VOGONS

Common searches


First post, by twiz11

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I know this is a grey area, but when you backup your games for some purpose, do you keep the original media?

Reply 2 of 17, by jesolo

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
twiz11 wrote:

I know this is a grey area, but when you backup your games for some purpose, do you keep the original media?

Of course you do - that's the whole idea of making a backup so that, should the one copy become damaged or unreadable, then you have a... backup.

If you don't keep the original, what's the point of making a backup?

Reply 3 of 17, by Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Backup copies should be legal, and is probably still legal, since backup copies are fair use. However, RIAA has tried to illegalize backup CDs since 2006.

The [submitted arguments in favor of granting exemptions to the DMCA] provide no arguments or legal authority that making back up copies of CDs is a noninfringing use. In addition, the submissions provide no evidence that access controls are currently preventing them from making back up copies of CDs or that they are likely to do so in the future. Myriad online downloading services are available and offer varying types of digital rights management alternatives. For example, the Apple FairPlay technology allows users to make a limited number of copies for personal use. Presumably, consumers concerned with the ability to make back up copies would choose to purchase music from a service that allowed such copying. Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices. Similar to the motion picture industry, the recording industry has faced, in online piracy, a direct attack on its ability to enjoy its copyrights. (emphasis added)

Yes, RIAA doesn't want you to make backups; they want you to buy the same CD again if your legally-purchased CD becomes damaged. Takes certain kind of mentality, does it not?

Never thought this thread would be that long, but now, for something different.....
Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman.

Reply 4 of 17, by dr_st

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

The ability to store information digitally and replicate it infinitely at next to zero cost has certainly changed the world; old rules no longer make sense, so everyone is trying to get the most benefit for themselves. The RIAA/MPAA and other who pushed the DMCA in the USA are one extreme. Richard Stallman has the opposite approach (sharing should be legal, always), which many would consider just as extreme. Most consumers just try to enjoy the huge grey area.

https://cloakedthargoid.wordpress.com/ - Random content on hardware, software, games and toys

Reply 5 of 17, by SirNickity

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

The fun thing about rules is, someone's always going to find a loophole. As far as I understand it (IANAL and haven't cared enough to find a definitive answer) US consumers are still legally allowed to make (technically ONE) backup copy of media we own. (Pedant alert: Media we own, content we are licensed to use.) The DMCA created a nice loophole to prevent that allowance by making it illegal to circumvent measures meant to protect against copying. So we're still legally allowed to make a backup, so long as the act of making the backup doesn't break any copy protection.

For media like DVD and BD, there's no way to do that -- which is what they were going for. I would guess that CD is a gray area, since there is in fact a copy-protect bit per-track (IIRC) that, in theory, could be considered a copy protection measure that has been circumvented -- although no hardware (that I'm aware of) pays any attention to that bit, except for audio recorders with a digital link. (So you may be out of luck copying your CDs to DAT. Shucks.)

This is kind of the issue with law. It has to be explicit, in order to define the exact circumstance in which the law applies. This causes the letter vs. spirit debate, and even the spirit part leaves room for interpretation. For example, is it fair that I copy a CD to my NAS, put away the disc, and play the image file instead? I'm certainly not abusing the publisher's intent -- I purchased a license to that album, I'm listening to the album, it's not a public performance, nobody (outside my household) has access to it, etc. Now what if I split the image into tracks, import those into iTunes, and copy them to my phone? Now I have four copies -- CD, image file, tracks in iTunes, tracks on my phone. But I'm still, presumably, only using one copy at a time, so I'm still not really abusing the intent of the license. What if my sig. other transfers a copy to her phone? So now we could both be rocking out to the same tune at the same time, in totally different places. That's probably over the line, from a legal perspective (letter and spirit), but is anyone really going to fuss about that? And so on....

I would kind of like to see law take a more consumer-focused approach to copyright, and require publishers to make the works available for copyright to be protected. I.e., abandonware. Publisher's out of business? It's public domain. The problem is, that actually infringes on the publisher's right to determine the circumstances under which copies are made available. Limited Editions, the Disney Vault, pre-release copies, etc... all under jeopardy of being grounds for invalidating copyright. So how do you pick a reasonable middle ground? If a publisher technically makes it possible to acquire a copy, but they're.. uh... "out of stock" 99% of the time, does that count as available? If I can't reach the website to place my order, am I entitled to duplicate an existing copy as much as I want?

Reply 6 of 17, by Kerr Avon

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Under British law, it's legal to make one backup copy of an item of software that you own. To quote from the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/50A


50A
Back up copies.


(1)
It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program to make any back up copy of it which it is necessary for him to have for the purposes of his lawful use.



(2)
For the purposes of this section and sections 50B [F3, 50BA] and 50C a person is a lawful user of a computer program if (whether under a licence to do any acts restricted by the copyright in the program or otherwise), he has a right to use the program.



(3)
Where an act is permitted under this section, it is irrelevant whether or not there exists any term or condition in an agreement which purports to prohibit or restrict the act (such terms being, by virtue of section 296A, void).]

Which when you think about it, makes the act of a company adding copy-protection to it's software, actually illegal, as that company is trying to deprive you of your (if you're in the UK, I mean) right to make a copy of the game.

Reply 7 of 17, by dr_st

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

It doesn't even say "one backup copy". It says "any backup copy". Which can be interpreted as "one", but it's not the only possible interpretation.

But yeah, good example. That's how legislation looks when it's not written by media magnates for media magnates.

https://cloakedthargoid.wordpress.com/ - Random content on hardware, software, games and toys

Reply 8 of 17, by BeginnerGuy

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

And remember, don't copy that floppy. See you on the next episode of computer Chronicles. doodoodoowaaaadoodoooowaaa

Sup. I like computers. Are you a computer?

Reply 10 of 17, by SirNickity

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Nice. It seems written not just as policy, but almost specifically as a response to draconian license agreements. I've always been fond of how the EU (and Britain 😀 ) take seriously consumer advocacy. The US is just a mess of self-interested parties chipping away at rights in the name of "security" and IP protection.

Reply 11 of 17, by Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Britons BEWARE: It turns out making backup copies of your CDs and DVDs is illegal again.

PUBLISHED: 11:51, Mon, Jul 20, 2015 | UPDATED: 15:21, Mon, Jul 20, 2015

Nine months after a new law was passed which would allow Britons to make personal copies of their music and movies – it's now illegal again.

Following a challenge from the music industry the UK's High Court has overturned regulation that permitted ripping CDs and DVDs for personal use.

It means that (once again) copying a CD you have bought to ensure you have a backup, or a copy to keep in the car – is against the law.

The industry claims the decision is a huge positive for performers and artists.

It had previously reported that compensation-free format shifts (ripping your own media) was resulting in creatives losing some £58 million in revenue each year.

Organisations including The British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors objected to laws allowing ripping CDs for personal use.

Jo Dipple, UK Music CEO said: "It is vitally important that fairness for songwriters, composers and performers is written into the law.

"My members' music defines this country. It is only right that Government gives us the standard of legislation our music deserves.

"We want to work with Government so this can be achieved."

The change means it is illegal to copy any CDs, DVDs, or eBooks.

However – its unclear how the government proposes to police these changes to the law.

==========================================

I guess it's clear that the purpose of (corporate-written) copyright law is to force paying customers to buy the same content multiple times. What it's rather unclear, however, is whether the extra money actually goes to the artists, or to the corporate executives instead.

Never thought this thread would be that long, but now, for something different.....
Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman.

Reply 12 of 17, by SirNickity

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

The ridiculous fallacy to that line of thought, is to assume that I, as a consumer, am willing to buy the rights to a song for my car, my phone, and my home stereo. I'm not. If law and technical constraints prevent me from making essentially as many copies as I want for my own personal use, I will either 1) buy one copy and shuttle it around -- serving no purpose other than inconveniencing me and leading to my decision to... 2) not buy a license for commercially distributed music at all, and just source my entertainment from the many online music-sharing sites where actual independent artists can make a few bucks directly from an online tip-jar when I download the .flac version of their album... and proceed to do whatever the %@$# I want with it.

I'm already trending this way for video entertainment, too. I watch regularly from Netflix, Hulu, Prime... but probably more from YouTube. I couldn't tell you the name of one movie playing in theaters, and the only BDs I've bought in the last several years are catalog releases from the 80s to 2000s. It wouldn't be trivial for independent artists to start producing video content to compete with traditional TV / streaming video -- it's a complex and expensive industry. But, I do see a cottage industry springing up that could.. eventually.. maybe.. de-throne the big studios. At least until they start falling into old habits, we might actually get some rights back while still putting funds into the hands of creative people.

Reply 13 of 17, by Kerr Avon

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Personally, I see no moral issue at all with copying music from a CD that you legally own onto a PC or a portable mp3 player etc. And if you have bought a video game, then I likewise see no moral problem if you put the game's music onto your PC or music player, and thus listen to the music when you aren't playing the game. Not that I'm a big fan of game soundtracks (or any sort of music, really, I'm not too interested in music) but if you've paid for the right own the music ('own' as in you have the right to listen to it, be it as an audio CD, or vinyl, or downloaded files, in a video game, etc, I of course don't mean that you own the game's copyright) then you should be able to listen to it how you like.

There are websites devoted to making game soundtracks downloadable, and whilst downloading the soundtrack to a game that you haven't bought is more or less piracy, if you own the game then I don't see how that can be morally wrong.

Reply 14 of 17, by SPBHM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I think when you buy the CD whatever you use it for privately should be your own problem, so IMO making your copies for backup or different formats or modding, I see 0 moral issues.

distributing it for profit or something else is a whole different thing

now legality, well, that depends, it can vary from country to country, and I'm no lawyer!

Reply 15 of 17, by dr_st

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

The obligatory link:
https://xkcd.com/488/

Legality and morality are rather distinct concepts. In the end "legal" is about what one can get away with, whereas "moral" is about what one can feel good about. Individuals often want the two to be as close as possible, as it makes life easier. Businesses typically only care about their bottom line, because that's what keeps them going.

Last edited by dr_st on 2019-10-02, 06:22. Edited 1 time in total.

https://cloakedthargoid.wordpress.com/ - Random content on hardware, software, games and toys

Reply 17 of 17, by DNSDies

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
SirNickity wrote:

The DMCA created a nice loophole to prevent that allowance by making it illegal to circumvent measures meant to protect against copying. So we're still legally allowed to make a backup, so long as the act of making the backup doesn't break any copy protection.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xw9bwd/120 … right-to-repair
Circumventing DRM to restore something to original function is legal.
A broken disc is not in original function. A backup can be, but requires circumventing DRM.

So, it's kind of, possibly legal now.
I'm not a lawyer.