Another Query
 

OK, if CirKutz feels this is off topic, then he can delete it (please dont lock it, just delete it :p ).....

Heres the thing, on GCW before you enter the site it clearly states:

'You are ONLY allowed to ENTER GameCopyWorld if you need information to make a backup of an Original Game CD of which you are the legal owner.'

What I want to know is, which country does that rule apply to? (Meaning which countries allow you to make backup copies of software you own, and does this law even exsist?). I have searched night and day trying to find this law in some big 'rule book' but I could not find it anywhere. A little help?

I am quite sure this will trigger off almost infinite discussion:

ONE backup copy for PRIVATE use is allowed in germany as far as I know.
This does not mean that it has to be possible though!

With music Cds it is still this seven copies rule, which you can pass along to your relatives ? I don't know.

Thats the thing...this rule seems to have been passed around via 'word of mouth' methods. I cant find definate proof that it exsists, searched the net, local library, city library, even asked some people who practice law.
A lecturer at my University is arguing the fact that unless the author/developer of a piece of software allows you to make a copy, then the way he sees it is that we are all breaking the law.
All I want is some definate proof that this rule exists.

By the way Monty, give credit to the real person, I brought that Pirate Quote Signature stuff to this forum. :p

I will!

Mmh, no. It used to be definite law, the only thing is that it is constantly changing, but I think it still law. (not for a long time anymore, I guess).

I think you'd better search for 'Fair Use'. IMHO the whole backup issue falls under that category. If anyone has more specific info, then by all means post it. The way I figure it, only in the USA is what we do technically illegal under the DMCA act. That law clearly states that any attempt to bypass copy protection is forbidden. This mainly concerns cracks. Now there have been moves afoot in the EU to legislate member states in the same way, so in the end we might get the same stupid laws. However, until that happens you can crack the copy protection as much as you want and make as many backups as you like. While technically you have to ask permission of the copyright holder even for backups, this has never really stood up in court AFAIK. So the big media companies in the USA just bought themselves some senators and congressmen et voila, the DMCA. Then they apply as much pressure as they can on europe, et voila : we're next :( In the USA, the DMCA has been used for all kinds of weird stuff, like prices (yes ! PRICES) on a website. I just hope SOMEONE responsible comes to his senses before they start jailing people who BOUGHT their damn games and used a crack to be able to play them, in theory anyone in the USA who does this can get a BIG jail time, they just don't have prosecuted it yet.

I can tell you this : if they ever bring out a truly unbackable copy protection or effectively outlaw cracks here, I'm not going to buy a SINGLE game anymore. There are some things I won't stand for, ever.

As far as I know (sorry !), reverse-engeneering isn't allowed, this is copyrighted material! So cracks generally are illegal! But, you are allowed to make a WORKING backup copy. The developers are allowed to protect the games from copying. This may be a contradiction, but it isn't. Conclusion: Copyprotections are legal, CloneProgs are legal, Crackz are illegal as they modify copyrighted material....So you have the right to backup a game (1:1) but not to use a crack ..?

I dunno, there just never was a conviction or even a legal case for developing a crack. Since the DMCA however, there has been the infamous Adobe ebook case, where a russian firm that developed a braille program for blind people, got accused of breaking the DMCA. They circumvented the copy protection in Adobe ebooks so they could write their own interface to convert those ebooks in braille. So you see how evil the DMCA really is. If a similar law passes here in europe, then we'll be in similar trouble :(

You can find a "complete" text about the german situation with this "Copy-Problem" on WWW.SPIELEBRENNEN.DE.
(Click on "Rechtslage" in the left menu and then on "Das Kopieren von Datentragern"). The text is in german, but perhaps there is someone (with a better english than me) who can translate it.
I will try it with the conclusion of the text:

Allowed is: ONE backup-copy to save the programm. No "give away" or "use" (until original cd not work) of this backup.

Forbidden is: Copying software by a friend or for a friend. Using of Cracks... also if the allowed backup don't work without. Selling the original disc and holding the backup.

You can loan a Music CDs from a friend and make a backup for yourself. But only seven backups from one CD are allowed. If you friend has always made six backups, you are only allowes to make one backup. And then never ever a further copy.

Thats exactly the kind of information I was looking for CirKutz, but I fully expected, having thought about it last night after posting the query, that maybe this kind of stuff is allowed in the land down under (thinking back to the xbox and ps2 stories from previous years). If anyone else has government links or other reputable sites, then I would be grateful for the info.
GLH - I cant seem to translate that website using babel or google, but thanks for the info you posted here.

Thanks for those CirKutz. One question, how did you find those?? What search engine did you use, or did you just come across a page with a bunch of links?

Read the law before you try to quote it.
 

Actually this is a common misconception perpetuated by people who have not actually read the DCMA. If you take the time to read the provisions of the DCMA ( http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf is an official summary) you will see that reverse-engineering and bypassing copy-protection systems IS allowed under section 1201 so long as the party doing so has the legal right to use the material under copyright law and is doing so for one of eight reasons. Using a game crack certainly could qualify.

Here are the relevant quotes from the referenced summary of the DCMA:

"Since copying of a work may be a fair use under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumventing a technological measure that prevents copying."

"Finally, the prohibitions contained in section 1201 are subject to a number of exceptions. One is an exception to the operation of the entire section, for law enforcement, intelligence and other governmental activities. (Section 1201(e)). The others relate to section 1201(a), the provision dealing with the category of technological measures that control access to works.
The broadest of these exceptions, section 1201(a)(1)(B)-(E), establishes an ongoing administrative rule-making proceeding to evaluate the impact of the prohibition against the act of circumventing such access-control measures. This conduct prohibition does not take effect for two years. Once it does, it is subject to an exception for users of a work which is in a particular class of works if they are or are likely to be adversely affected by virtue of the prohibition in making noninfringing uses.

The applicability of the exemption is determined through a periodic rulemaking by the Librarian of Congress, on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who is to consult with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information.

The six additional exceptions are as follows:

1. Nonprofit library, archive and educational institution exception
(section 1201(d)). The prohibition on the act of circumvention of
access control measures is subject to an exception that permits
nonprofit libraries, archives and educational institutions to circumvent solely for the purpose of making a good faith determination as to whether they wish to obtain authorized access to the work.

2. Reverse engineering (section 1201(f)). This exception permits
circumvention, and the development of technological means for such circumvention, by a person who has lawfully obtained a right to use a copy of a computer program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing elements of the program necessary to achieve interoperability with other programs, to the extent that such acts are permitted under copyright law.

3. Encryption research (section 1201(g)). An exception for encryption research permits circumvention of access control measures, and the development of the technological means to do so, in order to identify flaws and vulnerabilities of encryption technologies.

4. Protection of minors (section 1201(h)). This exception allows a court applying the prohibition to a component or part to consider the necessity for its incorporation in technology that prevents access of minors to material on the Internet.

5. Personal privacy (section 1201(i)). This exception permits circumvention when the technological measure, or the work it protects, is capable of collecting or disseminating personally identifying information about the online activities of a natural person.

6. Security testing (section 1201(j)). This exception permits circumvention of access control measures, and the development of technological means for such circumvention, for the purpose of testing the security of a computer, computer system or computer network, with the authorization of its owner or operator."

And Wal-Mart has since been sued under DCMA section 1322 for filing a frivolous injunction. I have no doubt Wal-Mart will settle out of court since they are clearly guilty.