[Cid Highwind]

Nice to have a residential law men, eh ?

/me raises a coffee mug on Mr Kazuya

Anyway Paratech, what you're comparing to Ihateliberal's post now is different from his statement that home copies of music you have yourself should be allowed. I don't know his stance on copies made to be used elsewhere so the original can be left in its original case on a shelf though.

At least I can be glad that our laws allow unlimited copying of music and video for home use, I'd be sad if those damned lobbies will be able to change it, since we already pay taxes on every piece of blank media for those very copies. As things are looking now they're trying hard to press getting both again: Making it illegal while still getting us to pay those taxes.

Anyway, I've stated my opinion, and the legal facts as they are here, I've educated myself enough on this topic already to seperate right from wrong, and to seperate the different facts in case it would be put in front of a lawyer, seeing how Kazuya just confirmed the inherit legal differenct I won't discuss this any further since I cannot bring anything new to the discussion anyway.

 

[Squall-Leonhart]

If copying your CDs is illegal, why aren't MP3 players illegal? Why does Sony sell CD/DVDRW burners WITH SOFTWARE THAT ASSISTS IN EXTRACTING MP3S FROM CDS?

Why are programs like CDEX not illegal? It has its own website.

Why do cars have MP3 players and the ability to transfer gigs of data from an MP3 player to your hard drive in your car?

Why are R/RW CDS and DVDs sold in bundles of 50 or 100? by companies like Sony?

Why does windows have a media player capable of playing MP3 files, why will it search your hard drive for mp3s? Why is Winamp free? Why is it legal?

Why does Sony and other companies in the music industry make MP3 players and allow you to transfer the files from your computer to you mp3 player?

I think Ihateliberals is misinformed...

and wrong.

they ARE trying to make it illegal,

 

[Paratech]

Trying to make CDRW's illegal? or programs that extract mp3s from CDs? or blank CD/DVDs?

 

[Hard core Rikki]

Canadian DMCA: every rights law and constitution offer you, corporations can take away. Hardly exaggerated, even.

they ARE trying to make it illegal,

Mostly, they're trying to make it SOUND illegal (to the masses and to the legislators), generally by comparing digital media with physical property (hence the numerous references to realworld theft and cr1mes)

 

[Code Monkey]

As the originator of this posting, I am surprised at the fire I started, but I will clarify this for some of you:

When you purchase a game, such as for PSX or etc., you are not buying the disc, the case, or the manual, you are purchasing the license to own such proprietary software and a copy of all of it's related materials as a license of the producer's intellectual rights. You are not buying anything physical per-se, you are purchasing the right to a license of a copy of the intellectual property rights of the copyright owner by you, the consumer.

If you carefully read your license rights as stated in the manual, you have a right to 1 (one) archival copy, and hence the right to make a personal copy of the game for yourself for archival purposes. What you do not have the right to do is to distribute this copy or any other copies to those who are not "licensees", otherwise known as owners of an original copy.

To legally possess a copy of a PSX BIOS file, you need to own a real PSX. To own a copy of any PSX game, you must own at least one original retail copy. Owning two copies of a PSX game may constitute "an intent to distribute", and is hence illegal.

Emulation is not piracy if you own the real copies, no matter where or how you got a copy of the games you already own, whether or not the media is usable or functional. You have purchased the game/system at retail, and hence have purchased the license to possess hardware or data proprietary to the copyright owner. If you are in retention of the original, unmodified equipment and/or the original and unmodified data, making a copy of such is not a crime under their own license.

By purchasing a game, you are in no way purchasing anything physical, you are merely purchasing the license to possess the intellectual property of the copyright owners. You may be paying some for the manufacturing cost, but the license is clear: You have a right to possess the COPY you purchased, and to use that copy, and without specific exclusion of this right, you have the right to make an archival copy. This right is generally implied within the USA per a contractual agreement of the use of the intellectual property of a copyright owner, and is often stated in almost every software agreement, which is only discovered after opening and examining the product.

Also remember that every game you purchase was a copy, and always was. Who you bought it from has the right to distribute that copy, and you have a right to copy that copy, just not to give it to someone who has not paid to purchase the limited licensing rights, as with any game. If you own a retail version, broken or not, you own the license, and have every right to one archival copy.

 

[Cid Highwind]

As the originator of this posting, I am surprised at the fire I started, but I will clarify this for some of you:

When you purchase a game, such as for PSX or etc., you are not buying the disc, the case, or the manual, you are purchasing the license to own such proprietary software and a copy of all of it's related materials as a license of the producer's intellectual rights. You are not buying anything physical per-se, you are purchasing the right to a license of a copy of the intellectual property rights of the copyright owner by you, the consumer.

If you carefully read your license rights as stated in the manual, you have a right to 1 (one) archival copy, and hence the right to make a personal copy of the game for yourself for archival purposes. What you do not have the right to do is to distribute this copy or any other copies to those who are not "licensees", otherwise known as owners of an original copy.

Like I said in several of my posts, those license rights (rather restrictions) you talk about are indeed in the manual, therefore one can only read them after the purchase has been made. Therefore, with games being a non-returnable good, thereis a very big chance that those licenses will not hold in court. These rights they dictate can never overrule any civil rights you have as a consumer. It's mainly big talk from companies who think that they are above the law, have Sony for an example with their rootkit scandal.

So that's the other side of the story, I know of no case in which this has been discussed in court, so it's dry theory. But from a theoretical point of view there is a good chance that such licenses will not hold if they are too restrictive, especially if it goes against local consumer law. It's easy for companies to throw out some hot air, since you're a tiny consumer, but at the same time being tiny does also mean we can go under the radar. What I'm trying to say with this is that you can take lots of these licenses with a grain of salt, as long as you do not publish copyrighted stuff on the medium. Like anyone is going to care a bit if you take the code and base a game on it, or mod it, just for private use. Not until you make it public and release it, because then you would not only be violating that BS license, but also the law.

So in short: Those EULA's, because of being shrink wrapped with a seal on a non-returnable item, can be taken with a grain of salt. As long as you do not violate any copyright laws existing in your country. Besides, if I would've bought that particular right, it would be okay for me to download the game from newsgroups and P2P as well after I've purchases a copy in a store, but that's illegal as well. Manipulation of the masses through brainwashing by lobbies.

Emulation is not piracy if you own the real copies, no matter where or how you got a copy of the games you already own, whether or not the media is usable or functional. (...)

Interesting, but actually emulation of illegal copies would not make the concept of emulation illegal. You can't be punished for it, but only for the act of copyright infringement.

Also remember that every game you purchase was a copy, and always was. Who you bought it from has the right to distribute that copy, and you have a right to copy that copy, just not to give it to someone who has not paid to purchase the limited licensing rights, as with any game. If you own a retail version, broken or not, you own the license, and have every right to one archival copy.

Do you imply that giving away your copy to someone else after having played it should not be allowed just because that license says so?

That would make things very interesting if American law actually is that strict and legally allows such clauses to be part of shrink-wrap licenses. Because that would mean that any store accepting second handed videogames, music or movies would violate the license, and thus could be prosecuted.

Edit: And yes, I said no more, but had a few spare minutes to reply to this since this post has been rather well constructed :heh:

 

[Cloquirk]

I dunno... I actually physically own all of the games I have ROMs for, with the exception of Valkyrie Profile and my Escaflowne ROM because those are IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND. Seriously. IMPOSSIBLE. Also, I won't pay $300 for a copy of Valkyrie, as awesome as it is.

 

[Paratech]

Like I said in several of my posts, those license rights (rather restrictions) you talk about are indeed in the manual, therefore one can only read them after the purchase has been made. Therefore, with games being a non-returnable good, thereis a very big chance that those licenses will not hold in court. These rights they dictate can never overrule any civil rights you have as a consumer. It's mainly big talk from companies who think that they are above the law, have Sony for an example with their rootkit scandal.

So that's the other side of the story, I know of no case in which this has been discussed in court, so it's dry theory. But from a theoretical point of view there is a good chance that such licenses will not hold if they are too restrictive, especially if it goes against local consumer law. It's easy for companies to throw out some hot air, since you're a tiny consumer, but at the same time being tiny does also mean we can go under the radar. What I'm trying to say with this is that you can take lots of these licenses with a grain of salt, as long as you do not publish copyrighted stuff on the medium. Like anyone is going to care a bit if you take the code and base a game on it, or mod it, just for private use. Not until you make it public and release it, because then you would not only be violating that BS license, but also the law.

So in short: Those EULA's, because of being shrink wrapped with a seal on a non-returnable item, can be taken with a grain of salt. As long as you do not violate any copyright laws existing in your country. Besides, if I would've bought that particular right, it would be okay for me to download the game from newsgroups and P2P as well after I've purchases a copy in a store, but that's illegal as well. Manipulation of the masses through brainwashing by lobbies.

Interesting, but actually emulation of illegal copies would not make the concept of emulation illegal. You can't be punished for it, but only for the act of copyright infringement.


Do you imply that giving away your copy to someone else after having played it should not be allowed just because that license says so?

That would make things very interesting if American law actually is that strict and legally allows such clauses to be part of shrink-wrap licenses. Because that would mean that any store accepting second handed videogames, music or movies would violate the license, and thus could be prosecuted.

Edit: And yes, I said no more, but had a few spare minutes to reply to this since this post has been rather well constructed :heh:

Richard Garriott's Tabula Rasa Online*sp* has right on the box that you are not allowed to resell or give the game to anyone else, Half Life 2 cannot be auctioned off on EBAY, they won't transfer just 1 game only a whole account, and there are other games that are using similar tactics, basically any PC game that requires an online activation may not be given away, transferred, or resold, and trust me the courts don't care about the end user, the gaming companies have billions of $$$ to push for their rights to restrict gamers rights.

So far this is only on PC software but I'll bet it'll happen on consoles in a generation or two...

 

[BeelzemontZero]

from emulation to law issues

interesting ...

 

[BeelzemontZero]

from emulation to law issues

interesting ...

 

[Cid Highwind]

I dunno... I actually physically own all of the games I have ROMs for, with the exception of Valkyrie Profile and my Escaflowne ROM because those are IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND. Seriously. IMPOSSIBLE. Also, I won't pay $300 for a copy of Valkyrie, as awesome as it is.

There's a PSP port of Valkyrie Profile going for <€20,- on Play.com, add a PSP to that and you've got an entirely new console including that game for less than $300

Anyway, Paratech, if it's right on the box it is clear that you agree with those conditions when you buy it, plain and simple. As for those online games being exchanged, there's probably plenty of people sharing an account for online games, as long as you don't try to log on with two people on the same account at the same time it shouldn't be a problem, right? Unless they're binding it to the IP, but that would be foolish since people can play at home on their beefy PC, and on the road with their laptop. There's no way to differentiate between the person's laptop and another person's. Just stick with what could be considered "fair use" and I doubt you'll ever get in problems.

Most CDs I have at home say on the inside ring "unauthorized lending is prohibited", yeah right, like anyone ever got sued over something like that in the last 20 years

 

[Code Monkey]

Therefore, with games being a non-returnable good, thereis a very big chance that those licenses will not hold in court. These rights they dictate can never overrule any civil rights you have as a consumer. It's mainly big talk from companies who think that they are above the law, have Sony for an example with their rootkit scandal.

Not true. While it does indicate that certain rights and limitations may vary from state-to-state, federal law still upholds that if you have not purchased an original license or otherwise secured rights and permission to own the intellectual property of the copyright owner, that you are in possession illegally. Also, software is not considered a "non-returnable good", as this is retailer policy and not copyright-owner policy. By purchasing the game you agree to the basic EULA license, and if you disagree with it, you must take up the policy with the manufacturer to get a refund to get around retailer policy.

Interesting, but actually emulation of illegal copies would not make the concept of emulation illegal. You can't be punished for it, but only for the act of copyright infringement.

No, you cannot be punished for emulation if you don't own the original copy of the software used with emulation. But if you don't own the emulated hardware or the software itself, you can be not only held under piracy law, but also in violation of contract with the console owners under "reverse-engineering" laws, which closely follow piracy laws because of the BIOS files usually required, such as with PSX.

If I am in possession of "Gran Turinsmo 4" for PS3, and neither own a PS3 nor an original copy, sony may reserve the right to charge me with piracy of the game, and possibly the console if they can prove that I am playing it on an emulation, or reverse-engineering the game code.

Do you imply that giving away your copy to someone else after having played it should not be allowed just because that license says so?

That would make things very interesting if American law actually is that strict and legally allows such clauses to be part of shrink-wrap licenses. Because that would mean that any store accepting second handed videogames, music or movies would violate the license, and thus could be prosecuted.

Not at all because when you sell an original copy, that is a legal transfer of the license to whom you sell it to. The software license is validated by the possession of the original copy, so by selling your game to a store for resale transfers the license to them, and hence whomever they sell it to. If you sell a copy or otherwise distribute a copy while still retaining the original, you have committed piracy.

Owning the original copy of the software IS your license, and when ownership of that is transferred, so is the license. If I copy a game and sell the original, I have sold the license to have any copy of that game, and hence have an illegal copy. As long as I have the original copy, I can have one copy of the game elsewhere as permitted by the typical EULA standards, and keep the original as an archive.

I don't meant to be rude, but you should read the EULA in the manual more carefully. If you can read legalese, you will understand what I mean. As stated in the typical EULA:

The end-user has a right to 1 (one) archival copy of the software and is not to redistribute the software in violation of the license agreement. Unauthorized copies are a violation of this agreement, and copies that violate the terms of this agreement shall be destroyed. If the end-user disagrees with this agreement, all copies of the software shall be destroyed pursuant to the terms and conditions of this agreement. Unauthorized sale or resale of this software is in strict violation of this agreeement, and upon such violation of said agreement, all copies shall be destroyed and the license deemed null and void. Exclusions and limitations may apply from state-to-state.

That's the shorthand version, the full version is in your software manual.

 

[Xblade]

Not like they give a crap about it anyway. They arrest maybe 1 or 2 people and make it public to scare people. Square Enix removed their leaked version of Final Fantasy A2: grimoire Rift. They were however oblivious to the 60 other torrents with games they own the license to. In short, if its not on print the organization won't give a damn.

 

[Code Monkey]

It's only because piracy is such a hard crime to prosecute due to finding the individual. They would prosecute more, but few will actually distribute the software and leave their private details behind.

 

[ihateliberals]

I'm getting tired, your username should have given us a clue about your disposition to discuss things instead of just coming to "enlighten us"

You're getting tired and you're wasting my time with your close-mindedness. Call it even.

Your UTOPIC solution solves nothing

Again, if you're truly scared of committing a crime, you won't commit it unless you're stupid or demented, problem solved. Utopic? if you mean "impractical", not quite, all it takes is iron fist.

and you yourself put it in the same post, not caring about writing properly:

No idea what you're talking about.

Murder is illegal and the posibility of jail is VERY REAL, yet people STILL COMMIT MURDER

Murderers are often insane people who would likely risk it for a much rewarding prize, you just can't compare that to say, some careless scumbags who buy games they quickly torrent to the rest of the world and screw up the companies just for the hell of it.

Do you honestly believe they would bother doing that if they knew for a fact that they would go to jail and rot in there for 5 years? come on.

The possibility of getting out of jail right away if you're found to be a murderer is practically null, now how many years did whoever pirated the latest game get?

As a lawyer which I am: Stop comparing theft and piracy. There is a reason THEY ARE 2 DIFFERENT CRIMES. Thank you

If you commit theft you are actually taking the PHYSICAL THING from it's owner.
If you commit piracy you are COPYING the content while the physical thing reamins in the power of the owner.

There are not legitimate comparisons, analogys, whatver if they are 2 different things

First off, I have not made a comparison between the terms, second off, to the best of my knowledge, a thief is someone who steals and if you steal a CD (and by steal I mean "take without permission", like when you download it illegally off p2p's) you're a thief.

Feel free to look a way around what I said

Nothing new under the sun.

I know you'll do it because, same as religious zealots, you didn't come to discuss, interpret and form an informed conclusion and opinion based on what was shared, you came to enlighten us with your opinions already made

What I conclude from the interpretation of what was shared is that most of the uninformed people who baselessly "contributed" to the conversation are wrong.

If by "discuss" you mean "come here, keep your opinion to yourself and openly second mine no matter how flawed it is", yes, I certainly didn't come here to "discuss" anything.

Really, I don't know why some people have such a hard time getting used to the fact that others may not share their views and intentionally mistake a strong standpoint for bigotry, behaviour which's bigotry in itself.

That's not what intelligent people do in conversations

Indeed, intelligent people don't lower the quality of a conversation by unnecesarily passing judgement on others, putting words in their mouths and comparing them to "religious zealots" when running out of arguments.

 

[mudlord]

Do you honestly believe they would bother doing that if they knew for a fact that they would go to jail and rot in there for 5 years? come on.

....You have obviously zero clue how the warez scene operates. So you have no right to talk about how they operate and thier reasons.

 

[ihateliberals]

....You have obviously zero clue how the warez scene operates. So you have no right to talk about how they operate and thier reasons.

Where did I comment on how the warez scene operated and their reasons? other than an example for a type of piracy, which I'll call "unsponsored", I have not extended myself.

Nevermind their modus operandi and reasons behind it, nobody wants to go to jail and that's the point.

 

[mudlord]

Where did I comment on how the warez scene operated and their reasons?

Uh,.....

Do you honestly believe they would bother doing that if they knew for a fact that they would go to jail and rot in there for 5 years? come on.

There.

You alluded to them having a sense of decency and care about the law. Which they do not.

nobody wants to go to jail and that's the point.

Heh. Nice logic. Pity they still do it. So, the law isn't a deterrant. One topsite goes down...10 go up in its place.

...

 

[ihateliberals]

Uh,.....

"Do you honestly believe they would bother doing that if they knew for a fact that they would go to jail and rot in there for 5 years? come on"

There.

You alluded to them having a sense of decency and care about the law. Which they do not.

Jesus Christ you didn't get anything right. Is english your first language anyways?

They wouldn't do it (piracy) because the would be afraid of going to jail. Obviously they do it right now (piracy) because they know they can get away with it (they wouldn't go to jail and rot in there for 5 years), and that's something inconceivable for people with a true sense of decency who respect the law. Are we clear?

Also, what does that have to do with knowing or ignoring how the warez scene operates and their reasons?

 

[refraction]

and why has this gone so blatantly off topic, the original topic was about making copies of your own discs and using emulators not being piracy, but some how youve managed to get us talking about every other aspect of digital distribution

oh and btw

First off, I have not made a comparison between the terms, second off, to the best of my knowledge, a thief is someone who steals and if you steal a CD (and by steal I mean "take without permission", like when you download it illegally off p2p's) you're a thief.

you arent taking the CD without permission, you are copying without permission, you again just twisted piracy to make it sound like theft when they are 2 different things. Do you leave the cd owner without the cd when you download it illegally off p2p's? no, so you arent "taking without permission", theft removes the physical item from the legal owner, you arent taking the item away, you are duplicating it.

You kinda remind me of the guy on bash.org who started downloading his own song when someone else got it off him and told the guy he wanted his song back :lol:

anyway, if you came here merely to "preach" your ways to us, sorry mate, you are preaching to the wrong crowd and you wont come out on top on this one.

Maybe i need to put a new rule "Come here only to play, not to preach" xD

Edit: heres a bit of reading for you, it relates to backing up cartridges, you can click this link if you wanna read it: http://everything2.com/e2node/Emulation%20legality

but this is the conclusion

Dumping a computer program from a Game Pak and emulating it on a different type of computer is not an infringement of the copyright in the program under 17 USC 117, as long as the cartridge owner does not distribute the dump to any third party. (This means you, TheBooBooKitty. Owners of coin-op boards must dump their own ROMs to play them in MAME.) Therefore, emulators and game copiers have a substantial non-infringing use, and any attempt by Nintendo to remove them from the market through legal action is frivolous barratry.