S.50A of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 gives me the right to back them up.

S.296ZB, which is what you are referring to, does not effect personal use or end-users.

I can and did, if you have a better analogy please share it with us.

No you haven't
You have paid to WATCH it, you didn't pay for the labour, you paid for the permission to watch it. The cost of watching it is a fixed price regardless of popularity of cost of production.

Would you take a video camera into a cinema? That is the same as the copying analogy as it's making another copy to continue the analogy

Well obviously you have no idea how much software costs INITIALLY to make. I would say it is a LOT more for a comparative product. Considering a team of 200+ can take over 3 years to release to bring out the cost can be well into the millions. Watches that retail for £40 don't cost that much to release the first unit


I'm arguing because I think it is wrong and people should not steal things that they do not own. As I said, if you have a better analogy you are welcome to present it for criticism

You appear to agree with stealing. Do you take a pocket scanner into Tescos to scan in the magazines so you don't have to buy them?

Enjoy backup up your blu rays then trying to play them on your PS3 then

Here, you can back up (and make a reasonable number of copies for friends - 10 is considered reasonable), but if the source media contains copy protection mechanisms, it is illegal to make a backup, if you have to circumvent the copy protection.

Chipped Xbox 360s liberated from lockout

http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/co ... out-650328

Cat and mouse FTW!

S.50A does say

"It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program to make any back up copy of it which it is necessary for him to have for the purposes of his lawful use.
For the purposes of this section and sections 50B, 50BA and 50C a person is a lawful user of a computer program if (whether under a licence to do any acts restricted by the copyright in the program or otherwise), he has a right to use the program.
Where an act is permitted under this section, it is irrelevant whether or not there exists any term or condition in an agreement which purports to prohibit or restrict the act (such terms being, by virtue of section 296A, void)."

However you also have to consider the European Copyright Directive, implemented as the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003, which can sometimes supercede the CDPA. According to the IPO website you are permitted to make a copy of a substantial portion of a copyrighted work, unless you have specific permission, for the following reasons

Non-commercial research and private study
Criticism, review and reporting current events
Teaching in educational establishments
Not for profit public playing of recorded music
Helping visually impaired people
Time shifting

There's no reference to security copies or backups in that list. The CRRR also prohibits removal of any form of copyright protection or DRM from a copyrighted work for any purpose. Given DVDs, BR's and PS3/Xbox 360 game disks all have copy protection in some form, you would within the terms of the CDPA but without the terms of the CRRR should you make a copy of any of those items.

The CDPA was written 20 years ago, before broadband and large capacity portable storage existed. Do you really think the rights holders would be happy for everyone to stick to the rules of that act in this day and age?

Jon

What are you on about? I said it costs nothing to make an extra copy and you say I have no idea how much it costs initially?

I mean WTF man?
How do you know what idea I have about something I didn't even talk about? I didn't say anything about INITIAL costs, I said EXTRA copy. Can you see the difference?


Well you appear to have problem with reading, interpreting text, verbal reasoning and logic in general.


Again, my mind boggles. But I am sure I said (or probably you think I said) something that provoked this random brain wave from you...

And please don't take it personally, I just don't understand how can anybody debate things the way you do. Peace.

I don't really give a stuff what the rights' holders think or want. Until S.50A is repealed, I have the legal right to back up my software and games.

It has been superceded. You can make backups to your hearts content, as long as it doesn't involve removing or disabling DRM or copy protection...

Actually the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (the UK implementation of the EU Copyright Directive) amended the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, it did not repeal it. Therefore any sections that were not amended or repealed still stand.

I'll point out again that S. 296ZB - the bit about circumventing copy protection - does not affect personal/end users.

Good luck with that if you ever get to court. It was at one point legal to shoot a scotsman from the walls of the city of york. if you did so today I doubt 'it used to be legal!' would be any better a defence.

It's fair to say none of us are lawyers. It's also fair to say that the people who drew up the ECD/CRRR are lawyers. I find it inconceivable that they would draw up (and that several layers of parliament would then pass) such a set of legislation that would arrive at the situation you describe.

And, as I said before, it's irrelevant to the original topic of the thread. This wasn't about backup or fair use, this was about someone not being arsed to pay for something and then bitching about it when they got caught out.

Jon

Sure, and Finlay suggested that to chip your console (ie. circumvent copy protection mechanisms) is a breach of Criminal Law, which it's not for home users - only those acting in the course of a business etc. Check out Section 296ZB, it's all there.

Not quite



Also most people who chip consoles are not home users, they are businesses, which is acting as a business (obviously) (If someone else chips it for you and you pay them....it's a service and therefore it's a business)

No retort to backing up your blu ray PS3 games? Oh wait, you can't back them up then use the backups, why don't you go take Sony to court for preventing you to copy their content

Finlay, calm down! Seriously mate, I know this sounds like I'm having a dig but whenever anyone says anything about the Xbox or any other MS product, you jump in and go barmy. Remember, it's only OL stuff. Look away from the screen, go make yourself a drink or something and take a chill pill. Don't get pissed off at just some seemingly random beeps down a cable dude, it's not healthy,.

My opinion on all this is: If you're stupid enough to download a game before it comes out, then play it on Xbox Live, you should be expected to be banned. I mean, I download games and I will admit to that, but at least I don't play them online, and 9 times out of 10 I will go on to buy the original game (we have 2 xbox 360s in the house. mine has hacked firmware, dad's doesn't) so my dad can play it. I don't play online with Xbox live at all

Just get on with it. You got banned from Xbox Live for not using your common sense. It serves you right. That doesn't give you the right to go whinging to BBC and that though.

Oh, btw. I almost forgot about that link that Ernie posted. It's one huge lie. It's apparently a "XBOX 360 UNLOCK DVD!1111!!" and it says it accesses the Xbox's EEPROM (onboard flash) and removes the XBL ban code from it. However, upon closer inspection on a 360 site I frequent, we found that it's simply a film knocked up in PowerDirector and burned to a DVD. And when it plays, stuff appears on the screen "saying" it's doing stuff, when it's really just a film playing in the background. There is currently no way to unban an Xbox from XBL, and I doubt there ever will be. It's probably logged on about 15 million different MS servers, and unless you have Autism (spot the reference ) you're not going to hack into their servers and get away with it.

I don't recall saying the PS3 was any better.

And yes people chipping consoles for personal gain is clearly against the law, but I don't recall saying it wasn't. I merely stated that home/end users are not subject to those provisions.