LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksBut it's not necessary to back up the disc in order to lawfully use the game. I haven't backed up any of my games yet I'm able to lawfully use them as they were intended to be used.Originally Posted by AledJ
But it's not necessary to back up the disc in order to lawfully use the game. I haven't backed up any of my games yet I'm able to lawfully use them as they were intended to be used.
But technically, it would be necessary if the disc got damaged. It's easy for the disc to get damaged by dropping it, constantly removing and re-inserting it to play etc etc - you shouldn't have to treat discs like the crown jewels if you want them to last.
Although some of the reasons people give for ripping DRM-protected discs is daft - I remember reading one where he said DRM broke the laser on his DVD drive? I mean I know it could happen through wear and tear but the most DRM could do, to my knowledge, is screw with a driver?
Edit: Just wanted to add - you've already paid for the license, so you shouldn't be forced to pay more to replace a disc should it get damaged? Even if they offer it free within a warranty period I think they'd still want you to pay postage.
There's a video on YouTube of a guy called "NicotineAlien" ranting about copy protection.
It's full of "adult" language, the guy is very worked up, but I agree with him fully. Don't watch at work or around kids, or if you're easily offended - you have been warned.
How anti-piracy screws over people who buy PC Games
DRM is yet another reason why I prefer open source software. Pity there aren't may OS games...
Actually I have a vague recollection of it being Stardock protection that caused those problems. I could be talking complete rubbish, because this is a patchy memory of an article which could have been untrue in the first place, so bear that in mind. Anyway, I think it was something to do with the protection causing the disk to spin up and down in unusual patterns to check its authenticity, so it was software-based but it affected the hardware, eventually destroying the CD/DVD drive the disc was played in.
Obviously that was a bug - I would consider it similar to the head parking bug with the WD Green drives, causing them to drop like flies if certain software that polled the hard drive every so many seconds (like Speedfan) was running - and consequently it was fixed and cleared up a very long time ago.
Nonetheless, it was terrible PR for DRM, and I don't think Stardock has ever managed to fully recover from it, it's just got that social stigma in the same vein as the Deathstars irrespective of the current situation.
The Act does not say to use the game lawfully you must make a back up. What it does say is that if you legally buy a computer program, you as the lawful owner of that copy can make a back up of it. That is your right under law. However, it also states that no tampering can be made to the copy protection of that computer program.
Anyway, the law surrounding copyright and computer programs in this country need a total revamp!!!! At least that will be thesis conclusion in a nut shell.
edit: Note that 'fair use' is different to the UK doctrine of 'fair dealing'!
Last edited by AledJ; 18-07-2009 at 03:09 PM.
Hmm I didn't know that. Well I suppose there must be some truth behind it - and like you say it's probably just stuck and turned into a rumour effecting all DRM. Not that I agree with it mind, I have plenty of reasons why I think it's bad...
And yes, the law surrounding programs does need a revamp - badly! It's getting ridiculous really - I mean when it gets to the point that you can install it on a PC without any suspicious software, never let anyone else play it, never let anyone see you play it or take screenshots, never uninstall it, and you can only have it on one of your personal PCs at a time it's going too far. Oh wait a second it's like that now...
Really? I wouldn't take s50A to apply to music albums at all. It very specifically relates to computer programs, not to any other area of copyright works.
But yes, interpretation is key, as indeed it usually is. If, for example, a music CD has software on it then it might blur the line a bit, though I still doubt it could be pushed so that s50A covered music.
Another thing to bear in mind. Whether either the computer program or music are on CD or DVD isn't the point. The media involved is immaterial. It's the copy itself that is the point. Just because you are allowed to make a backup of computer software that happens to be on a CD or DVD doesn't mean you can copy other things that are on CD or DVD. s.50A gives the backup right because it's a computer program, not because it's on CD.
Unless, of course, the law on copyright has changed again and I haven't noticed?? It was certainly part of a proposal in a government-sponsored review of copyright law a couple of years ago that personal media-switching of music etc should be allowed, because the general view is that, for instance, the notion that you're breaking copyright because you put the contents of a CD you've legally bought and own onto your portable MP3 player is both patently ludicrous in that it's all but unenforceable, and grossly unreasonable. But as far as I know, or can find, that change has yet to be implemented .... and may never be. Unless you know different???
Depends on how you define lawful use, though, doesn't it?
Suppose you had software custom-written to solve a niche problem for your business? This is a subject close to my heart, and wallet, since I've been known to do exactly that. The customer has paid for a right to use that software. Now suppose the PC it's on crashes and you lose the contents, and the developer had gone out of business and emigrated .... or died. Unless you have a valid, usable backup, you've most likely lost the ability to reinstall, if it turns out the master disc is corrupt .... or lost. Or suppose you have a fire and the master disc burns up with the PC. Again, if the developer is no longer in business, you've probably lost the benefit of the software altogether.
Or, just suppose it's a business-critical application and getting another disc from the software house is going to take a few days, during which you can't trade?
In all these cases, having a backup to preserve your ability to continue to use the software lawfully would be "lawful use", though it's not necessary for ordinary day-to-day use.
And while a game might be less important than business-critical use, the same principle applies. If I bought a game to enjoy playing it, perhaps with my mates, and I lose the ability to do that for a period (maybe weeks) while getting a replacement from the developers or publishers, then having to wait for that disc removes my ability to lawfully use the software I bought. In that case, the backup is "necessary" to ensure I can continue to receive the benefot oif the lawful use I'm entitled to expect to enjoy if I hadn't needed the backup.
It's always the case that backups aren't needed for normal use. The issue, then, is whether the backup is necessary to ensure that you have the lawful use you're entitled to, and I'd argued that having it without the extra cost and delays involved in getting a disc from the publisher is fully justified .... and what if the publisher has gone out of business by the time you need a replacement? If you wait until that happens before you do a "necessary backup", it'll be too late. that's what a backup is all about .... preventing that kind of situation from developing in the first place.
You're arguing that it's a necessity for a situation which has not, and is not in the usual course of business likely to happen. If you lose the ability to play the game then it's either your own fault in which case you bear the burden of the consequences, or it's someone else's fault in which case you might be entitled to compensation for that loss. I don't get a free Astra to sit on the drive in case the other one breaks - if it breaks then I wait for it to be fixed and get compensation for the inconvenience if it wasn't my fault. Alternatively if I really wanted a back up Astra then I'd have to buy a second one - and you can do the same with games too (I have multiple copies of my two favourite games). If a publisher goes out of business then you'd get a refund from the retailer under the fit for purpose regulations (taking account of the use you've had of the product in the meantime).
It's not always the case that a copy isn't needed for normal use though - for example your browser needs a temporary copy of potentially copyright material in order for the browser to display a webpage.
If it's a risk which, if it happens, could result in your business collapsing, then it's very easy to justify why it's "necessary". That's why it's not uncommon for contracts for software development to include a provision to require source code to be held in escrow, perhaps at a lawyer's office. If you don't, and the developer goes out of business, you may well find yourself unable to amend software to take account of, perhaps, changes in legislation.
Nothing in the Copyright Act says the backup must be necessary "for normal use" ... just that it must be necessary. That's what AledJ meant by "interpretation" ..... if push comes to shove, you may have to justify why your backup was necessary, and get a court to agree. We can't determine in advance what that would be. It;s much the same as being able to use "reasonable" force to defend yourself .... under some circumstances, even deadly force is reasonable, but the law is written to be be deliberately vague so as to allow judges to react to circumstances.
As for free Astras, it's got nothing to do with the current situation. The copyright law doesn't say you must take a backup. Merely that, under the defined conditions, you can without breaking copyright. It doesn't cover buying two copies, or a second Astra. If the backup is "necessary" to preserve the lawful use you are entitled to, then you have a right to take the backup to protect that and the whole point of a backup is to protect against the risk of failures, not the certainty of them.
Isn't there a difference between 'normal use' and 'continuity of normal use' though? It's only the continuity that the backup as you're describing is relevant to - the actual use of a program rarely needs a backup (but it's allowed where that is the case).
Sorry yes your right. I was just using the music bit as an example.
No in law there is no difference!! The 'lawful use' is for the court to decide upon with the evidence you provide in your defence. The Act only refers to 'lawful use'. At its basic level all that section 50A does is allow a legal user to protect their purchase by making a back up.
A few more reasons why I like Steam - you can download it at will or make backups easily. And AFAIK there's no DRM outside of the software itself, and no need to have discs to play!
I'd say no, there isn't .... but it's down to interpretation.
Most software licences make it explicitly clear that you're not buying the software, but merely a licence to use it. It's the functionality you're buying, unlike many other copyright works, be it a book, or painting, or whatever, though I suppose there's a parallel with music in that when you buy a CD what you're actually after is the pleasure from listening to it. And that's why I think if it came to it, you';d have to justify "necessary" in the same whay ytou'd have to justify "reasonable" if you usede force to defend yourself.
But given that what you've bought is the right to use the software, then I'd say that if a backup is necessary toi enable to continue to do that, then it doesn't break copyright (because of s50A). Of course, if you then gave that backup to someone else, you would, but provided it's only there, and necessary) for the lawful use you've paid for, you're entitled to do it.
It might, for instance, be difficult to justify that a backup was "necessary" if you had a steam account that let you redownload a game, or if the software was from a local developer who guaranteed a 4-hour response time to a callout and who'd got a copy on deposit with a local solicitor in the event of going bust.
There might be occasions when a backup couldn't be deemed "necessary", but I think in most circumstances, a legitimate user would be fully justified in thinking s50A gave them a right to take backups if that was fundamental to ensuring continued "enjoyment" of the rights they'd paid for.
Even with a game, a lot of people pay a premium price for new releases because they want to be playing it now, when others and especially their mates are. And playing it is what they bought the game for, so they're entitled to be expect to be able to do so.
Of course, all this is largely academic, because if you're talking about a copy taken strictly to preserve your ability to continue to use a game, you're not going to end up in court over it. The first reason is that the publisher is never likely to know you've done it. How could they? And even if they did, in the UK and for non-business users, it's merely a civil matter (assuming no copy protection is bypassed, as per thread starter) and the only thing the publisher could get by gong to court would be :-
- damages if you'd infringed copyright
- a seizure order for infringing copies
- an injunction to prevent you doing it again
Court action over the latter two seems wildly unrealistic, and in order to get the first, they'd have to be able to establish what damage they;d suffered by you taking a backup of a product you had a legitimate right to use, and it's hard to see how any damage at all from that could be established.
So even without s50A, I don't see a remotely realistic chance of anyone taking a genuine backup of a game ending actually up in court, any more than you will if you put your CD collection on your iPod. With s50A, I'd say the chances are absolutely zero.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote