OT: Software copyright law?

Renegade 13 · #1 November 7th, 2005, 02:49 PM

I'm a little curious. I'm not sure about Canadian copyright laws, but I've read that in the States you have the right to make archival copies of software you own just in case you wreck the original. Good so far. However, copy protection often stops people from making such archival copies for themselves. Also, getting around the copy protection, or cracking the game/application/other software is also illegal, therefore making it illegal to create your legal archival copy... So if this is the case and I haven't horribly confused myself or you guys, doesn't copy protection on software deny you of your legal rights, and therefore shouldn't some forms of copy protection (such as Starforce and others that don't allow you to make 1:1 copies of your software) be illegal???

Now, since that's how I understand US copyright law, is there anyone who could enlighten me as to Canadian software copyright law as it regards the issue of legal backups and copy protection? Seems I know the law in other countries but not my own...

***Please note that I do NOT in any way condone software piracy, I'm just genuinely curious as to why the law in some countries contradicts itself and bars you from doing things the law says you can do!***

Fyron · #2 November 7th, 2005, 03:23 PM

It would be illegal, except that the morons on Capital Hill rushed the atrocious Digital Millennium Copyright Act into law virtually without debating it... The DMCA is what made bypassing copy protection schemes illegal. Starforce would be illegal if it were not for the DMCA.

PvK · #3 November 7th, 2005, 04:56 PM

Corporate tyranny. Eventual goal is for people not to be able to program except in scripting languages, to send or receive information in private or anonymously, to copy or play data. Basically, corporations and governments think only they should be able to use computers.

PvK

AgentZero · #4 November 7th, 2005, 05:52 PM

Personally I go by the whole Roman concept of 'If it's a stupid law, it's not a law.' And if a law is contradictory (you're legally allowed to make backups but must violate the law to do so), then it's pretty stupid. Of course, I highly doubt that argument would stand up in court, but if no one knows whether or not I make archival copies, and as long as those copies don't find their way into anyone else's hands, it's not something I worry about.

Atrocities · #5 November 7th, 2005, 06:51 PM

They don't want you to have a copy because they often, more often than not, put their software on defective low budge CD's, DVD's that break at the first hint of stress. I have read where many CD's/DVD's have literally shattered in the CD/DVD Rom drives.

The CD breaks, you must buy new copy... that means more sales. The copy right protection just insures the second sale.

Strategia_In_Ultima · #6 November 8th, 2005, 05:24 AM

Going on on the "contradictory laws" bandvagen..... Here in the Netherlands, it's legal to deal in cannabis, but it's illegal to own it.

In the case of archive copies, I'd say just chock the entire CD into an archive file on a failsafe network. If that doesn't work, I'd say go ahead and break the copy protection.

Renegade 13 · #7 November 8th, 2005, 02:04 PM

I wonder which law would supersede the other in a court of law? Your right to make archival copies, or the illegality of breaking copy protection...

NullAshton · #8 November 8th, 2005, 02:09 PM

On some licenses, they no longer give you the ability to make a backup. The copy on the origional CD is all you get.

Will · #9 November 8th, 2005, 03:02 PM

As far as CDs/DVDs go, there hasn't been much success in prosecuting people breaking copy protection when all that is needed is holding down the Shift key (if using Windows; do nothing if you use anything else) or using a sharpie marker. It gets a little iffy for programs like DeCSS, but after initial prosecution on that, I haven't heard of any progress on it, and it's still out there.

AgentZero · #10 November 8th, 2005, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Renegade 13 said:
I wonder which law would supersede the other in a court of law? Your right to make archival copies, or the illegality of breaking copy protection...

Well, I'm just guessing here, but if a court had to deal with a case involving contradictory laws, they'd be more inclined to hold up whichever one existed first. Precendent and all that. So your right to make archival copies would take precedent since it existed before the laws about breaking coppy protection. Hell, it exisited even before they HAD copy protection.
Course I'm not a lawyer, so I can't be sure, but it makes sense to me. Which probably means I'm wrong.