Clearing it up once and for all? (Re: backups)

[Diiz]

Posted this at another forum, but wanted to spread it around to see if I got different answers...

Now wait. This topic is not necessarily what you think. I don't want a flame war, and for once, I am not looking for opinions. I am looking for facts, laws, etc. Don't speak on the issue unless you have a reputable link or book to back you up...a quote just isn't good enough.

The Situation:
Some of you know that I just recently purchased my first PSOne and have been on a hunt for games. I am doing pretty well so far and have collected several of the titles on my list with several more on the way. The reason I am grabbing up all these games so quickly is because it looks like I am heading out to Oklahoma for the entire summer for a job. I will be in a 1 room apartment, with no vehicle, no cable, and most likely, no internet. I will be bringing along my PSOne and, hopefully, I will find a cheap TV or an LCD screen to take along as well.

Anyway, I am picky as hell when it comes to buying games (mint and complete are required) and I have been buying quite a few of these games new or from collectors. By the time I leave I am figuring I will have anywhere between 15-20 games (have 6 so far, 4 more on the way, and I'm not stopping until I board that plane) that will have to go with me to OK. I don't want to haul 15-20 games, in their cases, to OK. I don't want to remove the discs and put them in sleeves, or a book either. When I say I take care of my games, I'm really not kidding.

The Question:
As you can tell, I am hinting at making backups of all my games and bringing those as opposed to bringing the actual discs themselves. But is this legal? Some say you are allowed to backup your media for yourself, others say it doesn't matter if you own it or not...who's right here? Does my situation allow for such a thing?

Again, facts only, no opinions, no flame wars. Links are a must. Thanks for taking the time to read and reply.

[SupremeNumNuts]

You will need a mod chip for you psone if you are going to play the back ups you make

[karmapolice]

http://www.farstone.com/home/en/shtml/gccopyright_disclosure.shtml

[karmapolice]

Its for a product but it states the legal premise that you are looking for

[defender]

sorry but its illegal according to the dmca

you will have to circumvent the hardware protection built into the PSone and this is against the law

previous to the dmca it was a grey area but the dmca makes it clear...reverse engineering is now illegal and any device designed to circumvent copyright protection is against the law...

there is more to it than this but its the short of it

[bignick]

I would listen to defender on this one. Esp when makers of mod chips are getting sued.

[drone8888]

Who the Shaq cares.

You are not distributing the software.

I'd love to see someone try and take you to court.

Just do it. Its not wrong, unless you sell it with someone.

I don't see Greatful Dead, Phish, Beatles, etc., tape traders going to jail. I don't see ISO traders, getting fined.

Why would you draw attention to yourself?? You must be planning something.
No one, is THAT worried, about making copies of their OWN games.

Either that, or you really don't have any balls. Are you really gonna do what someone tells you?? Are you going to listen to me, or someone else on here??

WHY??

Do what you feel is right. If it turns out bad, it was obviously meant to be.

[karmapolice]

You could just use a swap disc and not use a mod chip...correct me if Im wrong but I believe it would work

[JSweeney]

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117

§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(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.

(c) 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.

[JSweeney]

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#1201
§ 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. — (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.

(B) The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title, as determined under subparagraph (C).

(C) During the 2-year period described in subparagraph (A), and during each succeeding 3-year period, the Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who shall consult with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce and report and comment on his or her views in making such recommendation, shall make the determination in a rulemaking proceeding for purposes of subparagraph (B) of whether persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by the prohibition under subparagraph (A) in their ability to make noninfringing uses under this title of a particular class of copyrighted works. In conducting such rulemaking, the Librarian shall examine —

(i) the availability for use of copyrighted works;

(ii) the availability for use of works for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational purposes;

(iii) the impact that the prohibition on the circumvention of technological measures applied to copyrighted works has on criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research;

(iv) the effect of circumvention of technological measures on the market for or value of copyrighted works; and

(v) such other factors as the Librarian considers appropriate.

(D) The Librarian shall publish any class of copyrighted works for which the Librarian has determined, pursuant to the rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), that noninfringing uses by persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be, adversely affected, and the prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to such users with respect to such class of works for the ensuing 3-year period.

(E) Neither the exception under subparagraph (B) from the applicability

of the prohibition contained in subparagraph (A), nor any determination made in a rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), may be used as a defense in any action to enforce any provision of this title other than this paragraph.

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that —

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

(3) As used in this subsection —

(A) to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and

(B) a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

(b) Additional Violations. — (1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that —

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or

(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof.

(2) As used in this subsection —

(A) to “circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure” means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure; and

(B) a technological measure “effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title.

(c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected. — (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

(2) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish vicarious or contributory liability for copyright infringement in connection with any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof.

(3) Nothing in this section shall require that the design of, or design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular technological measure, so long as such part or component, or the product in which such part or component is integrated, does not otherwise fall within the prohibitions of subsection (a)(2) or (b)(1).

(4) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish any rights of free speech or the press for activities using consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing products.

(d) Exemption for Nonprofit Libraries, Archives, and Educational Institutions. — (1) A nonprofit library, archives, or educational institution which gains access to a commercially exploited copyrighted work solely in order to make a good faith determination of whether to acquire a copy of that work for the sole purpose of engaging in conduct permitted under this title shall not be in violation of subsection (a)(1)(A). A copy of a work to which access has been gained under this paragraph —

(A) may not be retained longer than necessary to make such good faith determination; and

(B) may not be used for any other purpose.

(2) The exemption made available under paragraph (1) shall only apply with respect to a work when an identical copy of that work is not reasonably available in another form.

(3) A nonprofit library, archives, or educational institution that willfully for the purpose of commercial advantage or financial gain violates paragraph (1) —

(A) shall, for the first offense, be subject to the civil remedies under section 1203; and

(B) shall, for repeated or subsequent offenses, in addition to the civil remedies under section 1203, forfeit the exemption provided under paragraph (1).

(4) This subsection may not be used as a defense to a claim under subsection (a)(2) or (b), nor may this subsection permit a nonprofit library, archives, or educational institution to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, component, or part thereof, which circumvents a technological measure.

(5) In order for a library or archives to qualify for the exemption under this subsection, the collections of that library or archives shall be —

(A) open to the public; or

(B) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other persons doing research in a specialized field.

(e) Law Enforcement, Intelligence, and Other Government Activities. — This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State. For purposes of this subsection, the term “information security” means activities carried out in order to identify and address the vulnerabilities of a government computer, computer system, or computer network.

(f) Reverse Engineering. — (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.

(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.

(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term “interoperability” means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.

(g) Encryption Research. —

(1) Definitions. — For purposes of this subsection —

(A) the term “encryption research” means activities necessary to identify and analyze flaws and vulnerabilities of encryption technologies applied to copyrighted works, if these activities are conducted to advance the state of knowledge in the field of encryption technology or to assist in the development of encryption products; and

(B) the term “encryption technology” means the scrambling and descrambling of information using mathematical formulas or algorithms.

(2) Permissible acts of encryption research. — Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to circumvent a technological measure as applied to a copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of a published work in the course of an act of good faith encryption research if —

(A) the person lawfully obtained the encrypted copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of the published work;

(B) such act is necessary to conduct such encryption research;

(C) the person made a good faith effort to obtain authorization before the circumvention; and

(D) such act does not constitute infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including section 1030 of title 18 and those provisions of title 18 amended by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.

(3) Factors in determining exemption. — In determining whether a person qualifies for the exemption under paragraph (2), the factors to be considered shall include —

(A) whether the information derived from the encryption research was disseminated, and if so, whether it was disseminated in a manner reasonably calculated to advance the state of knowledge or development of encryption technology, versus whether it was disseminated in a manner that facilitates infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including a violation of privacy or breach of security;

(B) whether the person is engaged in a legitimate course of study, is employed, or is appropriately trained or experienced, in the field of encryption technology; and

(C) whether the person provides the copyright owner of the work to which the technological measure is applied with notice of the findings and documentation of the research, and the time when such notice is provided.

(4) Use of technological means for research activities. — Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(2), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to —

(A) develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure for the sole purpose of that person performing the acts of good faith encryption research described in paragraph (2); and

(B) provide the technological means to another person with whom he or she is working collaboratively for the purpose of conducting the acts of good faith encryption research described in paragraph (2) or for the purpose of having that other person verify his or her acts of good faith encryption research described in paragraph (2).

(5) Report to Congress. — Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this chapter, the Register of Copyrights and the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce shall jointly report to the Congress on the effect this subsection has had on —

(A) encryption research and the development of encryption technology;

(B) the adequacy and effectiveness of technological measures designed to protect copyrighted works; and

(C) protection of copyright owners against the unauthorized access to their encrypted copyrighted works.

The report shall include legislative recommendations, if any.

(h) Exceptions Regarding Minors. — In applying subsection (a) to a component or part, the court may consider the necessity for its intended and actual incorporation in a technology, product, service, or device, which —

(1) does not itself violate the provisions of this title; and

(2) has the sole purpose to prevent the access of minors to material on the Internet.

(i) Protection of Personally Identifying Information. —

(1) Circumvention permitted. — Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title, if —

(A) the technological measure, or the work it protects, contains the capability of collecting or disseminating personally identifying information reflecting the online activities of a natural person who seeks to gain access to the work protected;

(B) in the normal course of its operation, the technological measure, or the work it protects, collects or disseminates personally identifying information about the person who seeks to gain access to the work protected, without providing conspicuous notice of such collection or dissemination to such person, and without providing such person with the capability to prevent or restrict such collection or dissemination;

(C) the act of circumvention has the sole effect of identifying and disabling the capability described in subparagraph (A), and has no other effect on the ability of any person to gain access to any work; and

(D) the act of circumvention is carried out solely for the purpose of preventing the collection or dissemination of personally identifying information about a natural person who seeks to gain access to the work protected, and is not in violation of any other law.

(2) Inapplicability to certain technological measures. —

This subsection does not apply to a technological measure, or a work it protects, that does not collect or disseminate personally identifying information and that is disclosed to a user as not having or using such capability.

(j) Security Testing. —

(1) Definition. — For purposes of this subsection, the term “security testing” means accessing a computer, computer system, or computer network, solely for the purpose of good faith testing, investigating, or correcting, a security flaw or vulnerability, with the authorization of the owner or operator of such computer, computer system, or computer network.

(2) Permissible acts of security testing. — Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to engage in an act of security testing, if such act does not constitute infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including section 1030 of title 18 and those provisions of title 18 amended by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.

(3) Factors in determining exemption. — In determining whether a person qualifies for the exemption under paragraph (2), the factors to be considered shall include —

(A) whether the information derived from the security testing was used solely to promote the security of the owner or operator of such computer, computer system or computer network, or shared directly with the developer of such computer, computer system, or computer network; and

(B) whether the information derived from the security testing was used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including a violation of privacy or breach of security.

(4) Use of technological means for security testing. — Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(2), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to develop, produce, distribute or employ technological means for the sole purpose of performing the acts of security testing described in subsection (2), provided such technological means does not otherwise violate section (a)(2).

(k) Certain Analog Devices and Certain Technological Measures. —

(1) Certain analog devices. —

(A) Effective 18 months after the date of the enactment of this chapter, no person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any —

(i) VHS format analog video cassette recorder unless such recorder conforms to the automatic gain control copy control technology;

(ii) 8mm format analog video cassette camcorder unless such camcorder conforms to the automatic gain control technology;

(iii) Beta format analog video cassette recorder, unless such recorder conforms to the automatic gain control copy control technology, except that this requirement shall not apply until there are 1,000 Beta format analog video cassette recorders sold in the United States in any one calendar year after the date of the enactment of this chapter;

(iv) 8mm format analog video cassette recorder that is not an analog video cassette camcorder, unless such recorder conforms to the automatic gain control copy control technology, except that this requirement shall not apply until there are 20,000 such recorders sold in the United States in any one calendar year after the date of the enactment of this chapter; or

(v) analog video cassette recorder that records using an NTSC format video input and that is not otherwise covered under clauses (i) through (iv), unless such device conforms to the automatic gain control copy control technology.

(B) Effective on the date of the enactment of this chapter, no person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in —

(i) any VHS format analog video cassette recorder or any 8mm format analog video cassette recorder if the design of the model of such recorder has been modified after such date of enactment so that a model of recorder that previously conformed to the automatic gain control copy control technology no longer conforms to such technology; or

(ii) any VHS format analog video cassette recorder, or any 8mm format analog video cassette recorder that is not an 8mm analog video cassette camcorder, if the design of the model of such recorder has been modified after such date of enactment so that a model of recorder that previously conformed to the four-line colorstripe copy control technology no longer conforms to such technology.

Manufacturers that have not previously manufactured or sold a VHS format analog video cassette recorder, or an 8mm format analog cassette recorder, shall be required to conform to the four-line colorstripe copy control technology in the initial model of any such recorder manufactured after the date of the enactment of this chapter, and thereafter to continue conforming to the four-line colorstripe copy control technology. For purposes of this subparagraph, an analog video cassette recorder “conforms to” the four-line colorstripe copy control technology if it records a signal that, when played back by the playback function of that recorder in the normal viewing mode, exhibits, on a reference display device, a display containing distracting visible lines through portions of the viewable picture.

(2) Certain encoding restrictions. — No person shall apply the automatic gain control copy control technology or colorstripe copy control technology to prevent or limit consumer copying except such copying —

(A) of a single transmission, or specified group of transmissions, of live events or of audiovisual works for which a member of the public has exercised choice in selecting the transmissions, including the content of the transmissions or the time of receipt of such transmissions, or both, and as to which such member is charged a separate fee for each such transmission or specified group of transmissions;

(B) from a copy of a transmission of a live event or an audiovisual work if such transmission is provided by a channel or service where payment is made by a member of the public for such channel or service in the form of a subscription fee that entitles the member of the public to receive all of the programming contained in such channel or service;

(C) from a physical medium containing one or more prerecorded audiovisual works; or

(D) from a copy of a transmission described in subparagraph (A) or from a copy made from a physical medium described in subparagraph (C).

In the event that a transmission meets both the conditions set forth in subparagraph (A) and those set forth in subparagraph (B), the transmission shall be treated as a transmission described in subparagraph (A).

(3) Inapplicability. — This subsection shall not —

(A) require any analog video cassette camcorder to conform to the automatic gain control copy control technology with respect to any video signal received through a camera lens;

(B) apply to the manufacture, importation, offer for sale, provision of, or other trafficking in, any professional analog video cassette recorder; or

(C) apply to the offer for sale or provision of, or other trafficking in, any previously owned analog video cassette recorder, if such recorder was legally manufactured and sold when new and not subsequently modified in violation of paragraph (1)(B).

(4) Definitions. — For purposes of this subsection:

(A) An “analog video cassette recorder” means a device that records, or a device that includes a function that records, on electromagnetic tape in an analog format the electronic impulses produced by the video and audio portions of a television program, motion picture, or other form of audiovisual work.

(B) An “analog video cassette camcorder” means an analog video cassette recorder that contains a recording function that operates through a camera lens and through a video input that may be connected with a television or other video playback device.

(C) An analog video cassette recorder “conforms” to the automatic gain control copy control technology if it —

(i) detects one or more of the elements of such technology and does not record the motion picture or transmission protected by such technology; or

(ii) records a signal that, when played back, exhibits a meaningfully distorted or degraded display.

(D) The term “professional analog video cassette recorder” means an analog video cassette recorder that is designed, manufactured, marketed, and intended for use by a person who regularly employs such a device for a lawful business or industrial use, including making, performing , displaying, distributing, or transmitting copies of motion pictures on a commercial scale.

(E) The terms “VHS format,” “8mm format,” “Beta format,” “automatic gain control copy control technology,” “colorstripe copy control technology,” “four-line version of the colorstripe copy control technology,” and “NTSC” have the meanings that are commonly understood in the consumer electronics and motion picture industries as of the date of the enactment of this chapter.

(5) Violations. — Any violation of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be treated as a violation of subsection (b)(1) of this section. Any violation of paragraph (2) of this subsection shall be deemed an “act of circumvention” for the purposes of section 1203(c)(3)(A) of this chapter.

§ 1202. Integrity of copyright management information3
(a) False Copyright Management Information. — No person shall knowingly and with the intent to induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal infringement —

(1) provide copyright management information that is false, or

(2) distribute or import for distribution copyright management information that is false.

(b) Removal or Alteration of Copyright Management Information. — No person shall, without the authority of the copyright owner or the law —

(1) intentionally remove or alter any copyright management information,

(2) distribute or import for distribution copyright management information knowing that the copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law, or

(3) distribute, import for distribution, or publicly perform works, copies of works, or phonorecords, knowing that copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law,

knowing, or, with respect to civil remedies under section 1203, having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of any right under this title.

(c) Definition. — As used in this section, the term “copyright management information” means any of the following information conveyed in connection with copies or phonorecords of a work or performances or displays of a work, including in digital form, except that such term does not include any personally identifying information about a user of a work or of a copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of a work:

(1) The title and other information identifying the work, including the information set forth on a notice of copyright.

(2) The name of, and other identifying information about, the author of a work.

(3) The name of, and other identifying information about, the copyright owner of the work, including the information set forth in a notice of copyright.

(4) With the exception of public performances of works by radio and television broadcast stations, the name of, and other identifying information about, a performer whose performance is fixed in a work other than an audiovisual work.

(5) With the exception of public performances of works by radio and television broadcast stations, in the case of an audiovisual work, the name of, and other identifying information about, a writer, performer, or director who is credited in the audiovisual work.

(6) Terms and conditions for use of the work.

(7) Identifying numbers or symbols referring to such information or links to such information.

(8) Such other information as the Register of Copyrights may prescribe by regulation, except that the Register of Copyrights may not require the provision of any information concerning the user of a copyrighted work.

(d) Law Enforcement, Intelligence, and Other Government Activities. — This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State. For purposes of this subsection, the term “information security” means activities carried out in order to identify and address the vulnerabilities of a government computer, computer system, or computer network.

(e) Limitations on Liability. —

(1) Analog transmissions. — In the case of an analog transmission, a person who is making transmissions in its capacity as a broadcast station, or as a cable system, or someone who provides programming to such station or system, shall not be liable for a violation of subsection (b) if —

(A) avoiding the activity that constitutes such violation is not technically feasible or would create an undue financial hardship on such person; and

(B) such person did not intend, by engaging in such activity, to induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal infringement of a right under this title.

(2) Digital transmissions. —

(A) If a digital transmission standard for the placement of copyright management information for a category of works is set in a voluntary, consensus standard-setting process involving a representative cross-section of broadcast stations or cable systems and copyright owners of a category of works that are intended for public performance by such stations or systems, a person identified in paragraph (1) shall not be liable for a violation of subsection (b) with respect to the particular copyright management information addressed by such standard if —

(i) the placement of such information by someone other than such person is not in accordance with such standard; and

(ii) the activity that constitutes such violation is not intended to induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal infringement of a right under this title.

(B) Until a digital transmission standard has been set pursuant to subparagraph (A) with respect to the placement of copyright management information for a category of works, a person identified in paragraph (1) shall not be liable for a violation of subsection (b) with respect to such copyright management information, if the activity that constitutes such violation is not intended to induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal infringement of a right under this title, and if —

(i) the transmission of such information by such person would result in a perceptible visual or aural degradation of the digital signal; or

(ii) the transmission of such information by such person would conflict with —

(I) an applicable government regulation relating to transmission of information in a digital signal;

(II) an applicable industry-wide standard relating to the transmission of information in a digital signal that was adopted by a voluntary consensus standards body prior to the effective date of this chapter; or

(III) an applicable industry-wide standard relating to the transmission of information in a digital signal that was adopted in a voluntary, consensus standards-setting process open to participation by a representative cross-section of broadcast stations or cable systems and copyright owners of a category of works that are intended for public performance by such stations or systems.

(3) Definitions. — As used in this subsection —

(A) the term “broadcast station” has the meaning given that term in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153); and

(B) the term “cable system” has the meaning given that term in section 602 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 522).

§ 1203. Civil remedies4
(a) Civil Actions. — Any person injured by a violation of section 1201 or 1202 may bring a civil action in an appropriate United States district court for such violation.

(b) Powers of the Court. — In an action brought under subsection (a), the court —

(1) may grant temporary and permanent injunctions on such terms as it deems reasonable to prevent or restrain a violation, but in no event shall impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected under the 1st amendment to the Constitution;

(2) at any time while an action is pending, may order the impounding, on such terms as it deems reasonable, of any device or product that is in the custody or control of the alleged violator and that the court has reasonable cause to believe was involved in a violation;

(3) may award damages under subsection (c);

(4) in its discretion may allow the recovery of costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof;

(5) in its discretion may award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party; and

(6) may, as part of a final judgment or decree finding a violation, order the remedial modification or the destruction of any device or product involved in the violation that is in the custody or control of the violator or has been impounded under paragraph (2).

(c) Award of Damages. —

(1) In general. — Except as otherwise provided in this title, a person committing a violation of section 1201 or 1202 is liable for either —

(A) the actual damages and any additional profits of the violator, as provided in paragraph (2), or

(B) statutory damages, as provided in paragraph (3).

(2) Actual damages. — The court shall award to the complaining party the actual damages suffered by the party as a result of the violation, and any profits of the violator that are attributable to the violation and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages, if the complaining party elects such damages at any time before final judgment is entered.

(3) Statutory damages. — (A) At any time before final judgment is entered, a complaining party may elect to recover an award of statutory damages for each violation of section 1201 in the sum of not less than $200 or more than $2,500 per act of circumvention, device, product, component, offer, or performance of service, as the court considers just.

(B) At any time before final judgment is entered, a complaining party may elect to recover an award of statutory damages for each violation of section 1202 in the sum of not less than $2,500 or more than $25,000.

(4) Repeated violations. — In any case in which the injured party sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that a person has violated section 1201 or 1202 within three years after a final judgment was entered against the person for another such violation, the court may increase the award of damages up to triple the amount that would otherwise be awarded, as the court considers just.

(5) Innocent violations. —

(A) In general. — The court in its discretion may reduce or remit the total award of damages in any case in which the violator sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that the violator was not aware and had no reason to believe that its acts constituted a violation.

(B) Nonprofit library, archives, educational institutions, or public broadcasting entities. —

(i) Definition. — In this subparagraph, the term “public broadcasting entity” has the meaning given such term under section 118(g).

[JSweeney]

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106
§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

§ 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity37
(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. — Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art —

(1) shall have the right —

(A) to claim authorship of that work, and

(B) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art which he or she did not create;

(2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation; and

(3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the right —

(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and

(B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.

(b) Scope and Exercise of Rights. — Only the author of a work of visual art has the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work, whether or not the author is the copyright owner. The authors of a joint work of visual art are coowners of the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work.

(c) Exceptions. — (1) The modification of a work of visual art which is the result of the passage of time or the inherent nature of the materials is not a distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3)(A).

(2) The modification of a work of visual art which is the result of conservation, or of the public presentation, including lighting and placement, of the work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3) unless the modification is caused by gross negligence.

(3) The rights described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall not apply to any reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work in, upon, or in any connection with any item described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of the definition of “work of visual art” in section 101, and any such reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in paragraph (3) of subsection (a).

(d) Duration of Rights. — (1) With respect to works of visual art created on or after the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall endure for a term consisting of the life of the author.

(2) With respect to works of visual art created before the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, but title to which has not, as of such effective date, been transferred from the author, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall be coextensive with, and shall expire at the same time as, the rights conferred by section 106.

(3) In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall endure for a term consisting of the life of the last surviving author.

(4) All terms of the rights conferred by subsection (a) run to the end of the calendar year in which they would otherwise expire.

(e) Transfer and Waiver. — (1) The rights conferred by subsection (a) may not be transferred, but those rights may be waived if the author expressly agrees to such waiver in a written instrument signed by the author. Such instrument shall specifically identify the work, and uses of that work, to which the waiver applies, and the waiver shall apply only to the work and uses so identified. In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors, a waiver of rights under this paragraph made by one such author waives such rights for all such authors.

(2) Ownership of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art is distinct from ownership of any copy of that work, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright in that work. Transfer of ownership of any copy of a work of visual art, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright, shall not constitute a waiver of the rights conferred by subsection (a). Except as may otherwise be agreed by the author in a written instrument signed by the author, a waiver of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art shall not constitute a transfer of ownership of any copy of that work, or of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive right under a copyright in that work.

[JSweeney]

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

[JSweeney]

There you go. There's some of the pertainant copyright law on the issue.

[Wshakspear]

ive taken dvd's, ripped them, formated them, and watch them on my Pocket PC. Illegal? Probably. Am i going to make said file available for purchase or download? nope. Im using my product in the way that i want to, and thats whats important to me.

[PsyClerk]

Well, that was incredibly unnecessary.

[drsuper23]

Great job JSweeney. That has to be the longest post. ever.

[eldad9]

Actually, I posted a longer one, but it was on subject ( http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11876 ).

Post a link, not the contents of the entire page! It's not even as if you try to quote just the relevant bits.

[JSweeney]

Compared to what is on the rest of the copyright.gov site, that is the relevant bits.
Just be glad I decided against getting the relevant sections from the DMCA as well.

[JSweeney]

Actually, I posted a longer one, but it was on subject ( http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11876 ).

Post a link, not the contents of the entire page! It's not even as if you try to quote just the relevant bits.

Yep, because a list of numbers is so much more relevant than the related sections from the vast amount of text that comprises copyright law.

[punqsux]

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0PwAeA!USGVm8YHlH1rQ6BqOFNSfIVt0x8NcZ*Oob8wqmigrUb pWM2DR*sg8HLKees6laIjd5axR2yDfnFbHNBDyCV57PJ5ek/shaq.jpg

[wubb]

So under fair use it is okay to make a back up copy of your PSOne games, but thanks to the DMCA it is illegal to install a mod chip in a PSOne to play the backups?

[punqsux]

So under fair use it is okay to make a back up copy of your PSOne games, but thanks to the DMCA it is illegal to install a mod chip in a PSOne to play the backups?

thats my understanding as well

ive heard there are disc swaps that work with backups, but no clue if thats true...

[eldad9]

Yep, because a list of numbers is so much more relevant than the related sections from the vast amount of text that comprises copyright law.

Yes, because it was what the original post in the thread asked for, and it was my own work and not something I could link to.

[Grave_Addiction]

Personally, I would do it anyway. Why run the risk of messing up your discs?

It makes me so sick when I hear people flame others who like to play backups of their own games. Like no one here has ever recorded a tv show, a song on the radio or downloaded music off the internet.

The reason why the modchips are illegal is because they want to stop people from buying pirated software.

In your case, all you're doing is playing backups of your own games because you don't want them to get messed up. I see nothing wrong with that.

[jmcc]

A relevent story to the issue: http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1084134579.html

[Wlogan31]

I've personally had a modchip on my Playstation for a long time. It isn't the type you weld, the type u plug into the back and do a disc swap. I back up my games and keep them in their discs. I see no problem with that.

[EggViper]

a few years ago i had almost the same problem. i was going to vacation and wanted to take my games but i knew they'd get ruined b/c off all the little kids at the family reunion, and from all the pandemonium. i just decided to make bakups of all the cds and take them b/c of past experience with how cd's are handled by said kids. i've done this now with almost every family vacation. IMO it isn't illegal cause i owned all those games. if ur worried about getting caught with them, u probally wont. they dont really check ur bags like that and u can ofcourse cover em in things.

[eldad9]

It's scary that companies have such power in the U.S. that people who back up their media think they're committing a crime.

[karmapolice]

No one is gunna check your bag and see burned cd's and make anything of it...I make copies of my cd's to carry with me so they dont get all f'd up and no one will ever say anything...Thats why cd players play cd-r's and thats why they have MP3 cd players...So you can take the music YOU OWN with you without damaging your real cd's

[JSweeney]

It's scary that companies have such power in the U.S. that people who back up their media think they're committing a crime.

How dare companies try to protect a product they've invested millions of dollars into. Shame on them.

[karmapolice]

theyre not protecting a product if were not able to backup things...have you ever uploaded a cd on your computer? Or taped a cd so you could play it in your car?...I think all of us have...

[Indiana]

So under fair use it is okay to make a back up copy of your PSOne games, but thanks to the DMCA it is illegal to install a mod chip in a PSOne to play the backups?

thats my understanding as well

ive heard there are disc swaps that work with backups, but no clue if thats true...

That only works on the first or maybe second version of the Playstation. After that they made it impossible to swap them and get it to work.

[PsyClerk]

It's scary that companies have such power in the U.S. that people who back up their media think they're committing a crime.

How dare companies try to protect a product they've invested millions of dollars into. Shame on them.

I wonder if you'll sing the same tune when said companies start trying to charge you on a per-use basis.

I understand where you're coming from, but come on. Making a copy to preserve your original investment should not be criminal. As soon as he loans one out to a friend, THEN we can dogpile him.

[Indiana]

theyre not protecting a product if were not able to backup things...have you ever uploaded a cd on your computer? Or taped a cd so you could play it in your car?...I think all of us have...

Actually it is legal to make a backup of a music CD you own. Since you are not circumventing copy protection it is okay to copy it according to the DMCA.

[karmapolice]

I make "A" backup and keep the files on my comp. for if I ever lose the "backup" this is in no way illegal...I am allowed to make ONE copy or backup for personal use and not for selling or distrubuting...Plus this really isnt a factor of legality...I mean if you really wanted a cd and you didnt have enough money to buy it but I offered to make a copy for you until you got enough money to pay for it...Would you refuse? NO...Those laws are only there to keep people from DISTRUBUTING them...not for your own back up use...I dont think any record compony or game company cares if you make a backup for yourself so the game or cd YOU PAID FOR doesnt get scratched or messed up on a trip...Come on...this is stupid...I mean this law is like the law in MI were you cant have a donkey take a bath with you...Or the one in PA were if you baby sit you cant eat ALL the food in the house...these are crazy...if you want to make a backup copy GO AHEAD...no one is gunna care...I mean, is a cop going to come to your house and confiscate all of your backups and take you to jail even though they were only for you? I dont think so

[Wshakspear]

***Gets out of tub***

[karmapolice]

haha...nice one shakspear

[video_gamer324]

From what I understand, you can back up a game and play that backup, but you can't let a friend or sibling play the original while you play the backup. Also, once you lose possession of the original, you must destroy the backup. As long as you follow those guidelines, you should be fine.

[eldad9]

From what I understand, you can back up a game and play that backup, but you can't let a friend or sibling play the original while you play the backup. Also, once you lose possession of the original, you must destroy the backup.

So if the original is destroyed in a fire....?

[JSweeney]

I wonder if you'll sing the same tune when said companies start trying to charge you on a per-use basis.

If that's the industry standard distribution method, then yes.
Otherwise, I'll just support the competition. Anyways, that would fly in the face of over a century of caselaw and statutes.

I understand where you're coming from, but come on. Making a copy to preserve your original investment should not be criminal. As soon as he loans one out to a friend, THEN we can dogpile him.

I never said making a copy was wrong, so long as you don't have to bypass copy protection to do so, or to play it.

[JSweeney]

From what I understand, you can back up a game and play that backup, but you can't let a friend or sibling play the original while you play the backup. Also, once you lose possession of the original, you must destroy the backup.

So if the original is destroyed in a fire....?

You destroy the backup. You are not granted the right to use the backup copy in lieu of the original. That's an extreme example, anyway, and totally contrary to the spirit of the law. People are allowed backup copies due to the fact that the media that a program is on degrades over time, and having a backup would allow you to continue to use the program if the original disk becomes corrupt. In that case however, you still have ownership of the original.

[PsyClerk]

I'm sorry, but I cannot allow you to have the last word here.

[karmapolice]

Jimmy cracks corn and I dont care

[jmcc]

From what I understand, you can back up a game and play that backup, but you can't let a friend or sibling play the original while you play the backup. Also, once you lose possession of the original, you must destroy the backup.

So if the original is destroyed in a fire....?

You destroy the backup. You are not granted the right to use the backup copy in lieu of the original. That's an extreme example, anyway, and totally contrary to the spirit of the law. People are allowed backup copies due to the fact that the media that a program is on degrades over time, and having a backup would allow you to continue to use the program if the original disk becomes corrupt. In that case however, you still have ownership of the original.

You're haven't transferred your ownership of the game, technically. Just because you "converted" the game to ash doesn't negate the fact that it's still your game. The sticky wicket would be if you took the insurance money that you'd get to replace the game and spent it on another game, but still kept the backups and used them.

[JSweeney]

From what I understand, you can back up a game and play that backup, but you can't let a friend or sibling play the original while you play the backup. Also, once you lose possession of the original, you must destroy the backup.

So if the original is destroyed in a fire....?

You destroy the backup. You are not granted the right to use the backup copy in lieu of the original. That's an extreme example, anyway, and totally contrary to the spirit of the law. People are allowed backup copies due to the fact that the media that a program is on degrades over time, and having a backup would allow you to continue to use the program if the original disk becomes corrupt. In that case however, you still have ownership of the original.

You're haven't transferred your ownership of the game, technically. Just because you "converted" the game to ash doesn't negate the fact that it's still your game. The sticky wicket would be if you took the insurance money that you'd get to replace the game and spent it on another game, but still kept the backups and used them.

True, you haven't transfered ownership, but you no longer own the original... thus you don't maintain the right to have a backup copy that you can use in leiu of the original. That is a right that some people are actually pushing for.

Of course, as I stated before, that is an extreme example, and really has no bearing on the topic one way or the other.

[PsyClerk]

And I still get the last word.

[jmcc]

You're haven't transferred your ownership of the game, technically. Just because you "converted" the game to ash doesn't negate the fact that it's still your game. The sticky wicket would be if you took the insurance money that you'd get to replace the game and spent it on another game, but still kept the backups and used them.

True, you haven't transfered ownership, but you no longer own the original... thus you don't maintain the right to have a backup copy that you can use in leiu of the original. That is a right that some people are actually pushing for.

Of course, as I stated before, that is an extreme example, and really has no bearing on the topic one way or the other.

Sure you still own the original. You said it yourself: "People are allowed backup copies due to the fact that the media that a program is on degrades over time, and having a backup would allow you to continue to use the program if the original disk becomes corrupt."
How much more degraded and corrupted can you get than a little pile of ash?

[WhipSmartBanky]

It'd be really cool if a mod came in and locked this and said, "No, I have the last word. LIZOCKED, BIOTCH!"

[PsyClerk]

Then I would have to later become a mod and really really have the last word. WHAT THEN, HUH? Yeah, that's what I thought.

[captainfrizo]

Whether or not making back-ups and using them is or is not legal, if you don't go around telling people you're doing it then no-one will know. It's not like back-ups have a built in homing signal calling the authorities. You're not going to get into trouble making back-ups unless you do something stupid like distribute them later.

And please stop with this "I wanna get the last word" crap. It only makes you sound like a child.

[jmcc]

Whether or not making back-ups and using them is or is not legal, if you don't go around telling people you're doing it then no-one will know. It's not like back-ups have a built in homing signal calling the authorities. You're not going to get into trouble making back-ups unless you do something stupid like distribute them later.

And please stop with this "I wanna get the last word" crap. It only makes you sound like a child.

You are!

[karmapolice]

Theyre just having fun...have you heard of it?...

[captainfrizo]

Theyre just having fun...have you heard of it?...

Sure, I've heard of fun, but when one individual insists on having the last word after another user posts I don't think that would qualify as "fun" for those who have to read it. The first time may have been alright, but after reading it over and over again it lost any humorous value it had.

[karmapolice]

You remember in that episode of frasier where martin's friend always has to have the last word? Its like that...

[jmon22]

"No, I have the last word. LIZOCKED, BIOTCH!"








J/K, I'll let this continue, until it gets out of hand.

[karmapolice]

I feel the urge to curse uncontrolably so this thread gets locked...but I could just ask for jmon to please lock the thread and not risk getting banned for a day

[PsyClerk]

My running joke was a jab at JSweeney and his tendency to post and post and post and quote and quote and quote ad nauseum.

Acting childish? On CAG? NOOOOOOO! For someone who has a CARegular rank, you sure aren't familiar with the forums.

BTW...



















LAST TAG!

[jmon22]

I feel the urge to curse uncontrolably so this thread gets locked...but I could just ask for jmon to please lock the thread and not risk getting banned for a day

Sorry, I can't just ruin this thread for everyone just because you have that "urge". I would suggest not having this urge because I will be right here ready to delete it :wink:

[karmapolice]

i was just playin

[jmon22]

i was just playin

I figured you were, but you never know about some people. Thats why we have mods. To take control over those some people.

[karmapolice]

Damn those "some people"! damn them all to hell!

[PsyClerk]

You ruined my last tag post. Thanks a lot!

*runs off crying*

(substitute the phrase "to play Far Cry after finally getting it" for the word "crying" above, thank you, The Management)

[JSweeney]

How much more degraded and corrupted can you get than a little pile of ash?

After it becomes a pile of ash, it ceases being an original copy of the media and you must cease use of the archival copy and destroy it since the original is no longer in existance, if you want to adhere to the letter of the law.

I know that most people wouldn't do that, and it's foolishly optimistic to assume that they would. But just because something is accepted doesn't make it right.

[JSweeney]

Psyclerk, go ahead and get your last words in :)

(well, unless someone else continues with the thread.)

[jmcc]

How much more degraded and corrupted can you get than a little pile of ash?

After it becomes a pile of ash, it ceases being an original copy of the media and you must cease use of the archival copy and destroy it since the original is no longer in existance, if you want to adhere to the letter of the law.

I know that most people wouldn't do that, and it's foolishly optimistic to assume that they would. But just because something is accepted doesn't make it right.

Use another example of the same thing, then. If your game was stolen by someone, would you still be able to use the back-up? You don't own the original disc anymore, but you'd eventually get it back. Either the police would recover it or your insurance would write you a check, just like in a fire. So does having it out of your hands for a period of time negate your ownership of it and the rights that come with it?

[video_gamer324]

How much more degraded and corrupted can you get than a little pile of ash?

After it becomes a pile of ash, it ceases being an original copy of the media and you must cease use of the archival copy and destroy it since the original is no longer in existance, if you want to adhere to the letter of the law.

I know that most people wouldn't do that, and it's foolishly optimistic to assume that they would. But just because something is accepted doesn't make it right.

Use another example of the same thing, then. If your game was stolen by someone, would you still be able to use the back-up? You don't own the original disc anymore, but you'd eventually get it back. Either the police would recover it or your insurance would write you a check, just like in a fire. So does having it out of your hands for a period of time negate your ownership of it and the rights that come with it?

Until you get the original back, you should destroy the backup. Once you get possession again, then you can make another backup.

[jmcc]

How much more degraded and corrupted can you get than a little pile of ash?

After it becomes a pile of ash, it ceases being an original copy of the media and you must cease use of the archival copy and destroy it since the original is no longer in existance, if you want to adhere to the letter of the law.

I know that most people wouldn't do that, and it's foolishly optimistic to assume that they would. But just because something is accepted doesn't make it right.

Use another example of the same thing, then. If your game was stolen by someone, would you still be able to use the back-up? You don't own the original disc anymore, but you'd eventually get it back. Either the police would recover it or your insurance would write you a check, just like in a fire. So does having it out of your hands for a period of time negate your ownership of it and the rights that come with it?

Until you get the original back, you should destroy the backup. Once you get possession again, then you can make another backup.

Why? You still own the original media, don't you? It doesn't become the thief's just because he physically has it, does it? Ownership and possession are two entirely different things. Otherwise, we'd have to carry everything we own with us, lest it be picked up by someone else.

[Hunter55]

I dunno know if this was posted b4 but technically, if u get a playstation emulator, or buy bleem!, and get a copy of your system's bios, then you wuld not be circumventing the hardware, therefore not breaking any laws. Since you are using an emul;ator with your system's bios, it also wont be illegal. And as discovered b4, making a backup of a game you already own for personal use is legal.

[JSweeney]

I dunno know if this was posted b4 but technically, if u get a playstation emulator, or buy bleem!, and get a copy of your system's bios, then you wuld not be circumventing the hardware, therefore not breaking any laws. Since you are using an emul;ator with your system's bios, it also wont be illegal. And as discovered b4, making a backup of a game you already own for personal use is legal.

Do you actually expect anyone to take you seriously when you use ridiculous shorthand like "B4"? I mean really.

[JSweeney]

How much more degraded and corrupted can you get than a little pile of ash?

After it becomes a pile of ash, it ceases being an original copy of the media and you must cease use of the archival copy and destroy it since the original is no longer in existance, if you want to adhere to the letter of the law.

I know that most people wouldn't do that, and it's foolishly optimistic to assume that they would. But just because something is accepted doesn't make it right.

Use another example of the same thing, then. If your game was stolen by someone, would you still be able to use the back-up? You don't own the original disc anymore, but you'd eventually get it back. Either the police would recover it or your insurance would write you a check, just like in a fire. So does having it out of your hands for a period of time negate your ownership of it and the rights that come with it?

Until you get the original back, you should destroy the backup. Once you get possession again, then you can make another backup.

Why? You still own the original media, don't you? It doesn't become the thief's just because he physically has it, does it? Ownership and possession are two entirely different things. Otherwise, we'd have to carry everything we own with us, lest it be picked up by someone else.

It depends how the liscensing of the software product is handled by the copyright holder. If transfering of liscense of the product is directly tied to the media, then the right of a backup would transfer along with the original media. With many types of media, it's all about possession, as liscense (and thus ownership) transfers along with the media. (So long as you consider secondhand CD or videogame stores that sell used media legal, this is how you must view it).

[PsyClerk]

I dunno know if this was posted b4 but technically, if u get a playstation emulator, or buy bleem!, and get a copy of your system's bios, then you wuld not be circumventing the hardware, therefore not breaking any laws. Since you are using an emul;ator with your system's bios, it also wont be illegal. And as discovered b4, making a backup of a game you already own for personal use is legal.

Do you actually expect anyone to take you seriously when you use ridiculous shorthand like "B4"? I mean really.

[-X Tsk tsk, while his writing may be sub-par (though it's par for CAG sadly), he brings up a valid point. Are we blowing him off because we don't want (can't?) respond or do we just not want to open that can of worms?

[PsyClerk]

It depends how the liscensing of the software product is handled by the copyright holder. If transfering of liscense of the product is directly tied to the media, then the right of a backup would transfer along with the original media. With many types of media, it's all about possession, as liscense (and thus ownership) transfers along with the media. (So long as you consider secondhand CD or videogame stores that sell used media legal, this is how you must view it).

And this will be the sticking point in the future. Software companies are already using a license-based model, whereas the music industry prefers the media-base model. At the same time, the music industry dislikes the sale of used CDs. It comes down to them wanting to be paid every single time media and license changes hands. I can't think of any other industry that could get away with this (or even try).

That was all tangent to the OP's situation however.

[JSweeney]

I dunno know if this was posted b4 but technically, if u get a playstation emulator, or buy bleem!, and get a copy of your system's bios, then you wuld not be circumventing the hardware, therefore not breaking any laws. Since you are using an emul;ator with your system's bios, it also wont be illegal. And as discovered b4, making a backup of a game you already own for personal use is legal.

Do you actually expect anyone to take you seriously when you use ridiculous shorthand like "B4"? I mean really.

[-X Tsk tsk, while his writing may be sub-par (though it's par for CAG sadly), he brings up a valid point. Are we blowing him off because we don't want (can't?) respond or do we just not want to open that can of worms?

The thing is, it depends from where the emulator was created. If it was reverse engineered, it is one thing, if it wasn't it raises another major issue.
On top of that, he states his issue wrong. It isn't circumventing the hardware that is an issue... it's circumventing the copyright protection on the disk.. which is why Bleem failed so horribly. Not only was it slow and choppy, but it only offered spotty support thanks to sony changing some of the copyright protections on their disks after Bleem was released.

[JSweeney]

It depends how the liscensing of the software product is handled by the copyright holder. If transfering of liscense of the product is directly tied to the media, then the right of a backup would transfer along with the original media. With many types of media, it's all about possession, as liscense (and thus ownership) transfers along with the media. (So long as you consider secondhand CD or videogame stores that sell used media legal, this is how you must view it).

And this will be the sticking point in the future. Software companies are already using a license-based model, whereas the music industry prefers the media-base model. At the same time, the music industry dislikes the sale of used CDs. It comes down to them wanting to be paid every single time media and license changes hands. I can't think of any other industry that could get away with this (or even try).

That was all tangent to the OP's situation however.

Most of the thread has been a tanget from the OP's situation, especially your desire to get the last word :)

[PsyClerk]

The thing is, it depends from where the emulator was created. If it was reverse engineered, it is one thing, if it wasn't it raises another major issue.
On top of that, he states his issue wrong. It isn't circumventing the hardware that is an issue... it's circumventing the copyright protection on the disk.. which is why Bleem failed so horribly. Not only was it slow and choppy, but it only offered spotty support thanks to sony changing some of the copyright protections on their disks after Bleem was released.

For the sake of argument, assume the emulator is not reverse engineered. Bleem! was ruled legal wasn't it?

Actually now I'm wondering if Bleem supported back up discs. I'm going to say they didn't.

[PsyClerk]

Most of the thread has been a tanget from the OP's situation, especially your desire to get the last word :)

STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT! :evil:

[chunk]

The thing is, it depends from where the emulator was created. If it was reverse engineered, it is one thing, if it wasn't it raises another major issue.
On top of that, he states his issue wrong. It isn't circumventing the hardware that is an issue... it's circumventing the copyright protection on the disk.. which is why Bleem failed so horribly. Not only was it slow and choppy, but it only offered spotty support thanks to sony changing some of the copyright protections on their disks after Bleem was released.

First of all, Bleemcast was not slow and choppy. Bleemcast improves the graphics of the original games (even better than the PS2 does).

Second of all, you're right that the law says that making backups is legal, but circumventing the copyprotection is illegal. However, regardless of making backups it is illegal to even play the game you own if you need to circumvent the copyprotection to play it. People have been sued over this issue (research decss, and playing dvds under linux). And as copy restrictions are implemented in more and more media it will become a major problem as hardware starts to disappear. 10 years from now you might buy a playstation 2 game. You might not be able to find real PS2 hardware, but it will be illegal for you to play it on your emulator because the emulator circumvents the copy restrictions.

And for those of you that say that these laws don't matter because they are not enforced, you are wrong. With the gov'ts newly granted spying rights (read Patriot Act) they can spy on you without a court order by merely claiming that they suspect you of terrorism.

Anyway, to answer the question: Yes, making backups is legal, No, circumventing the copy restrictions is illegal, but the law is wrong.

If you don't like that then visit www.eff.org and take action.

[bignick]

And for those of you that say that these laws don't matter because they are not enforced, you are wrong. With the gov'ts newly granted spying rights (read Patriot Act) they can spy on you without a court order by merely claiming that they suspect you of terrorism.

Anyway, to answer the question: Yes, making backups is legal, No, circumventing the copy restrictions is illegal, but the law is wrong.

If you don't like that then visit www.eff.org and take action.

But if you did get sued for that, and they used terrorism as an excuse, there would be a huge uproar. I dont think the Gov't wants that at all.

[PsyClerk]

That's ok, I'm exempt from the Patriot Act because I report straight to the alien mothership.

[ElwoodCuse]

It's scary that companies have such power in the U.S. that people who back up their media think they're committing a crime.

How dare companies try to protect a product they've invested millions of dollars into. Shame on them.

How dare they think their rights completely trump the consumer's right to fair use.

[JSweeney]

The thing is, it depends from where the emulator was created. If it was reverse engineered, it is one thing, if it wasn't it raises another major issue.
On top of that, he states his issue wrong. It isn't circumventing the hardware that is an issue... it's circumventing the copyright protection on the disk.. which is why Bleem failed so horribly. Not only was it slow and choppy, but it only offered spotty support thanks to sony changing some of the copyright protections on their disks after Bleem was released.

For the sake of argument, assume the emulator is not reverse engineered. Bleem! was ruled legal wasn't it?

Actually now I'm wondering if Bleem supported back up discs. I'm going to say they didn't.

If an emulator got proprietary information to program thier emulator and it was not done at the behest of the copyright owner, it's illegal.

Bleem was created independanlty, using none of Sony's source code which is why it was ruled legal.

Bleem doesn't support backed up disks. That would be be circumventing copyright protection, and thus violating copyright law.

[jmcc]

The thing is, it depends from where the emulator was created. If it was reverse engineered, it is one thing, if it wasn't it raises another major issue.
On top of that, he states his issue wrong. It isn't circumventing the hardware that is an issue... it's circumventing the copyright protection on the disk.. which is why Bleem failed so horribly. Not only was it slow and choppy, but it only offered spotty support thanks to sony changing some of the copyright protections on their disks after Bleem was released.

For the sake of argument, assume the emulator is not reverse engineered. Bleem! was ruled legal wasn't it?

Actually now I'm wondering if Bleem supported back up discs. I'm going to say they didn't.

If an emulator got proprietary information to program thier emulator and it was not done at the behest of the copyright owner, it's illegal.

Bleem was created independanlty, using none of Sony's source code which is why it was ruled legal.

Bleem doesn't support backed up disks. That would be be circumventing copyright protection, and thus violating copyright law.

People can feel free to correct me here, if I'm wrong, but I didn't think PS1 discs had any copy protection on them. I thought it was all done in the hardware.

Also, J-Swee, that secondhand store smokebomb you busted out earlier isn't deterring me at all. Selling a game at one requires a transfer of both the original media and ownership rights, which is a case in which we can all agree you lose your right to back-up copies. However, it's not topical to the issue of destroying a back-up disc because the original is temporarily out of your hands (either via theft or fire.) Ownership is not negated because of lack of possession and ownership is what grants the fair use right to a back-up, not the media itself.

[JSweeney]

First of all, Bleemcast was not slow and choppy. Bleemcast improves the graphics of the original games (even better than the PS2 does).

We are talking about BLEEM, not Bleemcast. Bleemcast was a second generation product by the company that made it (Bleem had already shipped).
I've played some PS1 games on the Bleem emulator, and it IS slow and choppy when compared to the PS1 hardware.


Second of all, you're right that the law says that making backups is legal, but circumventing the copyprotection is illegal.

However, regardless of making backups it is illegal to even play the game you own if you need to circumvent the copyprotection to play it.

Try reading what I've posted. I've already said that multiple times.

People have been sued over this issue (research decss, and playing dvds under linux). And as copy restrictions are implemented in more and more media it will become a major problem as hardware starts to disappear. 10 years from now you might buy a playstation 2 game. You might not be able to find real PS2 hardware, but it will be illegal for you to play it on your emulator because the emulator circumvents the copy restrictions.

You're just not paying attention, are you? Try talking to the other people. You're just restating most of what I have said and then telling me I'm wrong.


And for those of you that say that these laws don't matter because they are not enforced, you are wrong. With the gov'ts newly granted spying rights (read Patriot Act) they can spy on you without a court order by merely claiming that they suspect you of terrorism.

How about you throw up a couple more strawmen and indulge in a few more logical fallicies?


Anyway, to answer the question: Yes, making backups is legal, No, circumventing the copy restrictions is illegal, but the law is wrong.

Yep, because we are going to believe you over the actually copyright law from the the governments own site (which I qouted in disgusting length in hopes someone besides me would read it).

If you don't like that then visit www.eff.org and take action.
Tell everyone they are wrong and then shill for a special interest group.
Yeah, you're real persuasive.

[JSweeney]

Also, J-Swee, that secondhandstore smokebomb you busted out earlier isn't deterring me at all. Selling a game at one requires a transfer of both the original media and ownership rights, which is a case in which we can all agree you lose your right to back-up copies. However, it's not topical to the issue of destroying a back-up disc because the original is temporarily out of your hands (either via theft or fire.) Ownership is not negated because of lack of possession and ownership is what grants the fair use right to a back-up, not the media itself.

Possession is 9/10ths of the law.

Unless transfer of liscense is handled through some other way, one losses all rights of ownership when they no longer possess the original, be it through fire, theft, sale of media, etc.

An example of other methods of transfering liscense are companies like microsoft handle it differently and ship certificates of authenticity will thier products (Adobe does this as well), and will gladly send you replacement media for a negligable cost in the event that the media is destroyed, becomes corrupt, etc.

Of course, that is beyond the scope of this discussion.

[PsyClerk]

People can feel free to correct me here, if I'm wrong, but I didn't think PS1 discs had any copy protection on them. I thought it was all done in the hardware.

I believe PSOne games had the first and/or last sector of the disc intentionally zeroed out. Whatever they did, it made the sector appear bad, and most copying programs would automatically correct it. So it could be said the copy protection was both in the hardware (that checked for the bad sector) and the actual media (that carried the bad sector).

[jmcc]

Also, J-Swee, that secondhandstore smokebomb you busted out earlier isn't deterring me at all. Selling a game at one requires a transfer of both the original media and ownership rights, which is a case in which we can all agree you lose your right to back-up copies. However, it's not topical to the issue of destroying a back-up disc because the original is temporarily out of your hands (either via theft or fire.) Ownership is not negated because of lack of possession and ownership is what grants the fair use right to a back-up, not the media itself.

Possession is 9/10ths of the law.

Unless transfer of liscense is handled through some other way, one losses all rights of ownership when they no longer possess the original, be it through fire, theft, sale of media, etc.

That old chestnut applies to the thief, not the victim. I'm not sure why you brought it up.

I'll ask you, if you really believe what you typed, why the law would go after the thief if you actually transferred ownership by having something stolen, then? Or why would the insurance company give you any money for anything you lost to fire if you don't own it anymore?

[JSweeney]

It's because you see the loss as a temporary loss of the media, and thus the liscense.
I see it as a permant loss. After you sustain a permanant loss, you are entitled to remuneration for your loss, but that remuneration replaces your ownership rights.

For example, as part of a claim on your homeowners insurance, or remuneration directly from the theif.

You do not, however, still maintain ownership rights and have the right to use the backup in leiu of the original.
(That is actually a sticking point, and something that's debated, but as it is the law stands that the backup cannot be used in lieu of the orginal if the orginal is destroyed or lost/stolen)

[PsyClerk]

They bought their tickets, they KNEW what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash.

[jmcc]

It's because you see the loss as a temporary loss of the media, and thus the liscense.
I see it as a permant loss. After you sustain a permanant loss, you are entitled to remuneration for your loss, but that remuneration replaces your ownership rights.

For example, as part of a claim on your homeowners insurance, or remuneration directly from the theif.

You do not, however, still maintain ownership rights and have the right to use the backup in leiu of the original.
(That is actually a sticking point, and something that's debated, but as it is the law stands that the backup cannot be used in lieu of the orginal if the orginal is destroyed or lost/stolen)

But it's clearly not a permanent loss in the eyes of the law. The very existance of insurance companies and small claims court (if you had to try to recover a stolen item yourself) is the law's declaration that you still own the item and have a right to compensation in order to replace the original media that was taken from you.

[JSweeney]

But it's clearly not a permanent loss in the eyes of the law. The very existance of insurance companies and small claims court (if you had to try to recover a stolen item yourself) is the law's declaration that you still own the item and have a right to compensation in order to replace the original media that was taken from you.

But it is a permanent loss. If it weren't they wouldn't compensate you for it. If there weren't a permanent loss, there wouldn't be a need for replacement. You permanantly lose one instance of the liscense and have another instance of it replace it. Of course, that would only be in the case where the liscense is considered attached to possession of the media.

[PsyClerk]

So wait a minute...are we saying making copies is a bad thing?

[JSweeney]

No. Making copies and having archival copies is a good thing. A very good thing.
But, if you want to stay true to the law, you must remember a couple of things:
1. Back up copies are fine to have, so long as you have the original. If at any time you no longer possess the original, you must get rid of the backup.
2.Backups cannot be used in lieu of the original.
If you lose the original, you must get rid of the
backup
3. Use of backups is illegal if you have to
circumvent copy restrictions to use them.

[PsyClerk]

Use of backups is illegal if you have to circumvent copy restrictions to use them.

So this makes PSOne backups both legal and useless.

[wubb]

I wonder if you'll sing the same tune when said companies start trying to charge you on a per-use basis.

If that's the industry standard distribution method, then yes.
Otherwise, I'll just support the competition. Anyways, that would fly in the face of over a century of caselaw and statutes.

I understand where you're coming from, but come on. Making a copy to preserve your original investment should not be criminal. As soon as he loans one out to a friend, THEN we can dogpile him.

I never said making a copy was wrong, so long as you don't have to bypass copy protection to do so, or to play it.

BTW, I'm not trying to be adversarial here, just wondering your thoughts on this point:

Doesn't a DVD player have to 'crack' the copy protection (or whatever) in order to simply play the DVD? Or if that isn't considered cracking the copy protection, shouldn't it then be okay to copy a DVD as long as the system you use to copy plays the DVD and just makes a copy of the playback?

I switched to DVDs in this example as a console game is only 'playable' using that console (barring emulation) and copying the playback of a game would be nonsensical.

EDIT: I'm guessing you'd agree my DVD example is kosher as you aren't circumventing anything to do it. However what if a company claims simply playing the DVD with the intent to copy is a circumvension of copyright?

As a side note. Personally I think you should be able to defeat copy protection in order to make and use back up copies, but the craptastic DMCA makes it pretty clear this is now illegal. (Basically the DMCA kills fair use.) I also realize that in the real world most people who take the trouble to defeat the copy protection of a console are going to steal at least some games (copying rented games or friends games, etc.)

[jmcc]

But it's clearly not a permanent loss in the eyes of the law. The very existance of insurance companies and small claims court (if you had to try to recover a stolen item yourself) is the law's declaration that you still own the item and have a right to compensation in order to replace the original media that was taken from you.

But it is a permanent loss. If it weren't they wouldn't compensate you for it. If there weren't a permanent loss, there wouldn't be a need for replacement. You permanantly lose one instance of the liscense and have another instance of it replace it. Of course, that would only be in the case where the liscense is considered attached to possession of the media.

It's a permenant loss of the media, yes, but again, the media isn't the license. You're only getting money to replace the media. The license is still yours.

A note: I'm going to pose this question to another forum. I'll link you it so you can view where the discussion there goes. Don't think it a slight of your debating skills, I just want to get a second opinion to see if I am indeed thinking wrong on this.

edit: Well, that's a no go. The forum I want to ask on requires subscription. I'll be damned if I'm going to pay to just make one post there.

[bignick]

dvd is a standard, and i believe there are royalties payed on dvd player sales to use the dvd format.

[JSweeney]

BTW, I'm not trying to be adversarial here, just wondering your thoughts on this point:

Doesn't a DVD player have to 'crack' the copy protection (or whatever) in order to simply play the DVD? Or if that isn't considered cracking the copy protection, shouldn't it then be okay to copy a DVD as long as the system you use to copy plays the DVD and just makes a copy of the playback?

See, that's different. DVDs players need to deencrypt the data to play it.
That's different than circumventing the copy protection, as to do it the player must know the key and encryption format.
That's what bothers Linux people so much, because the standard encryption format for DVD movies is not open source, and the company that makes it has no plans to release it to them... which percludes people who use Linux from legally playing DVDs on that OS.


I'm guessing you'd agree my DVD example is kosher as you aren't circumventing anything to do it. However what if a company claims simply playing the DVD with the intent to copy is a circumvension of copyright?

Dencryption and circumvention are two entirely different things.
If you don't have access to the encryption standard, the only way to view it would be to circumvent it (as many linux users try to do).

[PsyClerk]

So, that's it then?

[WhipSmartBanky]

Probably not.

[PsyClerk]

You're probably right.

[WhipSmartBanky]

Probably.

[PsyClerk]

Then again...

[WhipSmartBanky]

Maybe not. Who knows?

[PsyClerk]

It is like a game to discover.

[WhipSmartBanky]

A really boring game with no real point. Kind of like the Final Fantasy games...

[zzl365]

So basically backing discs up is legal, but using them is totally illegal. So basically if you want to waste some money on cd-rs and waste your time making backups you are within the legal realm, maybe you could use them as coasters or to show your friends that you know how to backup games. My question is why even bother making it legal to create backup copies if youre going to allow companies to make those backups unusable? It seems like it's one of those let's try and make ourselves look good by allowing people to make backups, and then behind their backs make sure no one is able to use backups.

[PsyClerk]

FFVII had a point. Kill that Aeris chick.

Anyone make a backup of FFVII?

[WhipSmartBanky]

Aeris gave lousy head.

[PsyClerk]

I don't want to know how you know this.

[JSweeney]

So basically backing discs up is legal, but using them is totally illegal. So basically if you want to waste some money on cd-rs and waste your time making backups you are within the legal realm, maybe you could use them as coasters or to show your friends that you know how to backup games. My question is why even bother making it legal to create backup copies if youre going to allow companies to make those backups unusable? It seems like it's one of those let's try and make ourselves look good by allowing people to make backups, and then behind their backs make sure no one is able to use backups.

Fair Use was on the books long before the DMCA was enacted, and back in the days of floppies and tape drives, everyone had and uses archival copies. Many of the industry types argued when that CD-ROM was accepted that due to it's more robust format that the need for archival copies was dramatically lessened. While I don't agree with that, those are the people that helped shape the laws into what they are.

[JSweeney]

FFVII had a point. Kill that Aeris chick.

Anyone make a backup of FFVII?

No, I thought it was laugh at what a girly momma's boy this "supposedly evil" "tough" badguy was. I can't help but laugh at the people who think Sephiroth (however you spell his name) is cool.

[jmcc]

FFVII had a point. Kill that Aeris chick.

Anyone make a backup of FFVII?

No, I thought it was laugh at what a girly momma's boy this "supposedly evil" "tough" badguy was. I can't help but laugh at the people who think Sephiroth (however you spell his name) is cool.

Especially when a much much MUCH better version of Sephiroth is available in the form of Alucard from SOTN.

[PsyClerk]

But Van Helsing could beat all of them.

[CaptainObviousXl]

But Van Helsing could beat all of them.
that was the most fucking gay movie in the world

[PsyClerk]

I have not seen it, though I was tempted to make a backup.

[WhipSmartBanky]

Tsk tsk.

[PsyClerk]

Don't worry, I didn't go through with it.

[WhipSmartBanky]

Good.

[PsyClerk]

Not that good...Hugh Jackman just threatened to personally kick my ass if I did it, and you don't mess with Wolverine.

[WhipSmartBanky]

Snikty Snikt, biotch.

[PsyClerk]

Do I call you Logan or Weapon-X?

[WhipSmartBanky]

No, "Wolverine!"

[PsyClerk]

If Wolverine scratches my original PS1 discs with his claws, am I entitled to play backups of said discs?

[WhipSmartBanky]

Probably not, but that'd be a pretty fucking cool badge of honor...

[defender]

sorry but its illegal according to the dmca

you will have to circumvent the hardware protection built into the PSone and this is against the law

previous to the dmca it was a grey area but the dmca makes it clear...reverse engineering is now illegal and any device designed to circumvent copyright protection is against the law...

there is more to it than this but its the short of it

So basically after this giant long thread on long-winded legal discussions you could have all just agree with me.

[WhipSmartBanky]

That'd be too easy, D.

[PsyClerk]

I'll cop out and take the easy route. I agree with Defender.

There, I said it.

[JSweeney]

sorry but its illegal according to the dmca

you will have to circumvent the hardware protection built into the PSone and this is against the law

previous to the dmca it was a grey area but the dmca makes it clear...reverse engineering is now illegal and any device designed to circumvent copyright protection is against the law...

there is more to it than this but its the short of it

So basically after this giant long thread on long-winded legal discussions you could have all just agree with me.

Well, yeah, but I never disagreed with you in the first place :)

[PsyClerk]

I didn't agree or disagree, I was sitting on the fence.

Then I saw I had an easy out and took it.

[wubb]

Personally, I found this thread to be a pretty interesting discussion. Though I must admit that I hardly even skimmed all the legal mumbo-jumo JSweeney posted early on.

[PsyClerk]

Who's JSweeney?