Why dont all the companies use TAGES to protect their CDs? Very expensive perhaps?

Just this.


I believe they wanted to check how good Tagès is. Would be bad to use a so called unbreakable protection in every game and then realize that it takes not more than some weeks to get through it.

Maybe this is quite a long test before they annoy us with lots of Tagès protected games.

Originally posted by alexnoe
Maybe this is quite a long test before they annoy us with lots of Tagès protected games.

I doubt it. My guess is that the protection is extremely expensive, at least in terms of licence fees, and, accordingly, although it has so far proven to be incapable of being copied, it hasn’t been taken up by the game manufacturers and distributors.

So far, AFAIK it has only been used on MotoRacer 3 and, accordingly, there are no economies of scale such as apply to safedisc and, to a lesser extent, securerom and, without those economies of scale, I doubt that it’s creators will be able to compete to any great effect with Macrovision and Sony.

At the end of the day, what matters to the manufacturers and distributors is the bottom line, and, no matter how much they may be irritated by real or perceived piracy, if the protection isn’t competitively priced, it won’t be widely used no matter how effective it may be. Accordingly, I think you’ll find that safedisc and securerom with improvements from time to time will continue to be the major copy protections used for quite a while and tages will remain an irritating oddity. Of course, one can hope that the game manufacturers/distributors will stop wasting their money on copy protection altogether (since it does little to prevent piracy and just irritates legitimate users; after all a software pirate doesn’t care if he/she has a perfect copy so long as the game has a working crack.)

Indeed, some of the best selling games in the last year or so (Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Soldier of Fortune II and various Lucas Arts games) are not copy protected. However, perhaps it’s too much to hope for that that trend will continue (still it will be interesting to see whether id choose to protect the eagerly awaited doom 3).

Yes I agree,

I think one of the most important factors is going to be money. Maybe it is harder and thus more expensive to apply the Tages copy protection to software, than to say apply SD or Securom? Maybe the company put a lot of time, money etc. into developing it and so want to make it back by asking high prices?

I don’t think Doom3 will be protected because many games this year, as was mentioned earlier, don’t have protection and rather rely on key authentication. Which to my knowledge has yet to be cracked.

I much prefer key authentication as I believe it prevents piracy (in multiplayer games anyway) and also allows for legitimate users (with a legally purchased key) to make as many backups as they want without hassle or need of ultra specialised hardware and or software.

Pity the case is not so easy with single player games such as Morrowind or GTA3.

Or maybe it just all comes down to this, we are allowed one archival copy for our own purposes, they make copying difficult but not impossible because they know most people will give up after a few hundred coasters… Or if we could not make our legitimate archival copy are they not violating the law?? What about a warranty or guarantee on the manufactured disk itself, what would cost more?? Yes it has happened to me I bought LOD the expansion pack put it in the cdrom and heard this disk fly apart, had to take the cd-rom apart to get all the pieces out…and then call blizzard to only have them say we are sorry nothing we can do… hell the disk was less than an hour old… Luckily I bought it at the local wal-mart who gladly exchanged it… Maybe htis is a happy medium they have settled for???

You mix up something. You are allowed to make a backup, but it’s not a garanteed right! If they prohibit making backups via EULA, then it’s invalid (i.e. you may make a backup even if EULA doesn’t allow it), but if they prevent you from making a backup by applying an unbreakable copy protection, there’s nothing you can do about this, besides refusing to buy such games at all (and make clear to them what you think about this).

I’ve noticed that the more a game is protected the less it sold on market, this may be because piracy contribuite to the diffusion of games, I think.
Maybe software houses notice that!

§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs53
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.-Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation.-Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.

© Machine Maintenance or Repair.-Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner or lessee of a machine to make or authorize the making of a copy of a computer program if such copy is made solely by virtue of the activation of a machine that lawfully contains an authorized copy of the computer program, for purposes only of maintenance or repair of that machine, if-

(1) such new copy is used in no other manner and is destroyed immediately after the maintenance or repair is completed; and

(2) with respect to any computer program or part thereof that is not necessary for that machine to be activated, such program or part thereof is not accessed or used other than to make such new copy by virtue of the activation of the machine.

(d) Definitions.-For purposes of this section-

(1) the “maintenance” of a machine is the servicing of the machine in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine; and

(2) the “repair” of a machine is the restoring of the machine to the state of working in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine.

Ok so far this is what I have found in our copyright laws and it also says… if I am not mistaking that reguardless of what the eula says as long as I own the software then I can make archival “copies” as long as I detroy them when I get rid of the original You will also notice that not only can I copy the program that I may also sell it along with the original…


that is where I found that, I am no lawyer just some one that reads what is written no interpretations just plain black and white… I also followed the links and read them too…

As one of the partners in the Tages technology is MPO (A French CD-R factory) I think they need special equipment to protect the discs indeed, and that will probably make it too expensive, if you look at the cost, ease and effectiveness of SafeDisc and SecuRom, which stops the general public from copying…

What ever the time you spend reading texts, you will never find a law that oblige a company to sale its production in a way you MUST be able to duplicate.
In case of CD-ROM, you’re sometimes allowed to try. If you’re not enough gifted to succeed, you may complain to Ollie, or to CD burner manufacturers, or GOD, it will not change the fact you’ve lost…
As far as knowlege -and power of course :)) -, why Ollie don’t say what Tagès is? In fear of another company will be able to do it before him? 6 month after?
I see only two credible possibilities :

  1. he doesn’t know
  2. he knows but knowledge is useless

@Acidus : feellings, or numbers?

@philamber, DoMiN8ToR :
Any ideas of the fees?
A primary answer can come without this knowledge, just tell me what cost more : a copy protection a child (or a student if you like SDx, Secux, 1<=x<=n, n=3 today) is able to bypass, or a copy protection that is not yet copied?
Let’s the market choose…

@spunkser21 :
I don’t know about Doom3, but what you said is untrue, pay a look to http://www.fileforums.com/ PC games
few recent A3 : WC3, NWN

Conclusion : high feelings, poor knowledge!

There’s a third possibility: He analized Tagès in a way which is not completely legal, such as reverse engeneering.

yes, but at the end, a CD is an optical disk. An regarding reverse, my little finger told me some other have results (FLT, venom), some don’t

@ alexnoe
Under Australian law the right to make a back-up copy of a computer program overrides the eula but-
a) the right only applies to software; it does not apply to audio cds nor to movies on dvd (the software on the dvd being regarded as merely incidental to the movie content);
b) the right does not apply where the software is so created that it isn’t possible to make a back-up copy without modifying the program (e.g. tages, at least so far).

@ kamikazee
I presume that the laws you posted are those applicable to the US. Needless to say, copyright laws vary from country to country.

@ Tanith
No idea what the licence fees are for different protections but since tages has proven to be unbreakable to date, it’s obvious that it costs a lot more than safedisc oe securerom or it would be much more widely used. Further, Domi is obviously correct. Safedisc and securerom are quite sufficient to prevent most people with cdrws (who, after all, aren’t cd-freaks like us) from copying their games. Most people with cdrws just get whatever comes with their new pc generally bundled with either ezcd or nero which means that (unless they got lucky and got a Litey; no chance of a plex in oz as they’re too expensive here), they have neither the hardware nor the software capable of copying the standard protections.