I was wondering if that game was needing unique cd keys to play online because my brother and me would be interested in buying it but only one time for our double use...
Thx guys
Thx guys
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Umm, well when you buy software unless there are very special circumstances, you are only allowed to use it on one computer at any given time. Anything else would be considered piracy, and we all know piracy is theft.
No you don't need anything like that. You can fully install the game onto your hard drive and it's easy to make multiple installs on one or more PCs. This is useful if you want or need to run different patch levels or mods - a multi-player game should have all players on the exact same version or the game may crash.
Andrew
So far as copyright law is concerned, the number of installed copies would be a matter of what is considered "fair use" and this is not as black and white as you suggest. When you install and run the software, it is necessarily copied several times - copied from the CD to the hard disk and from the hard disk to memory. Use on multiple computers has often been considered fair use too. If you buy it to play on a LAN then you might do a shared LAN install (not sure if that works) or just install it on each computer on the LAN as a necessary step in using the game for its intended purpose - multiplayer play.
My copy was published by Strategy First and they attempt to control its use by means of a software licence which you will find in small print at the back of the manual. This is unlikely to have much force in law as the game is typically bought from a retailer, rather than Strategy First. The contract of sale is between the retailer and the customer and the nature of any "implied terms" would be governed by local consumer protection laws. If the retailer doesn't mention the licence and get you to sign something then it probably doesn't form part of the contract.
Note, by the way, that the Strategy First licence tries to prohibit you from altering the software. So patching or modding the software would be a breach of the licence. If you want to do these things, they say you should write to them for a "Special Use Licence". You've done that, right?
Also note that the licence says that it is governed by the laws of Canada and the province of Quebec. I'm in the UK so what then? I think I'll just be using my common sense ...
Andrew
That may all be true, but if I understand the intentions of Yanick correctly, he wants to buy one copy of the game, install it on two PC's and then play them concurrently. Unless explicitly authorised by the license agreement, that is prohibited, even by EU regulations. (An example of explicit authorisation can be found in the original Diablo game, which included an option of starting a spawned copy on a second machine, to enable LAN play on a single license).
If you want to play HoI on two PC's simultaneously, then you legally need to buy two copies. Do you technically need two copies? No. But if you don't own two copies, you are in violation of the copyright lays.
Jan Peter
If you want to play HoI on two PC's simultaneously, then you legally need to buy two copies. Do you technically need two copies? No. But if you don't own two copies, you are in violation of the copyright lays.
Jan Peter
What laws? You seem to think that there is some universal law on the matter. There is, in fact, the Berne Convention, but if you think there is a relevant clause, please cite it.
The most relevant law I can find for me is the UK's Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992. This states,
I maintain that playing the game on a network at home with a friend is a lawful use, just as it's lawful to watch a video with the same friend.
Andrew
That is an interesting quote out of UK legislation, as it appears to be in contradicion of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 of the EU, which regulates legal protection of computer programs.
The entire text can be found here: http://website.lineone.net/~takist/App5.htm
Especially article 4 is applicable here:
Which places the decision about what you can legally do with your HoI license (other than creating a backup copy) in the hands of Paradox (a company, headquartered in a Member State of the EU), not your interpretation of it.
And yes, by EU treaties, Council Directives supercede national law, when both are contradictory. In fact, national governments are obligated to implement Council Directives into national legislation.
As far as I am aware, the UK government has signed these treaties.
Jan Peter
The entire text can be found here: http://website.lineone.net/~takist/App5.htm
Especially article 4 is applicable here:
Which places the decision about what you can legally do with your HoI license (other than creating a backup copy) in the hands of Paradox (a company, headquartered in a Member State of the EU), not your interpretation of it.
And yes, by EU treaties, Council Directives supercede national law, when both are contradictory. In fact, national governments are obligated to implement Council Directives into national legislation.
As far as I am aware, the UK government has signed these treaties.
Jan Peter
I'm doubt we can resolve the intricacies of EU and UK legislation here - that stuff is worse than the HoI manual. But according to my copy of that manual, Paradox isn't a party to this because the copyright holder is Strategy First, not Paradox. They are domiciled in Canada and would like the matter to be governed by Canadian law. I'm afraid I'm not going see what Canadian law has to say on the subject and so shall just have to look out for the RCMP. They always get their man, I hear ...
Andrew
Last edited:
I wonder if that copyright applies to the software, or just the contents of that manual.
If it would apply to the software, then that would imply that Paradox would have signed over the copyrights, which would really create a legal mess with respect to creating patches, use the existing code as a base for other games (maybe HoI 2), and other publishers that cover other parts of the world.
So, without explicit statements to the contrary, I still assume that legal copyright of the game (ie. code, artwork, etc) still rests with Paradox and noone else.
Jan Peter
If it would apply to the software, then that would imply that Paradox would have signed over the copyrights, which would really create a legal mess with respect to creating patches, use the existing code as a base for other games (maybe HoI 2), and other publishers that cover other parts of the world.
So, without explicit statements to the contrary, I still assume that legal copyright of the game (ie. code, artwork, etc) still rests with Paradox and noone else.
Jan Peter
I've read the directive now and think article 5 is required reading too:
That's more or less what the UK legislation says - that you don't need authorization to copy the program when this is required as part of its intended purpose. If the game is intended for multiplayer use, as it is, then this exemption applies.
Andrew
It's definitely the "Software" that they are talking about. And we do indeed have something of a mess with respect to the patches. Notice that each publisher gets their own patch because each publisher's version of the software is legally separate. And this is something of a drag on development because some publishers will not countenance extra work like language translation of events for their versions.
I'd prefer it if Paradox kept it all to themselves and distributed the program online. But then I'm content with the English language version and I can see that local expertise might required to convert the game into Japanese, say.
Andrew
Unless, of course, the license agreement contains a provision that states that you cannot have one licensed copy active on two PC's simultaneously. While I haven't read the HoI license agreement in detail, I do own lots of software that have this provision in the license agreement. Borland even has an official name for it: No-nonsense license.
Under such a provision, multi player means playing with other people over LAN or internet, each requiring an officially purchased license.
If one would to follow your line of reasoning, then it would be legal (according to UK law as you stated it), to take one purchased copy of Windows, and install it on two PC's, because you want to connect them with your LAN, and have one PC share (parts of) the harddisk with the other. Rest assured, you would get into deep legal trouble with Microsoft if you did this.
Jan Peter
As I said, the issue there is whether the licence agreement has any force in law or not. Shrink-wrap agreements and the like are weak in a retail context because they try to impose terms after the sale has been made. I don't have a HOI box handy but, looking at a copy of EU that I bought recently, the case says "Playable over the LAN ... with up to 8 other players." There are bandwidth requirements too but nowhere does it say that you need one copy per player. The CD doesn't say anything either and there isn't a manual. And you don't actually need multiple copies, which is great, IMO. See the original query - the guy is only going to buy the game if it doesn't try to be too greedy and force you to buy several copies of the exact same thing.
Andrew
The license agreement is what people in fact agreed to, even if they simply didn't read and ignored it. Theft is theft. As for having multiple copies for yourself, backup or different versions, that's fine, I'm sure it would be difficult to enforce otherwise.
Too greedy? Whatever, he wants to drive up software costs by not paying for what he's using. 2 copies is 2 copies. I suppose next your going to say that you should only have to pay for 1 car tire and get the other 3 for free, I mean they are copies of the exact same thing... of course if that were the case the cost of one tire would be the same as the cost of four tires. Which is quite the analogy of why software prices go up due to piracy.
So in short, I don't want to pay more, so he had better pay for what he uses.
My two cents.
Too greedy? Whatever, he wants to drive up software costs by not paying for what he's using. 2 copies is 2 copies. I suppose next your going to say that you should only have to pay for 1 car tire and get the other 3 for free, I mean they are copies of the exact same thing... of course if that were the case the cost of one tire would be the same as the cost of four tires. Which is quite the analogy of why software prices go up due to piracy.
So in short, I don't want to pay more, so he had better pay for what he uses.
My two cents.
But...
If I buy it and install it on my server (my computers are connected to that server). I could be able to run the game from the 2 computers for one installation, would that be legal ?
But I think I'll buy 2 times the game, Paradox seems to develop great games and I want to encourage them.
Thx for your advice guys
If I buy it and install it on my server (my computers are connected to that server). I could be able to run the game from the 2 computers for one installation, would that be legal ?
But I think I'll buy 2 times the game, Paradox seems to develop great games and I want to encourage them.
Thx for your advice guys
Well, not quite. Redawn is correct on one thing. License agreements that are presented to you during the installation process (so called shrink wrapped licenses, which Americans seem to love) are not lawfull in the EU, therefore null and void and not enforcable.
In such a case, national legislation (and in this case, EU regulation 91/250) comes into effect. Which, for all the legal nitty gritty, really boils down to what most people intuitively feel as 'right'. You may install it anywhere you like, any number of times you like, you may create backup copies as much as you like, as long as only one user per license is actually using the product at any given time.
Granted, this is easier to enforce if the product is accompanied by some sort of hardware locking mechanism, like the requirement of a (copy protected) CD in the drive, or a locker being present on the parallel port (or USB port these days). For expensive, commecial software the latter is often standard practice. Unfortunately, for games the former is mostly applied. The problem with copy protected CD's is, that while ensuring proper license use by the end-users, they more or less violate the legal rights of the customer to by not allowing the creation of legal backup copies.
Luckily, the publishers Paradox has chosen to date (at least the ones that provided me with my legal copies) have done neither of these things. Which means that I can excercise my legal rights to the fullest, but it also means that we all must make sure that we adhere to the copyright laws. Because, if we don't, the publishers of Paradox games will start to employ the same drastic measures that so many other game publishers use these days, and we all will be worse of than we are now.
Jan Peter
Oh I agree the law people are bound to individually is what is important to them. I'm just not a fan of piracy and it gets on my case as people think it's a victimless crime, it's anything but, everytime someone pirates software I want to buy I pay more- it's that simple. Same thing for any crime really, shoplifting, insurance fraud. People pay the price not the corporations.
Sorry if I've come across too strong to anyone.
Sorry if I've come across too strong to anyone.