From http://www.evilavatar.com


Ubisoft released the promised Rainbow Six 3 : Raven Shield 1.5 patch yesterday, but they failed to mention their new copy protection scheme.

It turns out that Ubisoft implented code into the RVS 1.5 patch which checks PCs for ANY clone or virtual drive programs and then fails to launch the game if such devices or programs are found. What this has in turn done is disabled thousands of consumers who use programs like Daemon Tools, CloneCD or Alcohol 120% from playing their Ubisoft games even if they have their own physical cds in an actual drive.

After contacting a Technical Support Representative of Ubisoft, I was told that they feel that this is the wrong way to go about anti-piracy measures but they have no say in the matter. They did point out that Ubisoft management claims that they're covered under their EULA but the EULA does not state once that you are not allowed to have virtual drives on your system during play. It only says that you are not allowed to make back up copies.

Irregardless of what the virtual drives or virtual clone programs on your system are for, you will not be able to play Raven Shield with patch 1.5 unless you remove them completely off your system. Again, you can't even play when you have the retail cds in a drive unless those programs / virtual drives are removed. This is a violation of consumer rights - those programs are used for perfectly legal reasons especially at LAN cafes to avoid disc loss.


Sound Familiar any one !

looks like 2 partitions are going to be the answer to all this crap

Software companies seem to be getting themselves into a right old state.

Currently in the UK the law states that you are allowed to take a personal back-up of any software CD.

Things have got a little more complicated though as a EU directive makes it illegal to circumvent copy protection.

One games magazine has picked up on this and argues that this makes the act of copy protecting a CD illegal as it infringes on your right to legally take a back-up - claiming that it is an offence for any software publisher to deprive the consumer of any right which is explicitaly granted to them in law. Implementing copy protection which has no legal way of circumventing obviously deprives the consumer of their right to take a back-up.

Dunno whether it would stand in court or not though.

I would imagine that this scenario will apply to other countries which have legal rights to take back-ups and are now implementing DMCA style laws to prohibit circumventing copy protection.

I read that same article in PCZONE and it would stand up in court. All that has to happen is for someone with enough money to take a number of companies to court. Maybe some extremely literate person, should compose an e-mail highlighting this change in the law and see what response they get back when they e-mail any company like EA who use copy protection on their software.

The [Australian] ACCC will be looking at this no doubt. I'm told that this is the opposite of "Forced Trading". In essence, this company is saying that if you buy or use Coke, we're not going to sell or allow you to use Pepsi. Some Australian State legislation in regard to this is the

Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)

s 43(2)(b)


43 Unconscionable conduct
(TPA s 52A)

(1) A supplier shall not, in trade or commerce, in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services to a consumer, engage in conduct that is, in all the circumstances, unconscionable.

(2) Without limiting the matters to which the Supreme Court may have regard for the purpose of determining whether a supplier has contravened subsection (1) in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services, the Court may have regard to:

(a) the relative strengths of the bargaining positions of the supplier and the consumer,

(b) whether, as a result of conduct engaged in by the supplier, the consumer was required to comply with conditions that were not reasonably necessary for the protection of the legitimate interests of the supplier...

philamber will know the Federal legislation and I'm sure he'll make a phone call to someone ...

I'm afraid not as the argument is legal nonsense. It involves two fundamental misunderstandings of the law, one in relation to copyright and the other in relation to the operation and effect of statutes generally.

You do not have a "right" to make a back-up copy. The law provides that any copy made without the permission of the copyright holder is illegal. However, that general principle is relaxed in some circumstances so that it is not an infringement if a copy of a program is made by a licence holder (i.e. a person who own an original cd) or on his behalf and with his permission and so long as the program is not modified in making the copy.

This does not constitute a legal "right". At best, it is a privilege only and one that can be removed or modified by any subsequent legislation which is, of course, exactly what the EU directive has done insofar as it has been adopted into UK law.

Further, the laws of both Australia and the UK expressly provide that if the program is so designed that it isn't possible to copy the program without modification (i.e. using a crack), then the privilege that enables you to make a back-up copy without committing a breach of copyright does not apply.

>The [Australian] ACCC will be looking at this no doubt. I'm told that this is the opposite of "Forced Trading". In essence, this company is saying that if you buy or use Coke, we're not going to sell or allow you to use Pepsi.

This argument has some substance. Plainly there is ground for complaint where the vendor is, in effect, saying that you can only use our product if you don't use a number of other perfectly legal products. Further, the failure to disclose prominently on the packaging that your originals won't work if you happen to be using a variety of other legitimate products is a legitimate cause for complaint.

Unfortunately, given the cost of pursuing the matter (believe me, my m8s who are copyright/trade practices experts are even more expensive than I am and I'm not cheap ), it really isn't an issue that, realistically, can be pursued by an individual consumer (since it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to just by yourself a brand new pc with no burning, emulation or virtual drive software on it all).

However, it does seem to me to be an issue that ought to be looked into by the ACCC and the Trade Practices Commission. Of course, nothing much is likely to happen even if they do until Feb 04 at the earliest because the long legal vacation of ~6 weeks (i.e. silly season) starts here at close of business today.

crap... no i know why V1.5 wouldn't run!!!