LinkBack URL
About LinkBackswell for a start u cant reburn it without it asking for a disk due to the copy protection.Originally Posted by watercooled
and why should they fork out for a new disk if you dont have it backed up
well for a start u cant reburn it without it asking for a disk due to the copy protection.
and why should they fork out for a new disk if you dont have it backed up
So it's contradictory - again! And BTW the discs I'm looking to backup have no copy protection at all.
Most publishers state there is a warranty on the physical media and will provide new disks if it fails under reasonable use within that period. Many also specify that you may make a copy for backup purposes, so they are giving permission for such a copy regardless of the absence of any legal right to backup. But if you're the kind of person who regularly scratches discs (and it takes a lot!) then you're better off using digital purchases.
Of course, if the disc fails outside of that warranty but you can prove it's a fault of the disc rather than your improper use of it then you are probably covered under fitness for purpose for a decent chunk of time, regardless of specific warranty periods.
What's contradictory about it? It seems quite clear to me - copyright is copyright unless it's necessary to make a backup in order to use the product.
Last edited by kalniel; 17-07-2009 at 02:29 PM.
Because you're not allowed to make a backup, but then they say why should they replace because you should have had it backed up (I was replying to the post above mine). But even so it's contradictory in other ways - you are technically allowed to create backup copies, but not allowed to circumvent copy protection to do so. I thought I read you were allowed to copy copy-protected discs using software from the net, just you aren't allowed to create or distribute it - which is why most of that software is hosted in different jurisdictions which don't disallow it.well for a start u cant reburn it without it asking for a disk due to the copy protection.
and why should they fork out for a new disk if you dont have it backed up
Anyway I didn't start this thread to start a copyright/DRM argument so I'll leave it at that
Simple answer .... yes.
Slightly less simple answer ..... :-
- I'm not a lawyer so it's just my opinion ..... albeit an opinion informed by a friend/colleague who is, specifically, an IP lawyer.
- I'm talking about UK law. It varies a bit elsewhere.
- it's yes provided you're a lawful user, and the backup is "necessary" for that lawful use
- "lawful user" might be a bit wider than just the person who bought it, but is still failry narrow.
- "necessary" isn't defined.
- Even if a licence says you can't, the statutory permission renders that limitation inoperative where it applies
- breaking copy protection is arguably an offence even where copying is permitted. It's a grey area, but it's not uncommon for the law to both allow and deny something and exact circumstances usually determine which overrules which, in a given case.
In other words, pretty much what Agent said.
In a very narrow technical sense, that's quite correct. But .... the reason is that if you are making a copy that's permitted by one of the exceptions in the Copyright Act (or, of course, acting with the copyright owner's permission, such as by a right in a contract or licence) you aren't breaching copyright by making a copy.
Essentially, copyright law says that any work that is covered by copyright is protected from infringing copies for a defined period (50-70 years typically, depending on the type of work), but that certain acts of copying don't breach copyright. If you create a copy that falls into one of those specific exemptions, then you aren't creating an infringing copy and therefore by definition haven't broken copyright because you're doing a permitted act. And a necessary backup created by a lawful user is one of those exceptions.
So while there's no permission to breach copyright to make a backup, by definition, within the above, a lawful user making a necessary backup isn't breaching copyright.
Oh, no. You're mixing up apples and pears. There are a series of "fair use" exceptions, and they have NOTHING to do with making backups. They're completely separate provisions, and the jouranlism fair use provision, for instance, has been in the 1988 CDPA since it was enacted, while the backup provisions amended the Acdt by virtue of an SI in 1993 (The Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992, which came into force Jan 1st 1993 to be precise).
I don't agree.
If we are talking about circumventing copy protection, then that one might fly, but it'd be for a judge to decide whether the right to make a backup is trumped by the anti-circumvention provisions or the other way round. It's quite conceivable that the decision would be that you aren't committing an offence circumventing protections design to stop illicit copies if you aren't making an illicit copy. But in any event, the OP isn't asking about that.
And for any civil action for copyright breach, I think it'd fail in the described circumstances for two reasons :-
- the specific provision allowing lawful users to make necessary backups
- the need for a successful action to establish damage resulting from the breach, and how does a lawful user making a necessary backup damage the rights holder?
It's true, obviously, that if they give you permission to make backups within certain limits, then you can within those limits. But you also can, outside of those limits, if you meet the CDPA criteria of lawful user and "necessary" backup, regardless of what the EULA says, and even, if it specifically prohibits you from doing so.
Of course, what some people are doing in mounting ISOs and running games from virtual drives, while eminently understandable, isn't covered by the "necessary backup" provision. While I completely sympathise, IMHO that would be an infringing copy.
As I mentioned in the last post, this is per UK law. Others, including the US, vary a bit and, as I understand it, one of the things that varies is the situation where the EULA says you can't. Quite where you stand if you're a UK user, in the UK, accepting a US EULA drafted under and stipulating it's bound by US law is another matter. That could get complicated REAL quick.
http://worldofstuart.excellentconten...one/backed.htm
Is the link I was referring to - plenty of useful information
Thanks for replying everyone
I'm a bit better informed now.
admins will bash me for this....
BUT why are you asking this? if its solely for personal use and not piratebay or mininova etc, then why make all the noise? I had a look on gamecopyworld and they provide nocd exes for games and they say its not illigal to copy and back up games as long as you legaly own them.
My personal advice, go ahead just dont tell anyone about it
im same as Blitzen and Barney rip everything to hard drive then theres no more waiting for cd rom to spin up, also theres no cdrom sound either
our boiler broke so we has no heating or hot water, this is the bloody result ^^
Well, it was out of interest more than anything TBH.
he misunderstood the scan free shipping, he thinks he needs 2000 posts to get it
using GCW is all very well unless your using games that have punkbuster, the cracked exe can trigger a punkbuster hack in some cases, BF2 is an example for clan games where all players are scanned for MD5 checks,
using BF2 again as an example will launch fine using a mounted ISO with no cracked exe.
securerom games are usually a pig and using a cracked exe is a great way round the checks to save time and issues when running virtual drives, the sad fact remains the game makers that were daft enough to use secure rom often have a cracked exe to hand for support issues where the game "jsut wont work" without a crack.
well its not always a cracked exe, more of the devs exe that doesnt need copy protection.
But they seem to have completely missed the point about the condition of necessity of back up for legal use of the programhttp://worldofstuart.excellentconten...one/backed.htm
Is the link I was referring to - plenty of useful information
This has been an excellent thread, with very well described discussion.
I'm a NoCd man myself... legal or not, all the disks are in the room with me, but I don't like swapping them around, because it DOES damage them eventually. I have a scratched Quake 4 disk and I had to polish it with Car Polish to get it to work, because in a fit of enthusiasm to get it in the machine I lobbed it out of my drunked hands, it skidded across the desk, went down the back of the radiator and took me 15 mniutes to get it out from the grubby insulation down there.
I'll stand in court, with my pile of legit disks and boxes and receipts from Play.com piled high under my chin and say sorry if I have too.
But, I think more crotically, my latest games will only work online (where I wanna play them) if I'm the only one with the serial number. So I could have a million copies of CoD4 and CoD5 but it makes no odds... only got one serial number.
cod4 and 5 is a wierd one, why does it require the cd to play offline but not online..
seems a bit OTT to me considering a no cd works a treat anyway.
Then surely it wasn't the swapping discs that damaged it then? I've never had a disc unable to be played purely by swapping them around - and I've got games from the 90s that I still play and they still read just fine.
Because the verification can be carried out by a server for online play.
In this country the term used for fair use (which is an American doctrine) is fair dealing. I'm currently witting my thesis on this area of law. Fair dealing is defence doctrine against an infringement claim. It allows a user to copy a small amount for the purpose of research or for private study. Fair dealing is not a factor here. What is a factor is the meaning of section 50 below:
In law interpretation is the key. In relation to S50A of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, i would take it to mean that it is lawful to make a copy of a program. However, as soon as you remove or tamper with the copy right protection then you are braking the law. So if the game you are copying for backup purposes has to have copy protection removed then yes it is an offence.
watercooled- As you do not need to circumnavigate the copy protection i would say you would be within the sphere of section 50. As you have legally bought the game your are entitled to back it up in case of damage or theft etc As you are only backing it up in case of damage to original disk you are acting within the meaning "for the purposes of his lawful use" ie. in case the disk is damaged. So i would not worry too much about it.
-edited mistake!
Last edited by AledJ; 18-07-2009 at 08:07 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
