3 ms·

If pre-existing copyright law is to be considered, then we are entitled to make an archival copy of a work to serve as a backup. What's the point of allowing fo

If pre-existing copyright law is to be considered, then we are entitled to make an archival copy of a work to serve as a backup. What's the point of allowing for an archival copy if that law also doesn't imply that you should be allowed to use said archival copy in the event that the original is destroyed? And if you are entitled to use the archival copy, then you summarily should be entitled to remove whatever restrictions from a device in order to lawfully use that archival copy. IMO this guy did nothing wrong based on the spirit of the law, but it is rather the DMCA that is in conflict. If you want to charge anyone with a crime, it shouldn't be the guy who removed the restrictions, it should be whoever was actually pirating games using his modifications.

pyre 17y ago
IIRC, being able to make an archival copy is not a law, but is part of a Supreme Court decision (i.e. 'case law'). The DMCA was enacted after the Supreme Court decision, so I would assume that legally it would 'override' it. I'm definitely not a lawyer though so I have no clue if I'm right. Either way, I'm sure there will be a case at some point challenging this discrepancy to the Supreme Court and we'll see what they say at that point.
- ricaurte 17y ago
  A law by Congress cannot override a Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court has the final say on the Constitutionality of laws in the United States via judicial review, which was used for the first time by the court in Marbury v. Madison. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/13.html http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/13...