As I understand it, at least under Australian law (I don’t think the US is too different, but it may be) the law does not contain any proscription of precisely what rights you get when you buy a disk with software on it. Usually, what you get is defined by the licence that comes with the software. I suppose that if there was no explicit license, the law would imply something. Maybe that is what you mean.
So, I talked to our IP lawyer…
Firstly, a correction: The “private use” clause in Canadian copyright law I referred to in my first post is for musical recordings only. I work for a record label, so while I was familiar with that one, I had my blinders on with respect to other possible applications (or lack thereof) of that clause. (Interestingly, the conversation made IP Lawyer say “hmm… I wonder then about videos…”)
There also is a specific provision for software that you may make one back-up copy of software you have purchased. (Again this is in Canadian copyright law)
Now, as for the games you dowloaded so they’ll work on WindowsXP.
Cerowyn was quite right with his post, but our IP lawyer clarified some of the “why” of it.
Say you have a copy of a game called “Eat Crayons 5.0 for Windows 95” – you purchased it, you have a licence to use that copy of it. Now say your computer now runs on WinXP. In order for “Eats Crayons 5.0” to work on the XP platform, the program code has to be rewritten. If the code is rewritten then it’s a whole new work. New work, means new copyright, and your licence isn’t valid for this new copyright.
IP Lawyer said that in no way is a software company obligated to makes sure your game is protected against obsolescence, although many will offer free patches for radical changes such as the leap from Win98 to WinXP. But then they do it as a courtesy, not because they have to.
So your Morpheus copies are illegal because they are not the same “works” as the ones you have licences for. If you buy a game and then in six months the technology no longer exists to play it, sorry. All you can do is chalk it up to a bad investment.
I would assume, Eats_Crayons that if anyone patched Civ I to run on WinXP it was not Infogrames (who I believe holds the copyright now, I know they do own Civ III) nor Sid Meier nor the company that actually owns the copyright (if Infogrames doesn’t), but some guy with a little time on his hands and an original copy of the game who wanted to play it and figured out how to patch it to work. How is downloading the game with the patch already applied different from doing a reinstall and then applying the patch yourself?
On a similar issue-what about “cheats” for games? Is that illegal (that is, if the cheat is not put out by the company EX: Civ “trainers”).
Thanks all for the valuable info. It seems I am a fugitive, a wanted Meatros.
Look for hanging pictures of pork-chops and prime-rib at your local Post Office…
Hopefully I will be able to get home and delete all my stuff before “they” find out…
Meatros as much as I’d love to be able to answer those questions, they go well beyond the scope of my knowledge (which is mostly IP for the recording industry). Software patents and copyrights can be scary.
I occasionally wonder about really cool plug-ins for Adobe Photoshop that were not created by Adobe. But I stop thinking about it when it feels like my head will explode. ('Cause then I’d have brain goo on my screen.)
U.S. law:
This thread has gotten entirely too long without someone mentioning the central concept at issue (in the U.S.): “Fair Use.” The Copyright Act of 1976 gives the copyright owner a monopoly on the copying and modification of his work. However, even without the owner’s permission, Joe Blow can do some (relatively) minor copying, as long as the use is “fair.” Fair use in an exception to the monopoly the owner has over the right to copy.
Unfortunately, exactly what uses are “fair” under the law are not clearly spelled out. The touchstone (although by no means the only criterion) is whether the copying takes a potential sale out of the copyright owner’s profit. In my view, transfering software to a new format or OS would not count as fair use, even if you do own the originals, because there are at least some folks out there who liked the old game enough that, if such copying were impossible, they’d be willing to pay for the new software. Therefore, you personally may not be taking money out of the copyright owner’s pockets, but if everyone downloaded this thing, then that would be.
As for this:
,
it’s absolutely untrue. While you may find a court willing to accept that this is fair use, you’ll also find plenty who are not.
–Cliffy
P.S. I know very little about copyright law, I know almost nothing about the facts in this case, and I am not licensed in your jurisdiction. If you seek legal advice, you should consult with an attorney, licensed in your jurisdiction, familiar with the facts, and with expertise in this area of the law. I am none of these things and am therefore not competent to render legal advice in this matter. You are not my client. I am not your lawyer.
Well, the thing about legislation is that just because something should be legal or illegal, that doesn’t mean that it is.
However, I disagree that such material should be unprotected; those rights are still out there and someone (maybe even the original developer) owns them. It seems quite possible that he might, for instance, put together a compilation CD of games with an emulator so that they can run on a PS2. As long as the intended audience is downloading them all illegally, then he’s not going to bother. That means he’s not going to get profits that he could have; it also means that those people who’d buy that game aren’t going to be able to.
–Cliffy