Re: [SWCollect] Copyright confusion clarified
Disclaimer: IANAL. But my father-in-law is. Dan Chisarick wrote: Good article. Grey areas I'd have to wonder about: - I'm a non-technical user who wants to backup my Commodore 64 copy of M.U.L.E. According to this I have a legal right to do so. However, I'm technically incapable of doing so on my own. This law says I have a right, but is it legal for (Joe Hacker) to publish information on how to accomplish this (so that I can make my legal backup)? No. It is still unfortunately illegal to *publish* hacking info. But you are free to investigate it yourself (as long as you don't publish :) - Nearly all schemes to defeat copy protection require some degree of reverse engineering. For some sufficiently integrated copy protection schemes, just who decides how much I can reverse engineer the code in order to accomplish this? Actually, this is the best part: It is now an official exemption. This means you are exempt from the wrath of the DMCA if you are caught reverse-engineering something you own because no known software or hardware currently exist to use the product in its original form. What this means to the layman game player is that you are free to investigate copying, modifying, or otherwise reverse-engineering your games if you no longer own a computer that can play them. - Say that someone decided to release a fully-functional Atari 2600 reissue console to the marketplace (or even re-issue the games themselves). If we previously had the right to archive 2600 titles, would re-issuance then revoke the right we just had? (Probably). Actually, no. You still/always have the right to archive any titles you have bought. It is irrelevant if those titles are re-issued; you still own first-issue items, and have the right to archive those items. Like most legal issues, I'd suspect whoever has more money is right. Amen. -- Jim Leonard ([EMAIL PROTECTED])http://www.oldskool.org/ Want to help an ambitious games project? http://www.mobygames.com/ Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/ -- This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to the swcollect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect' Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
Re: [SWCollect] Copyright confusion clarified
Good article. Grey areas I'd have to wonder about: - I'm a non-technical user who wants to backup my Commodore 64 copy of M.U.L.E. According to this I have a legal right to do so. However, I'm technically incapable of doing so on my own. This law says I have a right, but is it legal for (Joe Hacker) to publish information on how to accomplish this (so that I can make my legal backup)? - Nearly all schemes to defeat copy protection require some degree of reverse engineering. For some sufficiently integrated copy protection schemes, just who decides how much I can reverse engineer the code in order to accomplish this? - Say that someone decided to release a fully-functional Atari 2600 reissue console to the marketplace (or even re-issue the games themselves). If we previously had the right to archive 2600 titles, would re-issuance then revoke the right we just had? (Probably). Like most legal issues, I'd suspect whoever has more money is right. On Oct 31, 2003, at 11:37 PM, Hugh Falk wrote: -- This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to -- This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to the swcollect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect' Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
[SWCollect] Copyright confusion clarified
I thought this was pertinent to the group: Copyright confusion clarified Recent Library of Congress exemption allows hacking "obsolete" titles for back-ups only, nothing more. A recent ruling by the Library of Congress' Copyright Office has left some gamers with the impression they can legally copy and share old-school games. If only it were so. On Tuesday, the LOC did grant an exemption from the dreaded 1998 Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) for "accessing computer programs and video games distributed in obsolete formats." The ruling defines "obsolete" as: "A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace." Many took this as a governmental green light to start burning and sharing CD-ROMs of all their favorite classic arcade and console games. However, a careful read of the ruling reveals it only applies to cracking the copy protection of older, "obsolete" games, and nothing else. Under the Fair Use laws, that means you can make one--and only one--backup copy of games you already own. Downloading or sharing copies of the game over the Web remains illegal. "You can't distribute it today any more than you could yesterday," said one industry veteran who studied the ruling. "Basically, the only people this really effects are emulator authors; they're free to hack obsolete systems as much as they want without fear of being DMCA'ed." -- This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to the swcollect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect' Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
