

If it was a bug, it's probably similar to how I got that screenshot. There's 2 base CAS models. One with underwear, and one without. The latter is only supposed to be used with specific outfit parts, but you can force it to be used all the time by just swapping the 2 model files. I guess you encountered a bug which made the game still use the latter model when it should have reverted to the normal one.
 
KarasuShiro said:
What...was...THAT?! Tell me its a bug you made while playing with the system... c'mon, Hilde cannot be broken two times a row...right..? XD
Click to expand...
Oh, it's very easy actually. Just hold B for 1-2 seconds, let go, and hit A+B+K *exactly* as the spear hits to make the opponent fly basically infinitely far away.

Okay fine, it was just an awesome side effect of a mod.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom