Xbox Update Confounds Console Pirates

[hyperdrachen]

Wow, so they have fought piracy and enhanced functionality both at once? Good on them i suppose.

Heh I'm not sure I'd refer to bug fixes as "enchancement" but I suppose it's all in how you interpret it's meaning. I'd venture a guess that the bug that caused this was a security update in the first place, they've simply fixed it to work right instead of dicking functionality.

 

[JDKJ]

It's not legal to back up your discs. It says so right on the warranty that comes with the game. I don't have a game on me right now to write it here, but check the back of the instruction manual. It essentially says "Backing up your game isn't necessary so don't do it."

Isn't game copying for purposes of backup covered by fair use law? Also, see the other reply. If we really are only buying a license, then surely backup copies are necessary.

No, it isn't a fair use -- not under the U.S. copyright laws. There are exceptions to the general "no unauthorized copying" rule under the fair use doctrine, but those exceptions all involve a use that can benefit the public. If the use only has a private benefit, then it ain't a fair use.

Well, you are going to need to prove that making backups doesn't fall under fair use because I think you are incorrect. In fact, I think it is fine to make backups for PRIVATE use and not fine to make them for PUBLIC use (hence the FBI Warning about public broadcast) for media that you legally purchase. You'll notice that warnings in regards to backups always reads: "No unauthorized backups", not "No backups at all".

OK. Fine. It's a slow day at the office.

Title 17, Section 107, of the United States Code (commonly referred to as the Copyright Act) contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also lists four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use for one of the listed purposes is fair (which need not be listed for the purpose of this post). Therefore, the determination of whether a particular use is a fair use as allowed by Section 107 involves a two-step process: (1) first determine if the use falls into one of the listed purposes (which, it should be noted, all involve purposes that are of benefit to the general public and do not involve any purely private or personal purposes) and (2) then consider the four factors.

If we take the case of back-up copying and apply to it the fair use analysis as set forth by Section 107, we find that back-up copying for purely personal and private purposes fails to pass the first step of the analysis because back-up copying for purely personal and private purposes cannot be for the purpose of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. If it isn't among the purposes listed by Section 107, then can't be a fair use. As such, there's no need to bother with the second step of the analysis (i.e., consideration of the four factors).

Proof enough for you?

You should keep in mind that the exceptions carved out under the fair use doctrine are premised on the understanding that there are some uses of copyrighted material that are of such great benefit to the public that the benefit to the public outweighs the rights of the copyright holder.

 

[Critical_Sneeze]

If we take the case of back-up copying and apply to it the fair use analysis as set forth by Section 107, we find that back-up copying for purely personal and private purposes fails to pass the first step of the analysis because back-up copying for purely personal and private purposes cannot be for the purpose of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. If it isn't among the purposes listed by Section 107, then can't be a fair use. As such, there's no need to bother with the second step of the analysis (i.e., consideration of the four factors).

Proof enough for you?

Could you not just argue that it is for the purposes of criticism. Call yourself an online amateur game reviewer?
Sounds interesting though, although I'm not in the U.S. and I don't know how it varies in the U.K.

 

[JDKJ]

If we take the case of back-up copying and apply to it the fair use analysis as set forth by Section 107, we find that back-up copying for purely personal and private purposes fails to pass the first step of the analysis because back-up copying for purely personal and private purposes cannot be for the purpose of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. If it isn't among the purposes listed by Section 107, then can't be a fair use. As such, there's no need to bother with the second step of the analysis (i.e., consideration of the four factors).

Proof enough for you?

Could you not just argue that it is for the purposes of criticism. Call yourself an online amateur game reviewer?
Sounds interesting though, although I'm not in the U.S. and I don't know how it varies in the U.K.

You can always argue whatever you want. But if you don't want to get slapped with one of those fines for copyright infringement, I wouldn't try out the "amateur game reviewer" defense in a courtroom before a judge. Not a good idea, I think.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

If it isn't among the purposes listed by Section 107, then can't be a fair use. As such, there's no need to bother with the second step of the analysis (i.e., consideration of the four factors).

Could you not just argue that it is for the purposes of criticism. Call yourself an online amateur game reviewer?

No, because being an "online amateur game reviewer" doesn't require making a personal copy; you can review the game by playing it from the licensed media. You could use that to justify posting gameplay video, or quoting from the dialog, so long as the video/quote really is in support of a review.

-- Steve

 

[cream]

I have two 360's, one modded, one legit. My legit console is for the games that I want to play online, so call of duty, forza, battlefield. My modded console for the games I wouldn't dream of spending full price on. Yeah, yeah, yeah, piracy is bad. my modded console is banned, and I actually don't use it much anymore. I mainly use my ps3 now, but when I want to play online, I go to my xbox.

Looking back on it, I regret modding my xbox. Good for microsoft stepping up their security.

 

[EHKOS]

Minor software patch has totally defeated all forms of piracy forever. Reports are flooding in of every single pirate around the world committing suicide. Truly a momentous occasion that will be remembered for eternity as the day law triumphed over crime.

Don't we get a new article like this every fortnight?

Don't you people realise it's a technological arms race with no end?

Doesn't anyone realise that pirates aren't even worried because it's simply course of nature to them?

And NOTHING is unhackable, sure the boys in Ryans labs can make 'em hack-proof, that don't mean we won't hack 'em.

 

[JDKJ]

It's not legal to back up your discs. It says so right on the warranty that comes with the game. I don't have a game on me right now to write it here, but check the back of the instruction manual. It essentially says "Backing up your game isn't necessary so don't do it."

Isn't game copying for purposes of backup covered by fair use law? Also, see the other reply. If we really are only buying a license, then surely backup copies are necessary.

No, it isn't a fair use -- not under the U.S. copyright laws. There are exceptions to the general "no unauthorized copying" rule under the fair use doctrine, but those exceptions all involve a use that can benefit the public. If the use only has a private benefit, then it ain't a fair use.

Well, you are going to need to prove that making backups doesn't fall under fair use because I think you are incorrect. In fact, I think it is fine to make backups for PRIVATE use and not fine to make them for PUBLIC use (hence the FBI Warning about public broadcast) for media that you legally purchase. You'll notice that warnings in regards to backups always reads: "No unauthorized backups", not "No backups at all".

OK. Fine. It's a slow day at the office.

Title 17, Section 107, of the United States Code (commonly referred to as the Copyright Act) contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also lists four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use for one of the listed purposes is fair (which need not be listed for the purpose of this post). Therefore, the determination of whether a particular use is a fair use as allowed by Section 107 involves a two-step process: (1) first determine if the use falls into one of the listed purposes (which, it should be noted, all involve purposes that are of benefit to the general public and do not involve any purely private or personal purposes) and (2) then consider the four factors.

If we take the case of back-up copying and apply to it the fair use analysis as set forth by Section 107, we find that back-up copying for purely personal and private purposes fails to pass the first step of the analysis because back-up copying for purely personal and private purposes cannot be for the purpose of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. If it isn't among the purposes listed by Section 107, then can't be a fair use. As such, there's no need to bother with the second step of the analysis (i.e., consideration of the four factors).

Proof enough for you?

You should keep in mind that the exceptions carved out under the fair use doctrine are premised on the understanding that there are some uses of copyrighted material that are of such great benefit to the public that the benefit to the public outweighs the rights of the copyright holder.

Here ya go:

Can I backup my computer software?
Yes, under certain conditions as provided by section 117 of the Copyright Act. Although the precise term used under section 117 is ?archival? copy, not ?backup? copy, these terms today are used interchangeably. This privilege extends only to computer programs and not to other types of works.

Under section 117, you or someone you authorize may make a copy of an original computer program if:

* the new copy is being made for archival (i.e., backup) purposes only;
* you are the legal owner of the copy; and
* any copy made for archival purposes is either destroyed, or transferred with the original copy, once the original copy is sold, given away, or otherwise transferred.

You are not permitted under section 117 to make a backup copy of other material on a computer's hard drive, such as other copyrighted works that have been downloaded (e.g., music, films).

It is also important to check the terms of sale or license agreement of the original copy of software in case any special conditions have been put in place by the copyright owner that might affect your ability or right under section 117 to make a backup copy. There is no other provision in the Copyright Act that specifically authorizes the making of backup copies of works other than computer programs even if those works are distributed as digital copies.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html

It looks like making an archival backup is legal so long as the EULA doesn't forbid it BUT since EULA's are very shaky legal ground, even that may not make backups illegal.

I am done here for now, I hate Captcha.

I don't think "computer programs" as that term is used by Section 117 means video games. I think it only means those programs which are essential to the operation of the computer (e.g., the operating system). You'll notice that the information you yourself posted says "you are not permitted under section 117 to make a backup copy of other material on a computer's hard drive, such as other copyrighted works that have been downloaded (e.g., music, films)." I think a downloaded video game would fall into the same prohibited category as music and films.

 

[kokirisoldier]

Games are not that expensive. End of story.

 

[cream]

You may not think games are expensive, but when you have to pay $70 for a new title, or sometimes $80, then it gets a little pricey.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Minor software patch has totally defeated all forms of piracy forever. Reports are flooding in of every single pirate around the world committing suicide. Truly a momentous occasion that will be remembered for eternity as the day law triumphed over crime.

Don't we get a new article like this every fortnight?

Don't you people realise it's a technological arms race with no end?

Doesn't anyone realise that pirates aren't even worried because it's simply course of nature to them?

It may be another temporary fix that will have a workaround in a few days but at least it's progressing in the way piracy is addressed. As long as it doesn't affect the gamers who don't pirate then you can do whatever you want to the pirates.

Heck, even if it affected me in some way I'd probably back it. A couple minutes of my time for a few million dollars? Sure, go right ahead, make your changes. Just make sure to take your shoes off on your way in.

 

[Randomvirus]

Games are not that expensive. End of story.

I spent two years in China. I owned a modded Xbox I bought in a store. I bought "bootleg" games for it. Hundreds of them. Each one cost me .53 cents a pop.

Then I came back to the states. And new games cost me 113 times more to buy. And the money I was making in China and the money I was making in the states, the same.

"Expensive" depends on your point of view.

Before any of you rally and cry "zomgz pirates = bad!", try living in a different world. See things from the other side.

Also, backing up a game, should not be criminal. Playing on a backup, should not be criminal. Banning people for actually cheating, sure. Banning people for trying to take care of such a sensitive DVD game? Come on...

 

[Treblaine]

The company is so supposed to provide free or low cost replacement media, and I've never heard a company NOT providing replacement media assuming proof of purchase like a sales receipt or registration. Always hang on to that stuff, doesn't take up space and can save so much effort later on. Make a folder called "game receipts" and throw it next to your taxes folder. You'll still have that shit in 30 years, guaranteed.

If you lose your windows disc, you can call Microsoft and have a new one sent to you for just the cost of shipping. "Pirates" just make up excuses to get free stuff.

What!?!? You mean if I send a scratched disc to Microsoft they will send me a brand spanking new one!?!

If you do that, mail a scratched disc to them, I guarantee you will never get a replacement. You'll be lucky if you even get a response.

I mean such a service is ripe to exploitation, what would gamestop do with a service like this, they could take battered old trade in copies and get brand shiny new ones, far easier to hike the price up another $5-$10!

And a receipt, NO WAY would any company send a free replacement with just a receipt, how do they know you didn't just sell your copy!

 

[Motiv_]

Games are not that expensive. End of story.

Amen. Well, at least for Americans anyway.

Not to mention, unlike cars or food or cocaine, video games are not an essential part of life. You can live without them. It's like going to jail for stealing fucking candy bars.

Buy the games, guys. If you don't believe in trust, then rent them or borrow them from a friend or something. They usually have demos, too.

 

[Randomvirus]

Games are not that expensive. End of story.

Buy the games, guys. If you don't believe in trust, then rent them or borrow them from a friend or something. They usually have demos, too.

The demo for Force Unleashed 2 would have been no indication that you were paying $59.99 + tax for a game you'd finish in the same night you brought home.

 

[moosek]

I was kinda hoping microsoft would be like the British navy hang all the pirates caught stealing their software.

 

[JDKJ]

It's not legal to back up your discs. It says so right on the warranty that comes with the game. I don't have a game on me right now to write it here, but check the back of the instruction manual. It essentially says "Backing up your game isn't necessary so don't do it."

Isn't game copying for purposes of backup covered by fair use law? Also, see the other reply. If we really are only buying a license, then surely backup copies are necessary.

No, it isn't a fair use -- not under the U.S. copyright laws. There are exceptions to the general "no unauthorized copying" rule under the fair use doctrine, but those exceptions all involve a use that can benefit the public. If the use only has a private benefit, then it ain't a fair use.

Well, you are going to need to prove that making backups doesn't fall under fair use because I think you are incorrect. In fact, I think it is fine to make backups for PRIVATE use and not fine to make them for PUBLIC use (hence the FBI Warning about public broadcast) for media that you legally purchase. You'll notice that warnings in regards to backups always reads: "No unauthorized backups", not "No backups at all".

OK. Fine. It's a slow day at the office.

Title 17, Section 107, of the United States Code (commonly referred to as the Copyright Act) contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also lists four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use for one of the listed purposes is fair (which need not be listed for the purpose of this post). Therefore, the determination of whether a particular use is a fair use as allowed by Section 107 involves a two-step process: (1) first determine if the use falls into one of the listed purposes (which, it should be noted, all involve purposes that are of benefit to the general public and do not involve any purely private or personal purposes) and (2) then consider the four factors.

If we take the case of back-up copying and apply to it the fair use analysis as set forth by Section 107, we find that back-up copying for purely personal and private purposes fails to pass the first step of the analysis because back-up copying for purely personal and private purposes cannot be for the purpose of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. If it isn't among the purposes listed by Section 107, then can't be a fair use. As such, there's no need to bother with the second step of the analysis (i.e., consideration of the four factors).

Proof enough for you?

You should keep in mind that the exceptions carved out under the fair use doctrine are premised on the understanding that there are some uses of copyrighted material that are of such great benefit to the public that the benefit to the public outweighs the rights of the copyright holder.

Here ya go:

Can I backup my computer software?
Yes, under certain conditions as provided by section 117 of the Copyright Act. Although the precise term used under section 117 is ?archival? copy, not ?backup? copy, these terms today are used interchangeably. This privilege extends only to computer programs and not to other types of works.

Under section 117, you or someone you authorize may make a copy of an original computer program if:

* the new copy is being made for archival (i.e., backup) purposes only;
* you are the legal owner of the copy; and
* any copy made for archival purposes is either destroyed, or transferred with the original copy, once the original copy is sold, given away, or otherwise transferred.

You are not permitted under section 117 to make a backup copy of other material on a computer's hard drive, such as other copyrighted works that have been downloaded (e.g., music, films).

It is also important to check the terms of sale or license agreement of the original copy of software in case any special conditions have been put in place by the copyright owner that might affect your ability or right under section 117 to make a backup copy. There is no other provision in the Copyright Act that specifically authorizes the making of backup copies of works other than computer programs even if those works are distributed as digital copies.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html

It looks like making an archival backup is legal so long as the EULA doesn't forbid it BUT since EULA's are very shaky legal ground, even that may not make backups illegal.

I am done here for now, I hate Captcha.

I don't think "computer programs" as that term is used by Section 117 means video games. I think it only means those programs which are essential to the operation of the computer (e.g., the operating system). You'll notice that the information you yourself posted says "you are not permitted under section 117 to make a backup copy of other material on a computer's hard drive, such as other copyrighted works that have been downloaded (e.g., music, films)." I think a downloaded video game would fall into the same prohibited category as music and films.

I have to respond to this, Captcha or not.

Yes, Video games ARE computer programs.

No, there is nothing that says "Only computer programs essential to the operation of a computer". Ya know, there are no essential programs since every program can be replaced by a different program doing the same thing. Windows can be replaced by Linux, even your BIOS can be replaced by another BIOS written by another author.

We are talking about backup 360 games that are purchased on a disc. How would you run an XBOX Live Arcade title on a burnt disc anyway? Why would you need to since you can simply re-download the game if it got damaged. Not true for disc based games.

A feeble-minded cretin should know that video games are computer programs. I never said that they weren't. What I did say was that "computer programs" as that term is used by Section 117 is not intended to include computer programs that are not essential to the basic operation of the computer. Even the authority you yourself are relying on for the mistaken assertion that back-up copying of video games is permissible admits that non-essential copyrighted material which has been downloaded to the computer's hard drive (e.g., music and films) is not the sort of copyrighted material to which Section 117 is addressed. You don't see that? Why are you thinking that a video game is any different from music and films?

Perhaps you should read the actual text of Section 177 and not rely on an abbreviated version. It may then become clear to you that the law is intended to allow the archiving of "computer programs" essential to the operation of the computer.

Moreover, the same authority on which you rely clearly says that Section 177 does not actually authorizes any archival reproduction in conflict with the expressed rights of the copyright holder. In fact, it impliedly acknowledges that a copyright holder may have expressly forbid reproduction of their work (which is the case for 99.9% of all commercial video game titles), and that Section 177 cannot be relied upon as a basis to reproduce the copyrighted work under those circumstances.

If you're gonna rely on an authority to support your position, you need to find one that says the same thing as the position you're taking. And the authority you've posted here does no such thing.

 

[Motiv_]

Games are not that expensive. End of story.

Buy the games, guys. If you don't believe in trust, then rent them or borrow them from a friend or something. They usually have demos, too.

The demo for Force Unleashed 2 would have been no indication that you were paying $59.99 + tax for a game you'd finish in the same night you brought home.

Fair enough, but then there's rentals. There aren't many game rentals around here, but there's a few. Gamefly is a last resort option, but still one, kinda like a Netflix for gamers with longer return times.

 

[Treblaine]

Games are not that expensive. End of story.

Buy the games, guys. If you don't believe in trust, then rent them or borrow them from a friend or something. They usually have demos, too.

The demo for Force Unleashed 2 would have been no indication that you were paying $59.99 + tax for a game you'd finish in the same night you brought home.

What do Americans and Canadians pay for sales Tax? Wikipedia has a pretty cryptic article about it and it's not clear what is exempt.

Anyone know if you have to pay sales tax on games bought via Steam IN the USA?

I realise that in the UK games have to sell at £45 ($72) to equal the same amount as they sell for in USA, considering our 20% sales tax (actually a V.A.T) and the weak British pound. I remember when it was Two dollars to the pound, those were the days.

 

[JDKJ]

Games are not that expensive. End of story.

Buy the games, guys. If you don't believe in trust, then rent them or borrow them from a friend or something. They usually have demos, too.

The demo for Force Unleashed 2 would have been no indication that you were paying $59.99 + tax for a game you'd finish in the same night you brought home.

What do Americans and Canadians pay for sales Tax? Wikipedia has a pretty cryptic article about it and it's not clear what is exempt.

Anyone know if you have to pay sales tax on games bought via Steam IN the USA?

I realise that in the UK games have to sell at £45 ($72) to equal the same amount as they sell for in USA, considering our 20% sales tax (actually a V.A.T) and the weak British pound. I remember when it was Two dollars to the pound, those were the days.

Sales tax in the U.S. is set by the various 50 states (and can vary from city to city within a given State). It all depends on where you're standing when you make your purchase.