Xbox Update Confounds Console Pirates

[JDKJ]

Take a gander at the actual text of Section 117 as a whole. Apply your common sense to that reading. If you come away under the impression that when it makes reference to "computer programs" it intends to include video games within the meaning of that term, then I'll be more than willing to make reasoned arguments as to why it doesn't. But I suspect that you will not conclude that it does capture video games within its ambit.

But if video games aren't computer programs... then what are they?

Video games are computer programs. That doesn't meant that computer programs, as the term is used in Section 117, are video games. For example, the Constitution speaks of "citizens of the United States" and certain rights they enjoy. As that term is used by the Constitution in certain places, it means that that an undocumented alien, fresh over the U.S.-Mexico border, enjoys the right of due process, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, right to counsel, etc., etc. But an undocumented alien isn't what comes to most minds when the term "U.S. citizen" is used. I suspect that the exact opposite meaning comes to mind. I say all of this to say that what a particular term in a law means -- or doesn't mean -- is what the legislature intended it to mean and not necessarily its popular meaning.

To make the case more clear, the term "computer program" as used in Section 117 goes back to 1980. Was it possible in 1980 to commonly find personal computer-based commercial video games? I don't think so. Is it therefore likely that when the law was being drafted and the term was being used, that the drafters didn't intend for it to refer to an almost non-existent technology? I think so.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

I know in my last move I lost a box full of older PC games, including my original copy of Star Craft, so it's easy to lose the real copy you purchased, if game companies are going to pull the "you don't buy the game, you buy the licence" bullshit they've got to back it up with a way to recover lost media.

I know in my last move I lost a box full of older PC games

I lost a box

I lost

I

I'm not following your logic here. Whether you own the game or the license, you are responsible for it. I can't walk into a bookstore and say "I lost my book. You need to give me a new one."

Why do you think that because you lost something, it's on them to replace it?

Because they insist on games being a license. They've licenses the software to you and it costs just about nothing to redownload it. If you've brought the license and you can get it back with no cost to the company, what's wrong with downloading a new copy?

If you can redownload it legitimately, fine. My problem is this guy saying that companies HAVE to let you back it up in case you lose it. They don't have to do any such thing. And it seems that those that make these copies for piracy FAR exceed the number of people who back it up for legit reasons.

Actually, if it is a license, then they do have to provide you with a backup copy of the software at minimal cost. It's part of the law that covers licensing. Otherwise it falls under first sale. Which it does anyway since contracts agreed to after the fact are not valid. If you could return games for the purchase price from the manufacturer if you did not agree with the EULA than the EULA would be valid. You cannot.

Which games have no refund policy for lack of agreement? I have not personally seen one that does not.

 

[JDKJ]

I know in my last move I lost a box full of older PC games, including my original copy of Star Craft, so it's easy to lose the real copy you purchased, if game companies are going to pull the "you don't buy the game, you buy the licence" bullshit they've got to back it up with a way to recover lost media.

I know in my last move I lost a box full of older PC games

I lost a box

I lost

I

I'm not following your logic here. Whether you own the game or the license, you are responsible for it. I can't walk into a bookstore and say "I lost my book. You need to give me a new one."

Why do you think that because you lost something, it's on them to replace it?

Because they insist on games being a license. They've licenses the software to you and it costs just about nothing to redownload it. If you've brought the license and you can get it back with no cost to the company, what's wrong with downloading a new copy?

If you can redownload it legitimately, fine. My problem is this guy saying that companies HAVE to let you back it up in case you lose it. They don't have to do any such thing. And it seems that those that make these copies for piracy FAR exceed the number of people who back it up for legit reasons.

Actually, if it is a license, then they do have to provide you with a backup copy of the software at minimal cost. It's part of the law that covers licensing. Otherwise it falls under first sale. Which it does anyway since contracts agreed to after the fact are not valid. If you could return games for the purchase price from the manufacturer if you did not agree with the EULA than the EULA would be valid. You cannot.

Which games have no refund policy for lack of agreement? I have not personally seen one that does not.

If you ain't getting a straight-up refund, you're at least getting credit. Either way, the seller's taking that crap back and you're not out of pocket.

 

[JDKJ]

Take a gander at the actual text of Section 117 as a whole. Apply your common sense to that reading. If you come away under the impression that when it makes reference to "computer programs" it intends to include video games within the meaning of that term, then I'll be more than willing to make reasoned arguments as to why it doesn't. But I suspect that you will not conclude that it does capture video games within its ambit.

But if video games aren't computer programs... then what are they?

Video games are computer programs. That doesn't meant that computer programs, as the term is used in Section 117, are video games. For example, the Constitution speaks of "citizens of the United States" and certain rights they enjoy. As that term is used by the Constitution in certain places, it means that that an undocumented alien, fresh over the U.S.-Mexico border, enjoys the right of due process, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, right to counsel, etc., etc. But an undocumented alien isn't what comes to most minds when the term "U.S. citizen" is used. I suspect that the exact opposite meaning comes to mind. I say all of this to say that what a particular term in a law means -- or doesn't mean -- is what the legislature intended it to mean and not necessarily its popular meaning.

To make the case more clear, the term "computer program" as used in Section 117 goes back to 1980. Was it possible in 1980 to commonly find personal computer-based commercial video games? I don't think so. Is it therefore likely that when the law was being drafted and the term was being used, that the drafters didn't intend for it to refer to an almost non-existent technology? I think so.

Is it really your argument that there were no video games prior to 1980?

No. My argument is as I stated in writing. And which doesn't come anywhere close to saying that there were no video games prior to 1980. Perhaps you should read what I wrote. If you're even beginning to think that I'm arguing that there were no video games prior to 1980, then you couldn't have possibly read what I wrote -- at least, not carefully.

 

[Treblaine]

Take a gander at the actual text of Section 117 as a whole. Apply your common sense to that reading. If you come away under the impression that when it makes reference to "computer programs" it intends to include video games within the meaning of that term, then I'll be more than willing to make reasoned arguments as to why it doesn't. But I suspect that you will not conclude that it does capture video games within its ambit.

But if video games aren't computer programs... then what are they?

Video games are computer programs. That doesn't meant that computer programs, as the term is used in Section 117, are video games.

Of course "ALL computer programs aren't video games" just as "Rabbits are mammals" but "All Mammals are not rabbits". Just want to clear that up because of your odd choice of wording there.

For example, the Constitution speaks of "citizens of the United States" and certain rights they enjoy. As that term is used by the Constitution in certain places, it means that that an undocumented alien, fresh over the U.S.-Mexico border, enjoys the right of due process, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, right to counsel, etc., etc. But an undocumented alien isn't what comes to most minds when the term "U.S. citizen" is used. I suspect that the exact opposite meaning comes to mind. I say all of this to say that what a particular term in a law means -- or doesn't mean -- is what the legislature intended it to mean and not necessarily its popular meaning.

Don't mix up the Bill of Rights and the Constitution (which was a declaration of independence). Due process and all those laws are worded universally in the Bill of Rights:

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: ?No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.?

To make the case more clear, the term "computer program" as used in Section 117 goes back to 1980. Was it possible in 1980 to commonly find computer-based commercial video games? I don't think so. Is is therefore likely that when the law was being drafted and the term was being used, that the drafters didn't intend for it to refer to an almost non-existent technology? I think so.

Yes, computer games - even as computer programs - exited long before 1980.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_in_video_gaming

Apple II had been out for 3 years by 1980 and was home to some of the most important video games in video game history.

An anyway, you can't declare a law is no longer a law because circumstances change, you are second guessing the legislatures. Either way, the legislature knew that video games existed and knew that they were computer programs.

Come on. The internet wasn't around in 1789, does that mean the First Amendment doesn't apply to the Internet?

 

[Treblaine]

To make the case more clear, the term "computer program" as used in Section 117 goes back to 1980. Was it possible in 1980 to commonly find personal computer-based commercial video games? I don't think so. Is it therefore likely that when the law was being drafted and the term was being used, that the drafters didn't intend for it to refer to an almost non-existent technology? I think so.

Is it really your argument that there were no video games prior to 1980?

No. My argument is as I stated in writing. And which doesn't come anywhere close to saying that there were no video games prior to 1980. Perhaps you should read what I wrote. If you're even beginning to think that I'm arguing that there were no video games prior to 1980, then you couldn't have possibly read what I wrote -- at least, not carefully.

So you seem to be making the case that video games were "not possible to commonly find" and "Almost non-existent" which is almost as bad.

That's a specious argument based around popularity rather than actuality.

If the people who drafted this law were not aware of video games well then they damn well SHOULD have been aware. Realise, the films Tron and WarGames was made only a few years after this law, video games were not something "obscure and unknown" they are readily apparent to all levels of society, Especially technocrats drafting laws on computer programs.

It's like saying lawmakers in 1994 wouldn't be aware of the internet and didn't want it to apply to that!

 

[JDKJ]

Take a gander at the actual text of Section 117 as a whole. Apply your common sense to that reading. If you come away under the impression that when it makes reference to "computer programs" it intends to include video games within the meaning of that term, then I'll be more than willing to make reasoned arguments as to why it doesn't. But I suspect that you will not conclude that it does capture video games within its ambit.

But if video games aren't computer programs... then what are they?

Video games are computer programs. That doesn't meant that computer programs, as the term is used in Section 117, are video games.

Of course "ALL computer programs aren't video games" just as "Rabbits are mammals" but "All Mammals are not rabbits". Just want to clear that up because of your odd choice of wording there.

For example, the Constitution speaks of "citizens of the United States" and certain rights they enjoy. As that term is used by the Constitution in certain places, it means that that an undocumented alien, fresh over the U.S.-Mexico border, enjoys the right of due process, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, right to counsel, etc., etc. But an undocumented alien isn't what comes to most minds when the term "U.S. citizen" is used. I suspect that the exact opposite meaning comes to mind. I say all of this to say that what a particular term in a law means -- or doesn't mean -- is what the legislature intended it to mean and not necessarily its popular meaning.

Don't mix up the Bill of Rights and the Constitution (which was a declaration of independence). Due process and all those laws are worded universally in the Bill of Rights:

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: ?No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.?

To make the case more clear, the term "computer program" as used in Section 117 goes back to 1980. Was it possible in 1980 to commonly find computer-based commercial video games? I don't think so. Is is therefore likely that when the law was being drafted and the term was being used, that the drafters didn't intend for it to refer to an almost non-existent technology? I think so.

Yes, computer games - even as computer programs - exited long before 1980.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_in_video_gaming

Apple II had been out for 3 years by 1980 and was home to some of the most important video games in video game history.

An anyway, you can't declare a law is no longer a law because circumstances change, you are second guessing the legislatures. Either way, the legislature knew that video games existed and knew that they were computer programs.

Come on. The internet wasn't around in 1789, does that mean the First Amendment doesn't apply to the Internet?

Did you read your own wiki entry? It states that of 10 notable release in 1980, all but two are arcade releases. And of the two that aren't, only one of those is computer-based (for the Apple II). The other is a hand-held LCD game. In fact, in states that it was only in 1980 that the first domestic computers capable of playing games were released in the UK. This is your proof that personal computer-based video games could be so commonly found in 1980 that use of the term "computer program" would be commonly understood to include video games? You're kidding me, right?

 

[JDKJ]

To make the case more clear, the term "computer program" as used in Section 117 goes back to 1980. Was it possible in 1980 to commonly find personal computer-based commercial video games? I don't think so. Is it therefore likely that when the law was being drafted and the term was being used, that the drafters didn't intend for it to refer to an almost non-existent technology? I think so.

Is it really your argument that there were no video games prior to 1980?

No. My argument is as I stated in writing. And which doesn't come anywhere close to saying that there were no video games prior to 1980. Perhaps you should read what I wrote. If you're even beginning to think that I'm arguing that there were no video games prior to 1980, then you couldn't have possibly read what I wrote -- at least, not carefully.

So you seem to be making the case that video games were "not possible to commonly find" and "Almost non-existent" which is almost as bad.

That's a specious argument based around popularity rather than actuality.

If the people who drafted this law were not aware of video games well then they damn well SHOULD have been aware. Realise, the films Tron and WarGames was made only a few years after this law, video games were not something "obscure and unknown" they are readily apparent to all levels of society, Especially technocrats drafting laws on computer programs.

It's like saying lawmakers in 1994 wouldn't be aware of the internet and didn't want it to apply to that!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_in_video_gaming

I think the above may help you towards the understanding that in 1980, personal computer-based video games were about as common as snowfall in Florida.

You do understand that the salient operative term here is "personal computer-based" (if not, "computer program" as meaning video game is a non-starter). That Pac-Man was the rage in the arcades doesn't matter. No one's gonna think an arcade game is a "computer program" as the term is used in Section 117. Do you? Are you now gonna try to tell me that a Pac-Man arcade machine is a "computer" as that term is used in Section 117? You might as well. At least then your argument will be consistent.

 

[JDKJ]

As for games not being common, I point you to Oregon Trail, which was released to schools in 1974 and released commercially in '78.

One = common. OK. If you say so.

 

[JDKJ]

Seeing as the Atari 2600 released in 1977 I would say there were plenty of video games available by 1980. Yes, they were computer programs and even the cart said "Game Program" on it. The Atari 2600 itself was called the Video Computer System.

Before I die laughing, lemme just make sure I understand what you're trying to tell me.

Are you saying that when Section 117 uses the word "computer," we should understand that word to include an Atari 2600?

Please, don't stop there. You're on a roll. You might as well throw in a Texas Instruments TI-30 calculator while you're at it. Given your logic, that's a computer, too, as the word is used in Section 117.

 

[JDKJ]

Seeing as the Atari 2600 released in 1977 I would say there were plenty of video games available by 1980. Yes, they were computer programs and even the cart said "Game Program" on it. The Atari 2600 itself was called the Video Computer System.

Before I die laughing, lemme just make sure I understand what you're trying to tell me.

Are you saying that when Section 117 uses the word "computer," we should understand that word to include an Atari 2600?

Please, don't stop there. You're on a roll. You might as well throw in a Texas Instruments TI-30 calculator while you're at it. Given your logic, that's a computer, too, as the word is used in Section 117.

Wait, so now you're claiming that the Atari 2600 was NOT a computer? Was the NES? The SNES? The XBOX 360?

Are you playing dumb to fool the wise? Or simply not playing?

I'm saying that when Section 117 uses the word "computer," it doesn't mean to include an Atari 2600 as a computer. No more than when it uses the word "computer program," it means to include a video game. We're not having this discussion in the abstract. Section 117 is the context within which our discussion need occur. If not, then I'll agree with you 100% that an Atari 2600 is a computer. In the abstract, it certainly is. But in the context of Section 117, it certainly isn't. Not by any reasonable interpretation it is.

 

[JDKJ]

Seeing as the Atari 2600 released in 1977 I would say there were plenty of video games available by 1980. Yes, they were computer programs and even the cart said "Game Program" on it. The Atari 2600 itself was called the Video Computer System.

Before I die laughing, lemme just make sure I understand what you're trying to tell me.

Are you saying that when Section 117 uses the word "computer," we should understand that word to include an Atari 2600?

Please, don't stop there. You're on a roll. You might as well throw in a Texas Instruments TI-30 calculator while you're at it. Given your logic, that's a computer, too, as the word is used in Section 117.

Wait, so now you're claiming that the Atari 2600 was NOT a computer? Was the NES? The SNES? The XBOX 360?

Are you playing dumb to fool the wise? Or simply not playing?

I'm saying that when Section 117 uses the word "computer," it doesn't mean to include an Atari 2600 as a computer. No more than when it uses the word "computer program," it means to include a video game. We're not having this discussion in the abstract. Section 117 is the context within which our discussion need occur. If not, then I'll agree with 100% that an Atari 2600 is a computer. In the abstract, it certainly. But in the context of Section 117, it certainly isn't. Not by any reasonable interpretation it is.

Your argument that video games were not common before 1980 is wrong. The Atari 2600 is a perfect example of that.

You cannot know what the authors were thinking of when they defined "computer program" but it doesn't matter because unless they excluded computer games then it applies to all types of computer programs until such time as computer games is excluded.

Just like with the TV and Freedom of the Press. The argument that they could not have been talking about Freedom of the Press on TV is completely irrelevant. Would you have us rewriting laws everytime something new is invented?

It isn't an example of any personal computer-based video games. It's a console-based gaming system. Don't you understand that if were're not talking about personal computer-based video games, then were're not saying a thing that has anything to do with "computer program" as the term is used by Section 1117. You don't see that?! Stop and think about it for second. There's a connection there that I don't you're gettin'.

And I do know what's the Copyright Act's definition of "computer program." It's there for all to see in Section 101:

"A 'computer program' is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result."

 

[Treblaine]

Did you read your own wiki entry? It states that of 10 notable release in 1980, all but two are arcade releases. And of the two that aren't, only one of those is computer-based (for the Apple II). The other is a hand-held LCD game. In fact, in states that it was only in 1980 that the first domestic computers capable of playing games were released in the UK. This is your proof that personal computer-based video games could be so commonly found in 1980 that use of the term "computer program" would be commonly understood to include video games? You're kidding me, right?

Absence of evidence =/= Evidence of absence

I never said (nor does wikipedia imply) that that list was a comprehensive one, I used that list as an example of the evidence of video games, now you are demanding EVEN MORE evidence of video gaming in 1980. In fact in 1980 a video game is far more likely to be called a computer program than be called a video game!

You really think I am going to go to the effort of amassing sources and evidence of the popularity of video games in 1980 after all that I have already shown you? Especially when that is all utterly irrelevant, the law is not void by subtle change in technology, not without at least a court ruling. It's an utterly pointless effort, as pointless as proving the proliferation of the internet in the 90's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_in_video_gaming

I think the above may help you towards the understanding that in 1980 personal computer-based video games were about as common as snowfall in Florida.

You do understand that the salient operative term here is "personal computer-based" (if not, "computer program" as meaning video game is a non-starter). That Pac-Man was the rage in the arcades doesn't matter. No one's gonna think an arcade game is a "computer program" as the term is used in Section 117. Do you? Are you now gonna try to tell me that a Pac-Man arcade machine is a "computer" as that term is used in Section 117? You might as well. At least then your argument will be consistent.

Well why don't we look at the "definitions" section of the actual act itself:

"A 'computer program' is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result."

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117

"A computer is a device or machine for making calculations or controlling operations that are expressible in numerical or logical terms"

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Computer

And YES that does include everything from Pocket Calculators to Xbox 360.

You seem to be utterly depending on false perceptions and misunderstandings, mostly on your own part.

As for games not being common, I point you to Oregon Trail, which was released to schools in 1974 and released commercially in '78.

One = common. OK. If you say so.

Dude, I'd concede this whole issue. This is the time t gracefully admit that Section 117 applies to Video Games. You can disagree all you like but till an actual court rules one way or another I think we will file your concerns under "Non-Professional Opinion".

 

[Treblaine]

In the abstract, it certainly. But in the context of Section 117, it certainly isn't. Not by any reasonable interpretation it is.

When did you become a judge of a court that had wide jurisdiction? When did your interpretations become rulings?

You can SAY you are being reasonable, but when you are having to make the distinctions between abstract, actuality and context you are exercising more power than you really have.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

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.

LOL @ ur GoogleFail [http://support.xbox.com/en-gb/pages/xbox-360/troubleshoot/games/disc-replacement-program.aspx]. Xbox support has offered that service for over 3 years.

"This programme applies only to games published by Microsoft and is subject to availability."

Sounds to me like a rock solid cop out to me.

"LOL @ ur GoogleFail"

Don't be a jerk.

You called someone out on whether the service existed, and were pretty snotty about denying it did. Well, surprise, it does (however limited it may be) so the snottiness was off-base as well as inappropriate.

Don't want none, don't start none.

-- Steve

 

[cream]

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.

I live in Canada, and in the province of Ontario, our sales tax is 13%

In the States it varies not just from state to state but from city to city. Where I live sales tax is 9.25% but I can drive for 5 minutes either way and pay 7.35% or 10.75%. So when I have a big purchase I go to the 7.35% place otherwise I just stay in the spot I am. It might not sound like that's a lot, but when you figure that the median wage is $22,000 a year in the city I live in paying $60+9.25% sales tax is actually more for us than a place where the average wage is $50-75K a year.

Must be nice. I wish I could drive five minutes and have the sales tax drop. Also, JDKJ, That sounds like a bargain to me. I'll just drive 20+ hours to BC and buy a game there lol.

 

[JDKJ]

Did you read your own wiki entry? It states that of 10 notable release in 1980, all but two are arcade releases. And of the two that aren't, only one of those is computer-based (for the Apple II). The other is a hand-held LCD game. In fact, in states that it was only in 1980 that the first domestic computers capable of playing games were released in the UK. This is your proof that personal computer-based video games could be so commonly found in 1980 that use of the term "computer program" would be commonly understood to include video games? You're kidding me, right?

Absence of evidence =/= Evidence of absence

I never said (nor does wikipedia imply) that that list was a comprehensive one, I used that list as an example of the evidence of video games, now you are demanding EVEN MORE evidence of video gaming in 1980. In fact in 1980 a video game is far more likely to be called a computer program than be called a video game!

You really think I am going to go to the effort of amassing sources and evidence of the popularity of video games in 1980 after all that I have already shown you? Especially when that is all utterly irrelevant, the law is not void by subtle change in technology, not without at least a court ruling. It's an utterly pointless effort, as pointless as proving the proliferation of the internet in the 90's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_in_video_gaming

I think the above may help you towards the understanding that in 1980 personal computer-based video games were about as common as snowfall in Florida.

You do understand that the salient operative term here is "personal computer-based" (if not, "computer program" as meaning video game is a non-starter). That Pac-Man was the rage in the arcades doesn't matter. No one's gonna think an arcade game is a "computer program" as the term is used in Section 117. Do you? Are you now gonna try to tell me that a Pac-Man arcade machine is a "computer" as that term is used in Section 117? You might as well. At least then your argument will be consistent.

Well why don't we look at the "definitions" section of the actual act itself:

"A 'computer program' is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result."

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117

"A computer is a device or machine for making calculations or controlling operations that are expressible in numerical or logical terms"

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Computer

And YES that does include everything from Pocket Calculators to Xbox 360.

You seem to be utterly depending on false perceptions and misunderstandings, mostly on your own part.

As for games not being common, I point you to Oregon Trail, which was released to schools in 1974 and released commercially in '78.

One = common. OK. If you say so.

Dude, I'd concede this whole issue. This is the time t gracefully admit that Section 117 applies to Video Games. You can disagree all you like but till an actual court rules one way or another I think we will file your concerns under "Non-Professional Opinion".

If you pointed me to that wiki entry as your evidence of personal computer-based video games being common in 1980, then for me to call that insufficient evidence would be charitable. As far as I'm concerned, it evidences the exact opposite: that personal computer-based video games were far from common in 1980. I can only demand "more" evidence once you've presented "some" evidence and that wiki entry is "none."

And are you really going to take the position, given the purposes that Section 117 are intended to further, that when it makes use of the word "computer," it intends to capture pocket calculators and microwave ovens? C'mon, man. You strike me as being sharper than that. But if you're right and I'm wrong and I ever need to make an archival copy of my microwave's computer program, I'll confidently do so knowing that Section 117 authorizes me.

 

[Treblaine]

If you pointed me to that wiki entry as your evidence of personal computer-based video games being common in 1980, then for me to call that insufficient evidence would be charitable. As far as I'm concerned, it evidences the exact opposite: that personal computer-based video games were far from common in 1980. I can only demand "more" evidence once you've presented "some" evidence and that wiki entry is "none."

I don't really care if I don't convince you, especially as you are ignoring all the evidence I go to the hard work of pointing out to you. I reply to refute your claims, not to cure you of your ways.

I've made my case to the forum, I think that they are well enough convinced that video games were popular enough in 1980 that:
(1) technocrats drafting said laws would be aware of them, and
(2) that the laws they wrote would apply to them, and
(3) to the extent that the wording of the law itself covers video games.

If you don't like that... well then tough, you're going to have to accept it.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Take that pirates!

 

[JDKJ]

Seeing as the Atari 2600 released in 1977 I would say there were plenty of video games available by 1980. Yes, they were computer programs and even the cart said "Game Program" on it. The Atari 2600 itself was called the Video Computer System.

Before I die laughing, lemme just make sure I understand what you're trying to tell me.

Are you saying that when Section 117 uses the word "computer," we should understand that word to include an Atari 2600?

Please, don't stop there. You're on a roll. You might as well throw in a Texas Instruments TI-30 calculator while you're at it. Given your logic, that's a computer, too, as the word is used in Section 117.

Wait, so now you're claiming that the Atari 2600 was NOT a computer? Was the NES? The SNES? The XBOX 360?

Are you playing dumb to fool the wise? Or simply not playing?

I'm saying that when Section 117 uses the word "computer," it doesn't mean to include an Atari 2600 as a computer. No more than when it uses the word "computer program," it means to include a video game. We're not having this discussion in the abstract. Section 117 is the context within which our discussion need occur. If not, then I'll agree with 100% that an Atari 2600 is a computer. In the abstract, it certainly. But in the context of Section 117, it certainly isn't. Not by any reasonable interpretation it is.

Your argument that video games were not common before 1980 is wrong. The Atari 2600 is a perfect example of that.

You cannot know what the authors were thinking of when they defined "computer program" but it doesn't matter because unless they excluded computer games then it applies to all types of computer programs until such time as computer games is excluded.

Just like with the TV and Freedom of the Press. The argument that they could not have been talking about Freedom of the Press on TV is completely irrelevant. Would you have us rewriting laws everytime something new is invented?

It isn't an example of any personal computer-based video games. It's a console-based gaming system. Don't you understand that if were're not talking about personal computer-based video games, then were're not saying a thing that has anything to do with "computer program" as the term is used by Section 1117. You don't see that?! Stop and think about it for second. There's a connection there that I don't you're gettin'.

And I do know what's the Copyright Act's definition of "computer program." It's there for all to see in Section 101:

"A 'computer program' is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result."

Sigh....I give up. A video game is NOT a computer program, it is in fact a Ham Sandwich and therefore cannot be legally backed up!

You just insist on avoiding that whole Section 117 part, don't you? I said a million posts ago and million times over that a video game is technically a computer program. But that commonly understood meaning isn't what's at issue here. The issue here is whether "computer program" as used by Section 117 also means video game. The two meanings aren't necessarily the same.