I think I'm being sued...

You're welcome to make a backup, but you cannot circumvent the copy protection to do so.

Basically, you can't.
 
EVH said:
You're welcome to make a backup, but you cannot circumvent the copy protection to do so.

Basically, you can't.
Click to expand...

I aint no expert, but... Isnt the actual "copy protection" part of the .exe itself where it looks for disc watermarks and other hardware settings etc?

Ripping the disc itself isnt breaking the copy protection, unless you hack the .exe.

Same goes with "ripping" a DVD without taking off the CSS. If you rip it WITH CSS intact, no law has been broken (duno if the personal use thing has come in yet), but it is the stripping of the CSS that is the illegal part.
 
i would just buy the original in cash from game second hand or something. throw away the reciept. that way nothing they can do to prove where its come from etc and that you didnt own it at the time :P

you are legally allowed one copy of a game by law anyway so their tough break!
 
"Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time"

I have the same viewpoint when it comes to drugs, people take full responsibility when they decide to do something illegal, and if they aren't prepared to face the consequences if they get caught, then they shouldn't do it in the first place.

Takes risks if you want, but don't cry about it if it doesn't go your way. (this is not specifically aimed at the OP)
 
Burnsy2023 said:
You've just hit the limit of my knowledge, care to explain?

Burnsy
Click to expand...

Promusicae was a case about transfer of confidential data from ISPs to groups such as the IFPI/RIAA etc. It's important in this particular instance though because the ECJm made a more general comment that 'a fair balance [must] be struck between the various fundamental rights protected by the Community'. In this instance it would be easily arguable that stopping a backup copy, in cases where TPM/DRM technology is used, is taking away a fundamental right under Protocol 1 ECHR (right to property specifically). It would, IMHO, thus be very simple to say that this was prime area for S50A to be creating a caveat in s296ZA. Promusicae was only decided at the end of January so people are still discussing this so it's not completely clear, but certainly that's my take on it.

Perhaps more important than this is the prevailing wind amongst both academics and judges that TPMs have been given far far to much protection than they should have been given. Indeed I was at an event only yesterday where Rob Hamadi, head of e-crime at the Publishers Association (basically the RIAA for books) and he was ripping in to DRM. Even John Kennedy (CEO of IFPI) all but said that over the next year + they're moving away from suing people and putting most their eggs into the decidedly un-watertight basket of ISPs monitoring users (presuming the consultation comes back in October(ish) with agreement of a move towards that).

The Gowers review asked for the frankly ridiculous alteration that it be made easier to contact the Patent Office in cases where consumers feel DRM is stopping them using any other rights. Whilst any system based around the average consumer contacting the Patent Office every time they want to break DRM is unworkable at least it showed again that the prevailing wind is against TPMs.

DRM really shouldn't have ended up in the CDPA - just like the Database directive really shouldn't even exist. Adrian Brazier seems at least hopeful, however, that the EU might start getting its house in order - certainly he kept talking about them moving towards a more evidence based legislation approach (which in both the cases of DRM and Databases, they went against).
 
Last edited:
People that do house sharing and the person that pays the bills could get into big trouble with this download tracking thing. Can you just imagine some peoples lives are destroyed financialy for the rest of their lives just cos someone downloaded some illegal stuff without their knowledge?
 
Thankfully, not as yet... although I don't wanna jinx it!! :-D

Nah it seems like it was an idle threat, but the fact that some people really will take the bait is very worrysome. The sad thing is that no 'law-abiding' government would ever side with the 'Pirates', even to protect them from wrongful entrapment and extortion, simply because they wouldn't want to be seen as advocating copyright infringement...

If I ever get a big man at my door threatening to break my fingers, I'll let you guys know! (once I learn to type with my tongue, obviously...)
 
thing is guys you can play games and sell them afterwards there is really no need to waste time (getting all sorts of viruses etc) downloading when you can buy play and sell for next to nothing.

Or even swap games with other friends/gamers in your area.

I know a few people don't condone this either but there must be a legal loop hole otherwise popular high street stores wouldn't be able to sell them.

Apart from that they won't do anything about it. However, I like their scam and wish I'd thought of it.

Still wonder how they get their info without flooding the P2P market with fake stuff then monitoring leechers?
 
jas72 said:
thing is guys you can play games and sell them afterwards there is really no need to waste time (getting all sorts of viruses etc) downloading when you can buy play and sell for next to nothing.
Click to expand...

"viruses etc"? :rolleyes:

you're just like the knockoff nigel ads, with their "Fake DVDs fund terrorism and have really dodgy picture quality etc." bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom