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

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

You are!
 
[quote name='karmapolice620']Theyre just having fun...have you heard of it?...[/quote]

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








J/K, I'll let this continue, until it gets out of hand.
 
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
 
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!
 
[quote name='karmapolice620']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[/quote]

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:
 
[quote name='karmapolice620']i was just playin[/quote]

I figured you were, but you never know about some people. Thats why we have mods. To take control over those some people.
 
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)
 
[quote name='jmcc']
How much more degraded and corrupted can you get than a little pile of ash?[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='jmcc']
How much more degraded and corrupted can you get than a little pile of ash?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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?
 
[quote name='jmcc'][quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='jmcc']
How much more degraded and corrupted can you get than a little pile of ash?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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?[/quote]

Until you get the original back, you should destroy the backup. Once you get possession again, then you can make another backup.
 
[quote name='video_gamer324'][quote name='jmcc'][quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='jmcc']
How much more degraded and corrupted can you get than a little pile of ash?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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?[/quote]

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

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

Do you actually expect anyone to take you seriously when you use ridiculous shorthand like "B4"? I mean really.
 
[quote name='jmcc'][quote name='video_gamer324'][quote name='jmcc'][quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='jmcc']
How much more degraded and corrupted can you get than a little pile of ash?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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?[/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

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).
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='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.[/quote]

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

[-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?
 
[quote name='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).[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='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.[/quote]

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

[-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?[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='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).[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Most of the thread has been a tanget from the OP's situation, especially your desire to get the last word :)
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']Most of the thread has been a tanget from the OP's situation, especially your desire to get the last word :)[/quote]

STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT! :evil:
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='chunk']

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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='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.[/quote]

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

How dare they think their rights completely trump the consumer's right to fair use.
 
[quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 
[quote name='jmcc']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.[/quote]

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).
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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?
 
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)
 
[quote name='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)[/quote]

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

So this makes PSOne backups both legal and useless.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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.)
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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.
 
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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top