If you deal with software in one form or another, you’ve probably heard of SecureRom, Safe Disk, laser lock and other similar software.
This type of copy protection typically does 3 things:
It uses mastering ‘errors’ on the disk itself in order to help identify a copy.
It uses software in the game or program executable that checks for mastering errors and other cues to determine if the disk in the drive is the original disk or not.
It checks your registry and looks for siftware it doesn’t like (such as CD emulation software which is 100% legal) and will refuse to run the software if you have any of these programs installed.
Additionally the mastering erros sometimes cause the game to not run at all on some drives.
My question is:
In light of copyright law which enables the end user to make copies of software/DVD’s tapes, etc for his own private use legally, are these copy protection solutions legal?
Is it legal for these companies to stop you from making your private copies?
Is it legal for them to snoop around your computer and essentially telling you what can and cannot be installed on your comp by refusing to run if certain applications are installed?
What legal recourse, if any is available to the end user?
Well quite frankly, I have heard that none of them work anyway–the average time it takes people to break new CD anti-copy protection schemes is about two days. So until anticopy chips are put in all CD drives, anything that a regular CD drive has to be able to play, a regular CD-RW drive will be able to write. So if it’s legal or not I don’t know, but it sure don’t work. The only thing that has discouraged rampant copying is the fact that many companies have gone to a system where you need a valid serial number to play online–you can find lots and lots of people begging for working serial numbers, because fakes won’t work. It has been suggested by some industry-watchers that game companies re-vamp their business models to reflect this trend–they can’t control what you do with your CD, but they can check your serial number info if you want to play online through their servers.
Funny True Story: when I bought a CD-RW drive, I visited the manufacturer’s site to get the latest drivers. The CD-RW manufacturer had a page up that explained what anti-copy protection formats the bundled CD-copying software would work on, and which ones it wouldn’t. And they had a link to another site that told you which software would successfully copy which anti-copy formats.
And in a related story, as of yesterday there’s a newsblurb on the Register about how the next X-Box will use a non-standard media size, in an attempt to prevent copying in regular CD-drives…
~
I’m not a lawyer, but I watched an episode of Matlock…the sound was off but I think I got the gist of it…
"In light of copyright law which enables the end user to make copies of software/DVD’s tapes, etc for his own private use legally, are these copy protection solutions legal?..Is it legal for these companies to stop you from making your private copies? "
as I understand this law, you are allowed to make personal copies for legal uses…not legally entitled…
“Is it legal for them to snoop around your computer and essentially telling you what can and cannot be installed on your comp by refusing to run if certain applications are installed?”
From what you describe, it probably is…at worst it’s pn the shadier side of legal…the trick is in the EULA… software companies can abrogate any of your rights so long as you click “I agree to the terms and conditions of this software license…” button. There was a guy I knew from a Cisco class I took in HS who pointed out an interesting perspective regarding software…specifically Windows. What he said was essentially “When you buy a copy of Windows you’re not actually buying the sofware - you’re buying the right to use the software…”
So IMHO, just about anything they do is or could be legal, so long as they tell you what they’re doing in the EULA…
I have no facts to add, but like you I’d like my software to contain a bit less useless encumberance. To play most of the games I own requires searching for disks all over - it’s almost easier for games I’ve lost the disks for and found a crack.
BTW, these “protection” schemes could end up making playing them impossible later for obscure reasons. I own a bunch of games on floppy which are copy-protected. When MS made Win9x, they decided they’d re-write the FAT on all floppies inserted to enable long filename support. This had the side-effect of messing up the copy protection. Most are easily available over the 'net now anyways, but I’m still ticked.
The main problem I have with these types of copy protection is that they do absolutely NOTHING to stop pirates.
They have cracked their way throguh everything sometimes days BEFORE the title is officially released.
What they do stop is legitemate owners from making copies which is a major head ache. You end up with broken/scratched cd’s, slow games due to copy protection scanning the drive every so often for the disc, tons of disc swapping…
Certainly they’re legal. You’re staring from a false premise. There is no such clause in copyright law, so the question is moot.
You are only allowed to make a copy of software in order for it to run on your computer, or to archive it (not run) on one computer. That used to be just a licensing condition, not part of the law, but the copyright act now spells that out.
You have no legal right to make copies of DVDs or CDs unless those rights are specifically granted to you by the copyright holder (for instance, if you download a CD from Buymusic.com). Note that unless you can find wording from the copyright holder specifically granting you these rights, you don’t have it.
You also have no legal right to make copies of tapes; however, if the copy is made on an approved medium (and video and audio tapes are approved), you cannot be sued for the violation.
See my previous answer – but it’s perfectly legal.
Pretty much. They have the right to protect their copyright, and can set up their software any way the way to prevent piracy. Software often is set up to check for licensing information and the search is really no different than having it to check your system requirements before installing. If you have a legal copy, it’s no inconvenience, and no information is being sent to the company.
Now if you mean checking from the Internet, that may be more problematic, but current law gives them the right.
What legal recourse does a thief have if someone puts a lock on the door and keeps them out? Any suit on the basis of a “right” that isn’t supported by law is not going to get very far.
Reality Chuck so you’re saying that I’m incorrect, that there are no laws that say I or you are allowed to make personal copies of tapes/dvd’s/software for private, personal use or archival purposes?
Can anyone else confirm this?
This would indeed make my point moot.
Also, you seem to imply that anyone who would want to make a copy is automatically a pirate or thief. There are a million reasons why you’d want to make a copy and none of them have to do with pirating a program.
My understanding is that copyright law, probably the Fair Use doctrine, allows the owner of a work to make copies of that work for their own use.
I believe the DMCA specifically recognizes the right of end users to make backup copies of software, and specifically outlaws the creation, possession, or use of tools that penetrate security mechanisms implemented to prevent end users from making copies, even backup copies as permitted under the Act.
So my understanding is at odds with what Reality Chuck said, and I would love to see some hard cites to resolve this.
You are claiming a right under copyright law, but the law makes no mention of the right. Here’s the law: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ Read through it and find a cite for your claim. I can only cite the law in the matter, not what people think that the law says.
Here’s what the law says about copyright:
Italics mine. The copyright holder has the exclusive right to make copies. Couldn’t be clearer. Unless he grants you the right to make a copy, you cannot.
As to “fair use”
(italics mine). Note that none of the purposes include making a backup or just to have another copy.
The rest of the section defines how to determine fair use, with the key clause:
If you copy an entire work, it is not fair use. Fair use only applies to excerpts (for instance, music sales websites often put 30-second clips of music; this would be allowed under fair use because it’s only a portion).
As far as archive copies are concerned, the only exception for archives in the law is granted to libraries (strictly defined as a place that lends material to the public – see § 108).
In addition, section 117 grants you the right to copy the software onto your computer as part of the installation process and does allow an archive purpose – but not the right to run the archived program. See:
(italics mine) – #2 allows you to copy your CD to disk and then use that as a replacement if the copy made in #1 becomes corrupt.
Note, though, that the law only says that such a copy may be made. It does not require that it be usable or installable.
So the excepts of the law that are relevant to the discussion all support what I have said. You are welcome to study the law to see if I missed something.
All of which are irrelevant. Unless you have permission to make a copy (i.e., copyright), you cannot legally make a copy. Admittedly, “intellectual property thief” is a harsh term for people who unknowingly violate copyright law, but under the eyes of the law you have committed a violation.
You are claiming a right under copyright law, but the law makes no mention of the right. Here’s the law: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ Read through it and find a cite for your claim. I can only cite the law in the matter, not what people think that the law says.
Here’s what the law says about copyright:
Italics mine. The copyright holder has the exclusive right to make copies. Couldn’t be clearer. Unless he grants you the right to make a copy, you cannot.
As to “fair use”
(italics mine). Note that none of the purposes include making a backup or just to have another copy.
The rest of the section defines how to determine fair use, with the key clause:
If you copy an entire work, it is not fair use. Fair use only applies to excerpts (for instance, music sales websites often put 30-second clips of music; this would be allowed under fair use because it’s only a portion).
As far as archive copies are concerned, the only exception for archives in the law is granted to libraries (strictly defined as a place that lends material to the public – see § 108).
In addition, section 117 grants you the right to copy the software onto your computer as part of the installation process and does allow an archive purpose – but not the right to run the archived program. See:
(italics mine) – #2 allows you to copy your CD to disk and then use that as a replacement if the copy made in #1 becomes corrupt.
Note, though, that the law only says that such a copy may be made. It does not require that it be usable or installable.
So the excepts of the law that are relevant to the discussion all support what I have said. You are welcome to study the law to see if I missed something.
All of which are irrelevant. Unless you have permission to make a copy (i.e., copyright), you cannot legally make a copy. Admittedly, “intellectual property thief” is a harsh term for people who unknowingly violate copyright law, but under the eyes of the law you have committed a violation.
If the copy protection schemes work by compromising the working integrity of the product, then it is possible that the Sale Of Goods Act (or your local equivalent thereof) would give you some comeback - goods are supposed to be ‘of merchantable quality’ and ‘fit for their purpose’ - media that contains copy-protection measures that amount to inherent deliberate flaw or damage could (In My Non-Expert Opinion) be plausibly argued to be unfit for their purpose or not of merchantable quality.
As a consumer, all this would probably mean is that you could return the product for a refund, however, it is also possible that some kind of trading standards body would be interested in pursuing action against manufacturers who knowingly sell ‘damaged’ goods.
While I agree that there’s no inherent right to make a copy of a CD, DVD or game, I think that RealityChuck’s reading of the law is flawed and overly strict. (OTOH, at least he read it, which most of the others who have commented in this thread failed to do.)
Fair Use probably does allow people who have bought a product to back it up under some circumstances. Exectly what those circumstances are I won’t venture to guess, as I’m not very familiar with the area of law. There is an argument to be made that a software company that imposes extensive copy-protection schemes is impinging on the consumer’s right to make a Fair Use copy, and I vaguely remember hearing about some case that did in fact accept this, but after a few minutes of research I wasn’t able to locate it, so maybe I made it up.
Unfortunately, Mangetout, the industry’s moving towards a model by which you have not actually engaged in a “Sale of Goods” but in a licensing.
As to the law, well… I’ll leave that to copyright lawyers but many have been under the impression that it had been resolved (perhaps in Court?) that they DID have a right to make personal copies of recordings and broadcasts – perhaps they are conflating different notions?
You are ignoring the phrase “such as”. The purposes listed in Section 107 are merely examples.
Now you’re ignoring the other three clauses. Here’s Section 107 in its entirety:
Notice that none of the factors are given more weight than any other. You can’t simply look at (3) and say “you copied the whole thing, therefore it ain’t fair use” while ignoring the purpose and character of the use in (1), or the effect of the use upon the market in (4).
You would be wise not to make such definitive claims about fair use, where the law is very hazy. The fact is, no one can say for sure whether personal backups are fair use until a court has decided it. Perhaps we’ll have some answers next year from the 321 Studios lawsuit, but that’s more about the DMCA than fair use.
Most are easily available over the 'net now anyways, but I’m still ticked.