Daemon Tools 4

[DarkStar782]

Originally Posted by DABhand

A country's own Law can not and never will overpower the owner/s instructions.

Lets not go back to your example way back, where in your language it said "contract" which you never did explain to me what your intepretation of the word contract was..

Again no countrys' law will overpower the right for people to protect their possessions and goods, software being amongst this fact.

If a country were to force this onto software publishers/developers, I can assure you they wouldnt want to release software into that country if they are basically allowing their software to be easily copied and distributed.

Actually, people only have any 'rights' if the government grants them. You have a right to a fair trial because the government says you do. Over in the US you have the right to shoot a burgler because the government says you do. In the UK you goto prison for shooting a burglar (protecting your property?)

Copyright only exists because the governent grants it. It is subject to the conditions the government imposes upon it. I cant see a software company ever leaving out the US's (or anyone elses) 300 million population because 'they might copy it' especially when the US people could buy it overseas and copy it. They gamble that enough people will buy it that it will make money.

Copyright is regulated by the government, and if they say you have the right to a backup copy, the publisher saying 'um yeah we have made up a super duper copyright where you cant back it up and can only run it if you stand on one leg and recite the alphabet backwards' has no legal basis.

However, its arguable that the DCMA prevents you making a backup, as it prohibits you from 'circumventing' a copy protection. Although its arguable that a 1:1 copy leaves the copy protection intact and hasnt circumvented it....

The publishers on the otherhand are under no obligation to ASSIST you in making your legal backup, and are even able to do their best to PREVENT you making such a backup.

[Grumpy]

@Darkstar

especially when the US people could buy it overseas and copy it.

hmm, this is an interesting point?
If someone in the US was to buy drugs from another country, where that drug is legal, would that also make it legal for that person to use that drug in the US, where that drug is illegal? See where I am going with that!
Another example:
Guns are illegal for the average person to own in Australia. If I buy a gun from the US it is still illegal for me to have it in Australia!
The law, doesnt matter what it is for, really depends on what you are doing in the country where you live, not the country where you purchase something.
I would like to add, I am not a lawyer so what I say is just.......well basic common sense.

[DarkStar782]

But legally buying a game in country (a) where backups are illegal, but the purchase of the game is not, and then taking it to your home country, (b) where they are not, and hence the game is not sold, and backing it up, would not be illegal, from a copying point of view.

If you ORDERED it from country (a) the seller may well be breaching his distribution rights, but if you went to country (a), bought it, and took it home, its ok.

Your analogy would work better if you bought the drugs in a country where it was not illegal to sell or possess them, only to smoke/eat/process them, (as magic mushrooms are in the UK) then took them home where it was legal to eat them and eat them.

What I ment, and perhaps was unclear about, was that if 'EA Games' decided copyright rules were too lax in the US and they were only going to sell their games in other countries, then although they would loose a ton of legitimate US users, the US citizens could just purchase them overseas (as EA couldnt make it illegal to own them in the US).

As such, even if the US tomorrow decided to drop all its copyright laws, there would be little point in the games companies completely boycotting the market, they would just need even nastier Copy Protection to try and make it simpler to just buy them