3 ms·

https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html "Under section 117, you or someone you authorize may mak

https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html "Under section 117, you or someone you authorize may make a copy of an original computer program if: the new copy is being made for archival (i.e., backup) purposes only; you are the legal owner of the copy; and any copy made for archival purposes is either destroyed, or transferred with the original copy, once the original copy is sold, given away, or otherwise transferred." Someone can do it for you. Also, this doesn't even have anything to do with copyright since it is actually like your friend letting you play a copy of his nintendo with a copy of his game. Totally different paradigm.

hcs 9y ago
IANAL, but: Someone else can do it with the legitimate copy you own, e.g. I take my cartridge to the copy shop and the tech copies it to a floppy for me. The fact that someone online could send me exactly the same data is irrelevant. Legally I'm pretty sure that lending a physical copy and making a digital copy are incomparable. And to be sure, a copy is made when the server sends you the ROM.
- micahbright 9y ago
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 "(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." Where does it say that the copy must come from your original? If two people own the program, one may make a copy of his/her original for the other because the others original may have been destroyed. Remember, this law was written in the days of cds, records, etc. It is clear that you can lend an original copy but not an archival copy. If you lend the original copy, you physically cannot be using it(needless to say, you cannot legally use your archival copy while you are lending you original copy).
  - wazanator 9y ago
    >one may make a copy of his/her original for the other because the others original may have been destroyed But then how would you prove you owned the original in the first place? I could claim to have at one point owned every Sega Genesis game but unfortunately set the box down while moving and ran it over with a truck while backing out the driveway. I of course did not keep this box of now shattered carts and I also bought it with cash from a man on Craigslist so there really isn't a paper trail. Is there a court case within the last 10 years we can reference that dealt with this kind of situation of once owning the original but it ended up destroyed?
    - micahbright 9y ago
      > But then how would you prove you owned the original in the first place? Are we arguing about how it ought to work now? I'm just telling you how it does work. Burden of proof is on the plaintiff, so no one has to prove that they owned a copy of anything unless for some reason the burden of proof changes at trial. You could make the claim in your example and get away with it. That's why few of these cases are substantiated.

hcs 9y ago

IANAL, but: Someone else can do it with the legitimate copy you own, e.g. I take my cartridge to the copy shop and the tech copies it to a floppy for me. The fact that someone online could send me exactly the same data is irrelevant. Legally I'm pretty sure that lending a physical copy and making a digital copy are incomparable. And to be sure, a copy is made when the server sends you the ROM.

micahbright 9y ago
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 "(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." Where does it say that the copy must come from your original? If two people own the program, one may make a copy of his/her original for the other because the others original may have been destroyed. Remember, this law was written in the days of cds, records, etc. It is clear that you can lend an original copy but not an archival copy. If you lend the original copy, you physically cannot be using it(needless to say, you cannot legally use your archival copy while you are lending you original copy).
- wazanator 9y ago
  >one may make a copy of his/her original for the other because the others original may have been destroyed But then how would you prove you owned the original in the first place? I could claim to have at one point owned every Sega Genesis game but unfortunately set the box down while moving and ran it over with a truck while backing out the driveway. I of course did not keep this box of now shattered carts and I also bought it with cash from a man on Craigslist so there really isn't a paper trail. Is there a court case within the last 10 years we can reference that dealt with this kind of situation of once owning the original but it ended up destroyed?
  - micahbright 9y ago
    > But then how would you prove you owned the original in the first place? Are we arguing about how it ought to work now? I'm just telling you how it does work. Burden of proof is on the plaintiff, so no one has to prove that they owned a copy of anything unless for some reason the burden of proof changes at trial. You could make the claim in your example and get away with it. That's why few of these cases are substantiated.