Xbox Update Confounds Console Pirates

[JDKJ]

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.

Why am I going to have to accept it? Indeed, I do no such thing. Matter of fact, I reject it about as forcefully as rejection can be made.

 

[Treblaine]

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.

Of course it covers video games. And if it isn't that is for a Legal Court to say otherwise.

Why am I going to have to accept it? Indeed, I do no such thing. Matter of fact, I reject it about as forcefully as rejection can be made.

I really don't care, you've given no good reason why anyone else should follow your opinion. Just conjecture.

 

[JDKJ]

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.

Of course it covers video games. And if it isn't that is for a Legal Court to say otherwise.

Why am I going to have to accept it? Indeed, I do no such thing. Matter of fact, I reject it about as forcefully as rejection can be made.

I really don't care, you've given no good reason why anyone else should follow your opinion. Just conjecture.

Given your logic, that it does cover video games is also something for a court to say. That you may say it does gets you exactly as far as my saying it doesn't gets me.

And why are you speaking for anyone other than yourself? That you may not agree with my opinion is fine and dandy. But it doesn't necessarily follow that your position is one universally accepted. One red-breasted robin doesn't necessarily mean that Spring has finally arrived.

 

[Danpascooch]

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?

Of course we get it, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't patch up a rough spot in security when they can do it without effecting regular users.

Nobody is claiming this is foolproof, because of course, it's not.

 

[Danpascooch]

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".

Huh....Nice post. I agree

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

wait, modded xbox can still be used online?! y would pirates update their xbox?

If you don't update you can't sign into Xbox Live.

 

[Treblaine]

wait, modded xbox can still be used online?! y would pirates update their xbox?

If you don't update you can't sign into Xbox Live.

So what they do is they don't update with official firmware, they wait for custom firmware that looks identical to MS servers but lets them run pirated games.

Also some pirated games on disc can be played in any machine via certain soft exploits.

 

[tkioz]

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?

Don't be obtuse, book publishers aren't bitching loudly about used book stores are they? no, but game publishers are bitching loudly at used game stores, it's either a product whose ownership can be transferred or a licence, they can't have it both ways. If it's a product they need to STFU about used game sales, if it's a non-transferable licence the media it comes on mean jackshit, the person who purchased it is entitled to their licence.

 

[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?

Don't be obtuse, book publishers aren't bitching loudly about used book stores are they? no, but game publishers are bitching loudly at used game stores, it's either a product whose ownership can be transferred or a licence, they can't have it both ways. If it's a product they need to STFU about used game sales, if it's a non-transferable licence the media it comes on mean jackshit, the person who purchased it is entitled to their licence.

If you lose the media, you haven't lost your license. The license is still in effect.

Let's assume you misplace your media today and, despite searching high and low, you can't find it. Then, two years later, while searching for your dress shoes, you come across your media under your bed. Do you then have to do anything to re-establish your license before you can once again enjoy the subject of your license contained in your media? I don't think you do (at least not under the typical terms of a license). Just stick your media in its media player, crank that bad boy up, and off you go.

If you do lose your media and never find it again, that's on you. You've still got your license. It's the media you don't have. And it ain't the licensor's fault that you lost your media. Why should they replace it at no cost to them? That you can't take advantage of your license because you lost your media ain't the licensor's fault.

 

[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?

Don't be obtuse, book publishers aren't bitching loudly about used book stores are they? no, but game publishers are bitching loudly at used game stores, it's either a product whose ownership can be transferred or a licence, they can't have it both ways. If it's a product they need to STFU about used game sales, if it's a non-transferable licence the media it comes on mean jackshit, the person who purchased it is entitled to their licence.

As far as I've heard, used games still work fine with the new update, because they are still official copies of the game. What I've been talking about is backups from somewhere other than the source. I don't know, because the used games that get played on the XBox we have connected to XBox Live are a little older (the Lego games).

So we don't seem to be on the same page at all.

 

[tkioz]

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?

Don't be obtuse, book publishers aren't bitching loudly about used book stores are they? no, but game publishers are bitching loudly at used game stores, it's either a product whose ownership can be transferred or a licence, they can't have it both ways. If it's a product they need to STFU about used game sales, if it's a non-transferable licence the media it comes on mean jackshit, the person who purchased it is entitled to their licence.

As far as I've heard, used games still work fine with the new update, because they are still official copies of the game. What I've been talking about is backups from somewhere other than the source. I don't know, because the used games that get played on the XBox we have connected to XBox Live are a little older (the Lego games).

So we don't seem to be on the same page at all.

If the publishers could work out a way to prevent used games from being played, without pulling PR Suicide, they'd do it in a heart beat.

My point is that either you've purchased a product or a non-transferable licence, if it's a product you're free to resell it, if it's a licence like they keep claiming, you're not.

However if it is a licence they need to recognise they had responsibilities that come with selling a licence, such as the ability to replace the media (because the media is a non-factor), it's not just a free gravy train for them.

Other software licences work that way, it just seems like games publishers want everything their way and fuck the consumer. Well sorry but that's not how it works, you keep screwing people over and they'll simply stop buying from you.

 

[tkioz]

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?

Don't be obtuse, book publishers aren't bitching loudly about used book stores are they? no, but game publishers are bitching loudly at used game stores, it's either a product whose ownership can be transferred or a licence, they can't have it both ways. If it's a product they need to STFU about used game sales, if it's a non-transferable licence the media it comes on mean jackshit, the person who purchased it is entitled to their licence.

If you lose the media, you haven't lost your license. The license is still in effect.

Let's assume you misplace your media today and, despite searching high and low, you can't find it. Then, two years later, while searching for your dress shoes, you come across your media under your bed. Do you then have to do anything to re-establish your license before you can once again enjoy the subject of your license contained in your media? I don't think you do (at least not under the typical terms of a license). Just stick your media in its media player, crank that bad boy up, and off you go.

If you do lose your media and never find it again, that's on you. You've still got your license. It's the media you don't have. And it ain't the licensor's fault that you lost your media. Why should they replace it at no cost to them? That you can't take advantage of your license because you lost your media ain't the licensor's fault.

As I said above, they can't have it both ways, it's either a product (i.e the media) in which case you're free to do whatever the hell you want with it, or it's a licence in which case the media is the last important part of the product, and you should be free to back up the media in order to keep using the licence, and if you can't back it up because of something they did (you don't need back ups they claim) they need to provide an alternative means to regain the media.

As I said before, that's why I like services like Steam, because I purchased a game, and if in 5 years I want to play Port Royale 2 again I don't need to look for the disc, just hit install again.

 

[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?

Don't be obtuse, book publishers aren't bitching loudly about used book stores are they? no, but game publishers are bitching loudly at used game stores, it's either a product whose ownership can be transferred or a licence, they can't have it both ways. If it's a product they need to STFU about used game sales, if it's a non-transferable licence the media it comes on mean jackshit, the person who purchased it is entitled to their licence.

If you lose the media, you haven't lost your license. The license is still in effect.

Let's assume you misplace your media today and, despite searching high and low, you can't find it. Then, two years later, while searching for your dress shoes, you come across your media under your bed. Do you then have to do anything to re-establish your license before you can once again enjoy the subject of your license contained in your media? I don't think you do (at least not under the typical terms of a license). Just stick your media in its media player, crank that bad boy up, and off you go.

If you do lose your media and never find it again, that's on you. You've still got your license. It's the media you don't have. And it ain't the licensor's fault that you lost your media. Why should they replace it at no cost to them? That you can't take advantage of your license because you lost your media ain't the licensor's fault.

As I said above, they can't have it both ways, it's either a product (i.e the media) in which case you're free to do whatever the hell you want with it, or it's a licence in which case the media is the last important part of the product, and you should be free to back up the media in order to keep using the licence, and if you can't back it up because of something they did (you don't need back ups they claim) they need to provide an alternative means to regain the media.

As I said before, that's why I like services like Steam, because I purchased a game, and if in 5 years I want to play Port Royale 2 again I don't need to look for the disc, just hit install again.

I'm not seeing where there's anything "they" did. They, as many copyright holders and licensors do, imposed a license term that no copying of the media is to occur and you agreed to that term. You then lost the media (knowing that you had no back-up). Why is it on them to replace the media you lost? Are you saying that the fact of you not having a back-up is their fault? That's not their "fault." That's just a result of the license terms to which you agreed. You assumed the risk of being without a replacement if you lost your media. They didn't assume the risk of replacing lost media. If anyone's at "fault," you're at fault for losing your media.

The analogy to buying a book isn't inappropriate. Go to Barnes & Noble and buy a book. Under U.S. copyright law, you can't make a photocopy of that book just in case you lose it. And you can't go back to Barnes & Noble and insist that they give you another copy of the book you lost. They ain't hearing that bullshit. The risk of losing your book and being left without a free replacement is all yours to bear.

 

[tkioz]

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?

Don't be obtuse, book publishers aren't bitching loudly about used book stores are they? no, but game publishers are bitching loudly at used game stores, it's either a product whose ownership can be transferred or a licence, they can't have it both ways. If it's a product they need to STFU about used game sales, if it's a non-transferable licence the media it comes on mean jackshit, the person who purchased it is entitled to their licence.

If you lose the media, you haven't lost your license. The license is still in effect.

Let's assume you misplace your media today and, despite searching high and low, you can't find it. Then, two years later, while searching for your dress shoes, you come across your media under your bed. Do you then have to do anything to re-establish your license before you can once again enjoy the subject of your license contained in your media? I don't think you do (at least not under the typical terms of a license). Just stick your media in its media player, crank that bad boy up, and off you go.

If you do lose your media and never find it again, that's on you. You've still got your license. It's the media you don't have. And it ain't the licensor's fault that you lost your media. Why should they replace it at no cost to them? That you can't take advantage of your license because you lost your media ain't the licensor's fault.

As I said above, they can't have it both ways, it's either a product (i.e the media) in which case you're free to do whatever the hell you want with it, or it's a licence in which case the media is the last important part of the product, and you should be free to back up the media in order to keep using the licence, and if you can't back it up because of something they did (you don't need back ups they claim) they need to provide an alternative means to regain the media.

As I said before, that's why I like services like Steam, because I purchased a game, and if in 5 years I want to play Port Royale 2 again I don't need to look for the disc, just hit install again.

I'm not seeing where there's anything "they" did. They, as many copyright holders and licensors do, imposed a license term that no copying of the media is to occur and you agreed to that term. You then lost the media (knowing that you had no back-up). Why is it on them to replace the media you lost? Are you saying that the fact of you not having a back-up is their fault? That's not their "fault." That's just a result of the license terms to which you agreed. You assumed the risk of being without a replacement if you lost your media. They didn't assume the risk of replacing lost media. If anyone's at "fault," you're at fault for losing your media.

The analogy to buying a book isn't inappropriate. Go to Barnes & Noble and buy a book. Under U.S. copyright law, you can't make a photocopy of that book just in case you lose it. And you can't go back to Barnes & Noble and insist that they give you another copy of the book you lost. They ain't hearing that bullshit. The risk of losing your book and being left without a free replacement is all yours to bear.

Books are products, not licences, game publishers are trying to claim the opposite. Book publishers are well use to dealing with used book stores, they might not like it but they accept it as part of life, they don't get anything from the resale, game publishers scream bloody murder about used game sellers.

As for not having a backup, it depends on the country you are in, but you are entitled to make backups of software, the problem is no-one bothers enforcing that on publishers who make it a nightmare to exercise that right. If you've ever read the back of some console manuals you see the little print that you "don't need a backup, so you can't make one", despite the fact you're entitled too.

Game publishers are trying to have their cake and eat it too by cheery picking the best parts of products (one copy) and licences (no backups, no resale) without giving anything to the consumer to compensate them, and do not bring up the games themselves, that's irrelevant.

 

[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?

Don't be obtuse, book publishers aren't bitching loudly about used book stores are they? no, but game publishers are bitching loudly at used game stores, it's either a product whose ownership can be transferred or a licence, they can't have it both ways. If it's a product they need to STFU about used game sales, if it's a non-transferable licence the media it comes on mean jackshit, the person who purchased it is entitled to their licence.

If you lose the media, you haven't lost your license. The license is still in effect.

Let's assume you misplace your media today and, despite searching high and low, you can't find it. Then, two years later, while searching for your dress shoes, you come across your media under your bed. Do you then have to do anything to re-establish your license before you can once again enjoy the subject of your license contained in your media? I don't think you do (at least not under the typical terms of a license). Just stick your media in its media player, crank that bad boy up, and off you go.

If you do lose your media and never find it again, that's on you. You've still got your license. It's the media you don't have. And it ain't the licensor's fault that you lost your media. Why should they replace it at no cost to them? That you can't take advantage of your license because you lost your media ain't the licensor's fault.

As I said above, they can't have it both ways, it's either a product (i.e the media) in which case you're free to do whatever the hell you want with it, or it's a licence in which case the media is the last important part of the product, and you should be free to back up the media in order to keep using the licence, and if you can't back it up because of something they did (you don't need back ups they claim) they need to provide an alternative means to regain the media.

As I said before, that's why I like services like Steam, because I purchased a game, and if in 5 years I want to play Port Royale 2 again I don't need to look for the disc, just hit install again.

I'm not seeing where there's anything "they" did. They, as many copyright holders and licensors do, imposed a license term that no copying of the media is to occur and you agreed to that term. You then lost the media (knowing that you had no back-up). Why is it on them to replace the media you lost? Are you saying that the fact of you not having a back-up is their fault? That's not their "fault." That's just a result of the license terms to which you agreed. You assumed the risk of being without a replacement if you lost your media. They didn't assume the risk of replacing lost media. If anyone's at "fault," you're at fault for losing your media.

The analogy to buying a book isn't inappropriate. Go to Barnes & Noble and buy a book. Under U.S. copyright law, you can't make a photocopy of that book just in case you lose it. And you can't go back to Barnes & Noble and insist that they give you another copy of the book you lost. They ain't hearing that bullshit. The risk of losing your book and being left without a free replacement is all yours to bear.

Books are products, not licences, game publishers are trying to claim the opposite. Book publishers are well use to dealing with used book stores, they might not like it but they accept it as part of life, they don't get anything from the resale, game publishers scream bloody murder about used game sellers.

As for not having a backup, it depends on the country you are in, but you are entitled to make backups of software, the problem is no-one bothers enforcing that on publishers who make it a nightmare to exercise that right. If you've ever read the back of some console manuals you see the little print that you "don't need a backup, so you can't make one", despite the fact you're entitled too.

Game publishers are trying to have their cake and eat it too by cheery picking the best parts of products (one copy) and licences (no backups, no resale) without giving anything to the consumer to compensate them, and do not bring up the games themselves, that's irrelevant.

Comparing used book sales against used game sales is asinine. Used games are eating huge chunks of their money (omg, a company wants to make money off their product, like OMG how DARE they!). Used books are a much smaller percentage of the market, except for textbooks, which is why publishers crank out new editions every couple years so students are forced to buy new again.

If you want to go QQ about how totally unfair the game companies are, go start your own thread about it. This article has nothing to do with used games. You could try to say that "like, omg, this is the future for used games too!", but that's actually highly unlikely. Yes, used games are a problem for a lot of game companies, but to be honest, they only care about games that come out within the last year or two. Pretty much once it hits "Game of the Year" edition, they know they have made all the money they are going to off that game. After that point, used games are a benefit because it gets people interested in their brand.

Also, they don't care so much about you selling an old game to your friend Joe. They care about companies like GameStop that rake in money hand-over-fist by undercutting the new price by $5. That's what hurting them. If it was all friend-to-friend, or even on Amazon and Ebay, it would not be the blow that it currently is.

This article is about stopping piracy, which causes problems for real gamers. They keep costs high, push companies to adopt ridiculous DRMs, and just generally makes life suck as a gamer. Why don't we try to stay on topic?

 

[bultuit84]

anyone elses mw2 refuse to work after this update? mine says unrecognized disk despite it working fine on another console. its completely legit

 

[silver wolf009]

I dont know why, but I think that the update killed my LIVE. Yesterday I started 1 game of grifball, everyone left and I couldn't connect to LIVE. Can anyone help?

OT: As long as its against pirates, I approve.

 

[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?

Outta pure curiosity, lemme ask you this:

Does Section 117, in your opinion, authorize you to make archival copies of both a PC-based video game you've downloaded to your computer and a console-based hard-disc video game? Or just one of those two formats? And if it's just one of the two formats, which one?

 

[runedeadthA]

what a tragedy. they'll have to wait a couple more days to play their games now. The audacity!

Fixed ^. Things like this aren't that much of a problem. stick enough people on a problem and it goes away, and these pirates know what the hell their doing.

On related news i found a hacked copy of CoD WaW in my shared documents the other day. A interesting find, I have no idea what it was doing there, but I had to delete it anyway, Harddrive needs room badly! + I have black ops legit, which is good enough.