Legal backups?

[Hatta]

Tell your brother to mind his own business. If he doesn't own the copyright, it's none of his what you do with your property. Here is one case where the "So sue me" retort is entirely appropriate.

Now on a less practical note, I'd argue that the letter of the law does not prohibit what you did. Here is part of the copyright code:

(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.

So owning a copy does permit you to make a copy of the program in question. Nothing in that language specifies that the copy of the program has to come from the copy that you own. Bits are fungible. So by any sensible interpretation of that text you are legally OK.

Now I have to remind you that the law is seldom if ever sensible. What really matters is how many lawyer hours you can afford. If, on the infinitesimally small chance you were to get sued for this, a judge could realistically rule either way. But that won't happen, no one has ever been sued for anything like this.

BTW, on an ethical basis you are 100% OK here. You have supported the developers, and that's the important thing.

[noiseredux]

BTW, I'm really not gonna get into my own feelings on this or whatever, because we've had so many similar threads. But this comment is in all of them:

I've said this many times before but the only time this kind of thing is actually bad is when someone who would normally buy the game, chooses instead to download a free copy of it.

I just don't get this one. It's kind of like saying that if you don't plan to BUY a game anyway, then it's okay to walk into a store and steal it off the shelf.

[Jimmy Yakapucci]

Tell your brother to mind his own business. If he doesn't own the copyright, it's none of his what you do with your property. Here is one case where the "So sue me" retort is entirely appropriate.

Now on a less practical note, I'd argue that the letter of the law does not prohibit what you did. Here is part of the copyright code:

(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.

So owning a copy does permit you to make a copy of the program in question. Nothing in that language specifies that the copy of the program has to come from the copy that you own. Bits are fungible. So by any sensible interpretation of that text you are legally OK.

Now I have to remind you that the law is seldom if ever sensible. What really matters is how many lawyer hours you can afford. If, on the infinitesimally small chance you were to get sued for this, a judge could realistically rule either way. But that won't happen, no one has ever been sued for anything like this.

BTW, on an ethical basis you are 100% OK here. You have supported the developers, and that's the important thing.

Two problems.

1: In part one is states that the copy must be an essential step in using the program. What game requires you to make a back-up before you can play it?

2: In part two it states that the copy must be for archival purposes. Playing the game is not an archival purpose. Putting it in a safe place in case the main copy gets trashed is an archival purpose.

The OP's situation doesn't seem to fulfill either of these requirements.

JY

[Breetai]

Two problems.

1: In part one is states that the copy must be an essential step in using the program. What game requires you to make a back-up before you can play it?

2: In part two it states that the copy must be for archival purposes. Playing the game is not an archival purpose. Putting it in a safe place in case the main copy gets trashed is an archival purpose.

The OP's situation doesn't seem to fulfill either of these requirements.

JY

One problem, we don't even know if your American laws apply to him. Where does he live?

[aaron]

BTW, I'm really not gonna get into my own feelings on this or whatever, because we've had so many similar threads. But this comment is in all of them:

I've said this many times before but the only time this kind of thing is actually bad is when someone who would normally buy the game, chooses instead to download a free copy of it.

I just don't get this one. It's kind of like saying that if you don't plan to BUY a game anyway, then it's okay to walk into a store and steal it off the shelf.

i almost made a similar post. since i was going to just go home and make myself a sandwich anyway, it is perfectly alright if i hop behind the counter at burger king and make myself a whopper, then eat it without paying.

[Hatta]

Two problems.

1: In part one is states that the copy must be an essential step in using the program. What game requires you to make a back-up before you can play it?

1) and 2) are separated by an "or".

2: In part two it states that the copy must be for archival purposes. Playing the game is not an archival purpose. Putting it in a safe place in case the main copy gets trashed is an archival purpose.

The OP's situation doesn't seem to fulfill either of these requirements.

JY

That's a good point. I can see this argued both ways. I would still consider a copy made for playing as "for archival purposes" as it enables you to archive the original. In the end it's purely an academic exercise.

[avrame]

Haha, man, that started a nice wildfire of debate Anywho, nice little update:

As I was playing the game, my fiancee was interested after watching me play. I let her play the game, and she got far enough into the game that the copy would not play on the Acekard 2i. Not sure if it was a anti-copy section (ala kill screen on FF: Crystal Chronicle), or just a glitch in the Acekard 2i, but she was intrigued enough to open my retail copy of the game without asking me...

God bless her

[flamepanther]

Regardless of the morality or immorality of piracy, making a Whopper at Burger King and not paying for it deprives Burger King of the materials used in that whopper, which would otherwise have gone into a whopper that someone would pay them for. Someone downloading a game that they would not otherwise have paid for to begin with deprives whom of what exactly?

If piracy is wrong, there must be an argument out there that actually makes sense, but neither the old, tired shoplifting metaphor nor this interesting "make me a sammich" variation of it are that argument. Leave it behind and find one that actually works.

[Jimmy Yakapucci]

Two problems.

1: In part one is states that the copy must be an essential step in using the program. What game requires you to make a back-up before you can play it?

1) and 2) are separated by an "or".

2: In part two it states that the copy must be for archival purposes. Playing the game is not an archival purpose. Putting it in a safe place in case the main copy gets trashed is an archival purpose.

The OP's situation doesn't seem to fulfill either of these requirements.

JY

That's a good point. I can see this argued both ways. I would still consider a copy made for playing as "for archival purposes" as it enables you to archive the original. In the end it's purely an academic exercise.

I realize that #s 1 and 2 are separated by an 'or'. That is why I mentioned that it did not meet either requirement. Otherwise simply not meeting one of them would have sufficed.

JY

[Limewater]

If piracy is wrong, there must be an argument out there that actually makes sense

Why?