Xbox Update Confounds Console Pirates

[Tomo Stryker]

I can't stand Pirates. Seriously, its the lowest form of theft, hell you don't even have to jump through windows or be sneaky or active. All it takes is a handful of clicks, can't wait to be in the Tron universe and see pirating.

Captain Pirate Bay, "Have this here booty! Its all on me as long as I don't get caught!"

Microsoft's Security would have a hay day.

 

[DTWolfwood]

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.

Guess i wasn't clear enough, Im aware you need to update to use live, what i'm saying what kind of a dumbass pirate would willingly connect to live, knowing that at anytime they can be patched to hell? (or banned)

I mean this isnt the first time they've done this lol

Just had no idea you can actually play on live while using pirated copies of games. As a PC gamer, its just been ingrained that pirated games can't be played online lol

 

[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?

Well, it says this:

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).

So according to Section 117 you are not permitted to make a backup of something you downloaded. You do know that not all PC games are download only and not all console games are disc based?

Anyway, we are talking about backing up PHYSICAL media. I personally think you should be permitted to back up anything you buy, after all it is yours. That's what BUY means as opposed to RENT but that's just my opinion.

Just so I'm 100% clear, your opinion is that a video game which was downloaded to either a console or a PC cannot be archived under Section 117 but all other video games (i.e., all those that were not downloaded to either a console or a PC) can be archived under Section 117? Is that an accurate statement of your opinion? Sorry if I'm making you repeat yourself, but I really am not 100% clear.

 

[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?

Well, it says this:

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).

So according to Section 117 you are not permitted to make a backup of something you downloaded. You do know that not all PC games are download only and not all console games are disc based?

Anyway, we are talking about backing up PHYSICAL media. I personally think you should be permitted to back up anything you buy, after all it is yours. That's what BUY means as opposed to RENT but that's just my opinion.

Just so I'm 100% clear, your opinion is that a video game which was downloaded to either a console or a PC cannot be archived under Section 117 but all other video games (i.e., all those that were not downloaded to either a console or a PC) can be archived under Section 117? Is that an accurate statement of your opinion? Sorry if I'm making you repeat yourself, but I really am not 100% clear.

According to section 117 you are not permitted to make backups of downloaded computer programs (don't understand that logic) but you are permitted to do so for computer programs that are distributed by means of physical media.

Are you getting that from the website you linked (the one that discusses Section 117) or from the actual text of Section 117? And I ask because I'm reading Section 117 and I can't find where it says anything even remotely suggesting that distinction (it just says "computer program").

 

[VanityGirl]

Hold on. Microsoft, everyone's favorite villian, can do this, but Sony can't?

 

[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?

Well, it says this:

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).

So according to Section 117 you are not permitted to make a backup of something you downloaded. You do know that not all PC games are download only and not all console games are disc based?

Anyway, we are talking about backing up PHYSICAL media. I personally think you should be permitted to back up anything you buy, after all it is yours. That's what BUY means as opposed to RENT but that's just my opinion.

Just so I'm 100% clear, your opinion is that a video game which was downloaded to either a console or a PC cannot be archived under Section 117 but all other video games (i.e., all those that were not downloaded to either a console or a PC) can be archived under Section 117? Is that an accurate statement of your opinion? Sorry if I'm making you repeat yourself, but I really am not 100% clear.

According to section 117 you are not permitted to make backups of downloaded computer programs (don't understand that logic) but you are permitted to do so for computer programs that are distributed by means of physical media.

Are you getting that from the website you linked (the one that discusses Section 117) or from the actual text of Section 117? And I ask because I'm reading Section 117 and I can't find where it says anything even remotely suggesting that distinction (it just says "computer program").

WTF?

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 says it right here!

That's not found in the actual text of Section 117. Perhaps it's an opinion or conclusion or something-or-other that the website you linked is stating. But, without a doubt, I know that particular language is found nowhere in the actual text of Section 117. Just so you know.

In fact, because I suspect that you've never bothered to read the relevant parts of the actual text of Section 117, let me share that text with you here for your convenience and, perhaps, edification:

"§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. ? Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful."

Having read it, you may want to ask yourself the following questions:

Can someone claim to be the "owner" of a copy of a video game (regardless of format) given that 99.9% of video games are licensed and not sold outright? Are they an "owner" or a "licensee?" If they aren't an owner, can they rely on Section 117 to make a archival copy of a video game?

Is making an archival copy of a video game (regardless of format) "an essential step in the utilization of the computer program" as required by Section 117(a)(1)?

Where does Section 117 state (either expressly or impliedly) that, as you claim, you are not permitted to make backups of downloaded computer programs but you are permitted to do so for computer programs that are distributed by means of physical media? Where is that distinction drawn by Section 117?

Food for thought. Chew slowly before you swallow.