«

[Eagle of Fire]

The thing with soft copies versus hard copies is that when you purchase a soft copy you purchase the liscence to have that copy only. When you purchase a hard copy, your liscence cover the media as well.

I don't know if GoG cover this term explicitely (the liscence would allow you to make as many soft copies as you want, or one single additional copy) but the way I understand it GoG is supposed to be the legal way to go around and I don't really recognize this under this specific circumstance.

Not that I would complain if it would lead people to change their mind about people making personal copies of their hard copies for backup. Right now it is pretty hush hush, you're pretty much seen with a very bad eye when you do that since the term hacker seem to still be anchored very far in the public eye. But if it do happen then the industry would have no ground for making anti-piracy campaings.

What I don't understand is why everybody seem to aknowledge the fact that it must be legal if a company like GoG do it. For me, the whole terminology is extremely arkward at best.

[Kelbert]

because it is GOG.com operated by GOG Ltd that's run by CD Projekt Red?

People and taxes are paid, therefore it can be used as step#2 in this equation:

1. get on internet
2. ???
3. profit

Everyone accepts this as the universal law for profiting on the internet. Only step two is unknown, so people must come up with stuff like GOG and ask people like Ubisoft if they can sell their old games.

It is ok because people get paid for stuff that people who have already been paid - and then some other people got paid as well - get paid.

Basically.

[Titan]

Here in Sweden at least, we have separate laws.
Companies can write w/e they like in their license-agreement, but you are still allowed to make a few hard copies, and even share them with your friends, for them to install and use.
I have a good example myself:
I bought Civilization 4 expansion "Warlords".
It was DRM protected.
Titan calls Atari Sweden, and ask how I'm supposed to make my legal backup of it.
The tech-support told me to make a clone with *Software X* and use *Software Y* with this and that setting to emulate it.
This, is my LEGAL right to do here, if i own a copy of a piece of software, game or OS, doesn't matter.
If they are obstucting me from making my legal backup copy, I'm allowed to bypass it to ensure i can use the software that i hold license to, even if the original medium fails.
Option two is to return the scratched/damaged disc, and get a new, but we all know how long softwares are being stockpiled...

This is why Good Old Games got it just right.
There is no DRM or other copy-protection to bypass once you've bought the software, nor any third party verification-software that needs to run.

GOG is essentially giving a taste of Sweden to everyone.

[jonnan001]

This is Lay knowledge, but I'm reasonably confident of my understanding of it.

Under U.S. law fair use (and my understanding is the 'fair dealing' provisions in the commonwealth countries are basically equivalent), in *theory*, is not a right per se, but an affirmative defense - the intellectual property equivalent of saying "Yes I killed the man, but I can prove it was self-defense".

However, while there are fair use defenses that can be fought in court by rightholders, personal backup is actually writ into the wording of the law. For that purpose "Legal Right" versus "Affirmative Defense" is a distinction without a difference.

Accordingly you don't need to get a specific license to save a copy; in fact a company cannot actually prevent you to do so with a licensing agreement because you never actually needed a license for *that* purpose in the first place.

Jonnan

Originally Posted by Eagle of Fire

The thing with soft copies versus hard copies is that when you purchase a soft copy you purchase the liscence to have that copy only. When you purchase a hard copy, your liscence cover the media as well.

I don't know if GoG cover this term explicitely (the liscence would allow you to make as many soft copies as you want, or one single additional copy) but the way I understand it GoG is supposed to be the legal way to go around and I don't really recognize this under this specific circumstance.

Not that I would complain if it would lead people to change their mind about people making personal copies of their hard copies for backup. Right now it is pretty hush hush, you're pretty much seen with a very bad eye when you do that since the term hacker seem to still be anchored very far in the public eye. But if it do happen then the industry would have no ground for making anti-piracy campaings.

What I don't understand is why everybody seem to aknowledge the fact that it must be legal if a company like GoG do it. For me, the whole terminology is extremely arkward at best.

[jonnan001]

Originally Posted by Titan

Here in Sweden at least, we have separate laws.
Companies can write w/e they like in their license-agreement, but you are still allowed to make a few hard copies, and even share them with your friends, for them to install and use.
I have a good example myself:
I bought Civilization 4 expansion "Warlords".
It was DRM protected.
Titan calls Atari Sweden, and ask how I'm supposed to make my legal backup of it.
The tech-support told me to make a clone with *Software X* and use *Software Y* with this and that setting to emulate it.
This, is my LEGAL right to do here, if i own a copy of a piece of software, game or OS, doesn't matter.
If they are obstucting me from making my legal backup copy, I'm allowed to bypass it to ensure i can use the software that i hold license to, even if the original medium fails.
Option two is to return the scratched/damaged disc, and get a new, but we all know how long softwares are being stockpiled...

This is why Good Old Games got it just right.
There is no DRM or other copy-protection to bypass once you've bought the software, nor any third party verification-software that needs to run.

GOG is essentially giving a taste of Sweden to everyone.

5

And that does demonstrate the difference between a "right" and an "Affirmative Defense"; The "Affirmative Defense" of Fair Use/Dealing says they can't do a thing to me for saving a copy if I manage to bypass their copy protection. The "Right" to save a copy means they actually have to assist in my doing so.

I would prefer it be a "Right" obviously, but I find it satisfactory as is.

Jonnan

[rabadi]

http://www.gog.com/en/support/websit...oads_and_games

"2. Can I re-download my purchased games? Is there a limit to the number of re-downloads?
You can always re-download games bought at GOG.com via the “My account” page. Also, there is no limit to the number of redownloads, but please remember that you're not allowed to share your GOG.com account with other users as only you are entitled to download games from your account."

"4. Can I make backups of games downloaded from GOG.com?
Yes you can, and as a matter of fact we strongly recommend you do so – backing up your stuff is a very good habit, you know? Because our games are DRM-free, as soon as you download the setup file, you can back it up on a DVD or your external hard drive without hassle. Plus, as our installers are wrapped in nice .exe files, you can save them all in one folder and create a nice local backup of your games library! And if you forgot to backup your purchased games, fear not. You can always redownload them from our website for free – see below for more info. Sure, downloading will take a little bit longer than launching an installer from your backup disc, but that's no big deal."

[Eagle of Fire]

Thank you Rabadi. This is actually what I was looking for earlier. I don't know how you got there. It is possible I simply could not because I have JavaScript off by default.

Anyways, to reply to the others, like I said I'd be very happy if this kind of industry actually make people change their mind on things. However, even though I know it is stupid to actually think that it is impossible to back up things the main problem is not there. The main problem is that other people, the vast majority of people, think so.

I don't know if you guys understand what I mean but this can lead to some dangerous stuff when you're not careful. And this is stronger than what the law actually say.