The Secret of Monkey Island - Atari ST German - + Protection

joblack · Post by **joblack** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:06 am

It seems that the Copy Protection is still active for that version? Intent or a bug?

LordHoto · Post by **LordHoto** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:07 am

I guess all original Atari ST versions were sold with protection intact, thus it's still enabled in ScummVM.

marzipan · Post by **marzipan** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 3:41 am

Which is a real shame since pretty much all floppy versions of MI1 are still ridiculously overpriced on eBay to this day. Keeping the protection intact IMO only really benefits collectors/sellers who wish to make a killing out of selling out-of-print titles for inflated prices. And it doesn't help when people who try to help others out with solving the protection through other means (pdf sites, virtual codewheels et al) tend to get slapped with screams of "forum rule #0" in response.

Post by **eriktorbjorn** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 4:50 am

marzipan wrote:Keeping the protection intact IMO only really benefits collectors/sellers who wish to make a killing out of selling out-of-print titles for inflated prices.

Maybe, but we're hoping it will also benefit the ScummVM project if LucasArts decides to send another cease-and-desist letter. And I imagine the no-piracy policy has also helped forming good relations with other, friendlier companies.

Kisdra · Post by **Kisdra** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:29 pm

LordHoto wrote:I guess all original Atari ST versions were sold with protection intact, thus it's still enabled in ScummVM.

I've reported the same thing some months ago for the french version in the support forum. And as now I've got all computers versions of TSOMI, I can confirm that the Atari ST is the only one to keep the protection on.

marzipan · Post by **marzipan** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:55 pm

eriktorbjorn wrote:
marzipan wrote:Keeping the protection intact IMO only really benefits collectors/sellers who wish to make a killing out of selling out-of-print titles for inflated prices.
Maybe, but we're hoping it will also benefit the ScummVM project if LucasArts decides to send another cease-and-desist letter. And I imagine the no-piracy policy has also helped forming good relations with other, friendlier companies.

You may have a reasonable point, although at times I feel there's been a clear lack of logic in the way it's executed. This situation for example....

Kisdra wrote:
LordHoto wrote:I guess all original Atari ST versions were sold with protection intact, thus it's still enabled in ScummVM.
I've reported the same thing some months ago for the french version in the support forum. And as now I've got all computers versions of TSOMI, I can confirm that the Atari ST is the only one to keep the protection on.

...I mean honestly. Every other version of the game is passable without any physical documentation necessary. Why shut out Atari ST lovers in this manner? (And indeed, why put some unnecessary burden on portable device users? Are they expected to lug around tons of physical documents with them on holiday just to play their favourite early LucasArts games?) If 5/6 versions of MI1 are 'unlockable', you might as well declare the game as a whole 'unlockable'.

I feel I'd honestly laugh out loud out of despair should LucasArts actually, genuinely try to overdramtically cease-and-desist/sue you to death for randomly lifting the code protection out of one version of an otherwise fully-unlockable game, originally designed for a long commercially dead platform that their suits would likely respond with "Atari Whuh-What?" should you slip its name in a conversation with them.

Of course, this is how I think of the whole situation, but I just had to express it clearly, even if nothing changes as a result.

LordHoto · Post by **LordHoto** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:03 am

marzipan our rules are set in that matter. This is the second time I see you starting to argue about topics related to forum rule #0. So consider this as an official warning.

Post by **eriktorbjorn** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:28 am

marzipan wrote: I feel I'd honestly laugh out loud out of despair should LucasArts actually, genuinely try to overdramtically cease-and-desist/sue you to death for randomly lifting the code protection out of one version of an otherwise fully-unlockable game, originally designed for a long commercially dead platform that their suits would likely respond with "Atari Whuh-What?" should you slip its name in a conversation with them.

Who knows? I'm told LucasArts's legal department has objected to the ScummVM project more than once but I think the only part of the conversations that was publicly discussed was their original cease-and-desist letter, and apparently they were not satisfied with the first reply/explanation they were given. The rest of the conversations were between them and the ScummVM project leaders, so I only know they took time and that I was asked (much later, as I recall it) how I would feel if we were forced to change the license on ScummVM. (My mind may be playing tricks on me, but wasn't that something about us violating their patent and bypassing their encryption?)

While the license change never happened, I tend to be a bit paranoid about LucasArts. I don't know how the other ScummVM developers feel.

fingolfin · Post by **fingolfin** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:50 am

They won't sue us over this single thing. But in a legal fight, every single point *adds up*. There are many little points in ScummVM were we could cross the line or not. Individually, they may all seem harmless to you. As a whole, though, they all would give cannon fodder to a good lawyer. We don't want that.

Also, I am kind of sick having to justify legal decisions to people who argue based on what they perceive should be "right". If you have a serious legal background, I am willing to discuss this with you; but if you are just talking out of your ass based on what you "think" or "believe" how the legal system works, please save both your and our time and breath/ink/letters

.

marzipan · Post by **marzipan** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:46 pm

Would it help if I pointed out that LucasArts consists of practically different people nowadays? From retrospect, the company who C&D'd you seven years ago seemed like a different company - I believe Simon Jeffrey was their leader back then. From what I read they recently got themselves a new president not long ago. Maybe under this guy's rule they'll be more lenient and willing to listen to you folks than in previous years.

Is it safe to assume btw that the president of the company has the last say on things? Or is that more G.L.'s job?

LordHoto · Post by **LordHoto** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:07 pm

After all it's not wise to provoke things with adding things like copy protection skips etc.

Flo · Post by **Flo** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:37 pm

marzipan wrote:Is it safe to assume btw that the president of the company has the last say on things? Or is that more G.L.'s job?

Lucasfilm (of which LucasArts is a subsidiary) has a very protective (and proactive) legal department. I've actually had contact with them a couple of years back and was surprised to have a simple trademark question answered directly by their lawyers.

The less reason you give them to become active, the better. Best be safe. I'd rather not see a great project like ScummVM ruined by legal issues. A company with that kind of financial backing can ruin you even if you're "innocent".