You're right. It has nothing to do with copyright. They have every right to do that with their software. You have every right to not buy games that do that.
This is a point that I surmise adoucette hasn't really thought about, and probably neither have the legalistas. If you are allowed to make "backup copies", how many copies is considered reasonable, and who decides? If you buy a DVD with a movie on it and make ten copies instead of just the one, can you be sued for infringement? Would a defense of "reasonable use" stand up, or would a lawyer be able to convince a judge or a jury that your intention was theft? As I said in the OP, intellectual rights to an original work is a concept that has today bumped into modern technology. Back when copying media was expensive and you needed printing presses and armies of typesetters and proofreaders to copy books or record pressing equipment to cut vinyl or a movie editing studio, copyright was easy to enforce because the technology was expensive and hard to come by. These days, it isn't (doh!), everyone can do it. "Protecting" original works from infringement is much harder, because of the advances in technology. Putting the genie back in the bottle, like Congress thinks it can do (and just by listening to advice from media companies, who would have thought it could be that easy?), is just not going to happen. So what should all the artists do who want to make money from their original work? Should they just give it away? Surprisingly, that's exactly what some of them are doing, so what's up with that? How do they make money?
Because the point is, well pointless. Courts have been deciding what is reasonable for a long time. Sorta what they are there for. Well if you are selling these copies then your infringement is clear. If you make a ten back-up copies, and put them away and never sell one, then you're just OCD and not infringing.
So if you get sued by a media company because the thought police found 10 copies of a DVD in your house, or on your computer, you claim "reasonable use", the prosecution claims you intended to sell some of the copies. Who wins? You seem to be convinced it's a clear-cut case. But then, being convinced is your thing isn't it? It's why you invest so much effort trying to convince others.
Not a copyright infringement, no, but copying a DVD - for any reason - is typically illegal under the DMCA. But you are violating the DMCA.
It's legal for me to make backup copies for my own use. Besides, I can (and do) use VCRs and DVD recorders for other purposes - home movies immediately come to mind. And why shouldn't I be allowed to record a show and watch it later? :shrug: And, no I don't have TIVO or cable for that matter. Don't really watch much TV.
So there's no such thing as a leading question? And there's nothing wrong with asking "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" The question does not exist in a vacuum, it has context confered to it by the post to which it is a response. If you ask "Do you support internet piracy?" in a vacuum, then yes, it is just a question. However, if I state "I disagree with SOPA." and you respond with "Do you support internet piracy?" the implication is clear. The implication exists, because the question is a leading question. It is not neutral. A neutral query would have been something along the lines of "What is your position on internet piracy?"
That question also makes the assertion that one has been beating one's wife. But asking someone if they support piracy makes no assertion that they do so. "Do you support internet piracy?" is exactly the same question Trippy, just a few less words. No assertion was made about his stance and more importantly, if the assumption was made just because he is against SOPA that he was for piracy, then there would be no need for the question. I asked simply because of his posts it wasn't clear what his position was (and he has yet to say)
No, it's a question. In a vacuum, yes, in the context of the statement you were responding to, no. And once again, you're missing, and evading the point. And I've got better things to do with my time then try to explain to you, anglophone to anglophone how context changes meaning. The simple fact of the matter is that in responding to "I disagree with SOPA" with the question "So then do you support internet piracy?" you're setting up a false dichotomy. You don't recognize it. You don't accept it. I already know you won't acknowledge it, so I'm not interested in discussing it with you any further.
Read the desenting opinion in this http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc. Quite clearly states your NOT allowed to copy ANYTHING for ANY purpose including backup
intellectual property rights. versus. intellectual freedom. versus. different countries with different laws. equals. one fine mess.
It's like the difference between conducting the a poll and asking "Are you going to vote Republican?" and "Which party are you planning to vote for?"
Are you kidding me? The dissenting opinion is the one written by the minority. Which means the dissenting opinion is the one that did not become law. Which means: You are allowed to copy television programs for time shifting. You are allowed to make copies for backup.
Not at all. If I said, "so then if you disagree with SOAP then you must support Piracy" That would be setting up a false dichotomy. But I neither said nor implied that. I asked a straight question: "Do you support piracy?" And yes, I believe that someone can not support SOPA and also not support Piracy. For instance:
No, it can't. The fundamental bases of information make it inherently impossible. It never has been done, not once, in decades of trying. There is not one example where a concerted effort has failed. There is not one person familiar with how computers work who believes it is possible. There is not one professor of information theory able to demonstrate anything other than the idea's inherent impossibility. To state otherwise requires either that you are profoundly ignorant of the thing you affect certainty of, or that you are intentionally lying. If an image sequence or sound is viewable or audible it is mathematically certain that it can be computationally derived from it's transport stream. If hardware exists to decode said transport stream, it is mathematically certain that an indistinguishable decoding function can be computationally derived from observation of it's working. Most of the time you don't even need that. It is mathematically certain that any data stream which can be decoded into a form compatible with human perception can also be copied. It is simply a fact. You speak out of ignorance.
Sometimes I honestly can't tell if you're being serious. It's like you're purposely taking the piss out of yourself.
The assertion was that you could stop Piracy. You claimed it couldn't be done. I said "sure it can" You gave an obtuse answer explaining how copying can't be stopped from be done. But copying is just a single facet of Piracy, not the whole enchillada. Here is an example of us stopping a major Piracy outlet. http://www.telecomramblings.com/2012/01/fbi-takes-down-megaupload-with-cogent-in-the-crossfire/ See, it can be done.