I posted this a while ago, but I still haven't seen a good answer to this question. Essentially, I am wondering why Valve/Vivendi (I'm not sure if Valve has anything to do with this issue; it may be a publisher-only thing) decided to put a copy protection on the retail disc (a recent version of SecuROM on the CD version; I don't know what's on the DVD version), when they already have the ever-so-elaborate beast of an anti-piracy mechanism that is Steam.
I ask because typically, I make backup copies of games that I buy for my own personal use, in order to avoid using the original discs to prevent wear. As far as I know, this activity of making one backup copy of software for your own personal use is not proven illegal, but is still up in the air. Many software EULAs contain a statement like this (the below quote is from the HL2 EULA):
The above is another issue entirely than the topic of this thread, however; I just brought it up so I didn't get numerous responses that simply accused me of wanting to do something illegal and dismissed my question. The real question, though, is why the retail discs have copy-protections on them, when Steam is nearly impossible to crack (those that do succeed in conducting illegal activities with Steam seem to eventually be banned/disabled and have their license terminated). If the game wasn't additionally available for purchase via download, I may understand; but those that have purchased and downloaded the game through Steam, as opposed to purchasing the retail version, do not need to insert a copy-protected disc when they launch the game.
Seriously, this is a bit gratuitous. These on-disc copy-protections are growing archaic, and are never uncrackable within days of release. Online activation-based copy-protections such as Steam, although I disagree with them personally, are the future of anti-piracy. Throw Safedisc, SecuROM, and all the other piles of shit that publishers adopt as "legitimate" means for combatting piracy out the window.
I ask because typically, I make backup copies of games that I buy for my own personal use, in order to avoid using the original discs to prevent wear. As far as I know, this activity of making one backup copy of software for your own personal use is not proven illegal, but is still up in the air. Many software EULAs contain a statement like this (the below quote is from the HL2 EULA):
However, nearly every game makes a version of the above statement in its EULA, but web sites such as http://cdfreaks.com, at which software copying and copy-protection cracking techniques are discussed, as well as programs that facilitate in the copying of copy-protected games, are all considered legal. As I understand it, the issue of the legality of making personal backup copies of legally-licensed software is a complicated one, and has not yet been officially ruled legal nor illegal.
The above is another issue entirely than the topic of this thread, however; I just brought it up so I didn't get numerous responses that simply accused me of wanting to do something illegal and dismissed my question. The real question, though, is why the retail discs have copy-protections on them, when Steam is nearly impossible to crack (those that do succeed in conducting illegal activities with Steam seem to eventually be banned/disabled and have their license terminated). If the game wasn't additionally available for purchase via download, I may understand; but those that have purchased and downloaded the game through Steam, as opposed to purchasing the retail version, do not need to insert a copy-protected disc when they launch the game.
Seriously, this is a bit gratuitous. These on-disc copy-protections are growing archaic, and are never uncrackable within days of release. Online activation-based copy-protections such as Steam, although I disagree with them personally, are the future of anti-piracy. Throw Safedisc, SecuROM, and all the other piles of shit that publishers adopt as "legitimate" means for combatting piracy out the window.
