The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
highly illigal, but no ones perfect eh?
Has anyone had the mod chip & 80 Gig Hardrive upgrade fitted yet?
apparently you can dump entire games to the drive for faster accsess!
I need more speed! and room for the music i've dumped to disk, only got 32000 Blocks left now! anyone know how much is too much? before it affects the games your playing? may have to buy another XBOX! probably down to a ton by Xmas anyhow
Has anyone had the mod chip & 80 Gig Hardrive upgrade fitted yet?
apparently you can dump entire games to the drive for faster accsess!
I need more speed! and room for the music i've dumped to disk, only got 32000 Blocks left now! anyone know how much is too much? before it affects the games your playing? may have to buy another XBOX! probably down to a ton by Xmas anyhow
Page:
Oh, should also point out that there's a world of difference in legal terms between holding a back up and simply copying from one format to the other to carry on using as before. Archiving has always been frowned upon, see the old VCR cases and time shifting versus archiving i.e. you can record something off the telly when you’re out to watch later (time shifting), but you're not supposed to record a series of The Sopranos to keep and watch repeatedly (archiving).
No one is actually sure if you are allowed to hold a back up of software/music you've bought. Clearly it is tollerated as the music publisers aren't bothered if you've purchased a CD and then jammed it onto a tape for in the car and for this reason no one has needed to push a case to clarify the law.
The issue is that when the relevant legislature was written (can't remember exactly what it was off the top of my head) things were very different from now. It was intended to be for corporate users to back up bespoke systems as hard drives/storage in general was so unreliable then. Obviously things are different now, so if, for example, Sony were to push something through to a trial on someone claiming to have "back up" copies of games then you might not be as protected as you'd expect. Then again, the situtation is never going to arise as it is far more effective for all concerned to go for the distributors.
The issue is that when the relevant legislature was written (can't remember exactly what it was off the top of my head) things were very different from now. It was intended to be for corporate users to back up bespoke systems as hard drives/storage in general was so unreliable then. Obviously things are different now, so if, for example, Sony were to push something through to a trial on someone claiming to have "back up" copies of games then you might not be as protected as you'd expect. Then again, the situtation is never going to arise as it is far more effective for all concerned to go for the distributors.
I believe it to be legal for you, yourself, to copy music that you have paid for to another media to listen to if you should so wish.
After all, if it weren't the case, why would Sony shove a feature in their Minidisc hi-fi systems which allows you to copy CDs straight to Minidisc as well as taking the names of the tracks off the CD and placing them as the track names on the minidiscs also?
If they didn't want you to copy CDs you already paid for, for own use, they wouldn't have included that feature.
Back to the car argument. You need theft insurance because car crime is an issue which is fairly common in todays society. But it has nothing to do with the software/music argument. You leave your car outside, some annoying git walks past and takes a fancy to it. They decide they want it so they steal it. The insurance allows you to claim money to purchase another car to replace it. It doesn't give the criminal the right to keep the original, far from it. It just basically helps out the car's rightful owner should the worst happen.
After all, if it weren't the case, why would Sony shove a feature in their Minidisc hi-fi systems which allows you to copy CDs straight to Minidisc as well as taking the names of the tracks off the CD and placing them as the track names on the minidiscs also?
If they didn't want you to copy CDs you already paid for, for own use, they wouldn't have included that feature.
Back to the car argument. You need theft insurance because car crime is an issue which is fairly common in todays society. But it has nothing to do with the software/music argument. You leave your car outside, some annoying git walks past and takes a fancy to it. They decide they want it so they steal it. The insurance allows you to claim money to purchase another car to replace it. It doesn't give the criminal the right to keep the original, far from it. It just basically helps out the car's rightful owner should the worst happen.
I know... I know, c a l m Down. ALL HAIL THE PIONEERS. general chat, see what you think then?
He said it shouldn't be about it not that it is all its about. He is right as well.
Edgy wrote:
> In owning a vehicle, the risk shouldn't be about whether it will be
> stolen or not.
Why do we need insurance against theft then?
Some one wrote that they wanted to copy stuff across to an MP3 player, another couple of music devices aswell.
If you did that with computer software wouldnt that require the purchase of a couple of licences to use it legaly on all platforms that you put it on? or are you allowed to only use one platform at a time? not simultaniously? (pardon?)
Why does the same not apply to music?
if the same applied then it would be illegal for you to be listening to something on your mp3 if your good lady was at home listening to the original cd? its all a load of legal bo ll ok s.
every one just carry on as you were...
> In owning a vehicle, the risk shouldn't be about whether it will be
> stolen or not.
Why do we need insurance against theft then?
Some one wrote that they wanted to copy stuff across to an MP3 player, another couple of music devices aswell.
If you did that with computer software wouldnt that require the purchase of a couple of licences to use it legaly on all platforms that you put it on? or are you allowed to only use one platform at a time? not simultaniously? (pardon?)
Why does the same not apply to music?
if the same applied then it would be illegal for you to be listening to something on your mp3 if your good lady was at home listening to the original cd? its all a load of legal bo ll ok s.
every one just carry on as you were...
Nomino wrote:
> I rest my case.
Not that simple, not by a long shot. So a white paper has been written - that's only the first step in a very long journey and the signs say legislative bodies are shying away from US style total lock-outs on your system's insides. The US require no mens rea to be apparant i.e. you have a device that can enable piracy, therefore it is illegal as you may use it for those purposes. If we wanted to go down that route the opportunity was there in The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003, but not taken. They still require that the people installing it have actual knowledge that you intended to use the device for piracy, or should have had such knowledge.
This leaves the route open to Australian style interpretation, which has persuasive powers in UK courts i.e. if the devise has a possible legal use then it will be assumed you're going to use it that way unless proved otherwise. Therefore, you can't close down the people making the chips as they can, for example, claim it is to bypass regional locks (legal) but as a consequence it also leaves the door open for illegal copies.
> I rest my case.
Not that simple, not by a long shot. So a white paper has been written - that's only the first step in a very long journey and the signs say legislative bodies are shying away from US style total lock-outs on your system's insides. The US require no mens rea to be apparant i.e. you have a device that can enable piracy, therefore it is illegal as you may use it for those purposes. If we wanted to go down that route the opportunity was there in The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003, but not taken. They still require that the people installing it have actual knowledge that you intended to use the device for piracy, or should have had such knowledge.
This leaves the route open to Australian style interpretation, which has persuasive powers in UK courts i.e. if the devise has a possible legal use then it will be assumed you're going to use it that way unless proved otherwise. Therefore, you can't close down the people making the chips as they can, for example, claim it is to bypass regional locks (legal) but as a consequence it also leaves the door open for illegal copies.
I see nothing there against backing up software for ARCHIVAL purposes only on that page.
Infact, it is virtually all about downloading music off places like Kazaa, which is illegal.
So I hope you continue to rest your case whilst I sit here and feel pleased (and aroused) by the fact that I'm right and you're not.
Infact, it is virtually all about downloading music off places like Kazaa, which is illegal.
So I hope you continue to rest your case whilst I sit here and feel pleased (and aroused) by the fact that I'm right and you're not.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12219
Backups for personal user may well be considered "fair" (still not truly legal), but soon, any form of copying (for personal backups or otherwise) will be completely illegal.
I rest my case.
Backups for personal user may well be considered "fair" (still not truly legal), but soon, any form of copying (for personal backups or otherwise) will be completely illegal.
I rest my case.
and i bet he SMOKES!!
Page: