Copying Programs

[Guest]

John, I didn't respond to that other thread because I don't use eBay and am not interested in what happens there.The number of people getting scammed at eBay is large enough that no criminal activity happening there surprises me...As to CD4 getting bad, I've yet to see it happen and I use FS almost every day. While there may be some bad CDs out there most of those have production defects which cause them to fail rather sooner than after a year or more of daily use.And even were it to happen, Microsoft has an excellent program to replace faulty CDs at cost which actually works.In fact, so do most larger (and probably many smaller) software companies. Remember that Microsoft doesn't prohibit you from making copies of their CDs, all they prohibit is you circumventing piracy protection systems (which just happen to make it impossible to copy the disk using off the shelf software without making it impossible to use, but that's a technicality. You can make a copy).And no law says you are allowed to distribute reverse engineered software even if the law states you are allowed to reverse engineer software in violation of a contract you entered into with the creator of that software.The law may say what you're allowed to do, but where a contract restricts your rights further than the maximum the law allows the contract is leading unless and until a court in the jurisdiction where the contract was signed decides otherwise. That's why such provisions are mentioned in the contract in the first place...Now, if the OP wants to take Microsoft to court to force them to remove all piracy protection systems which make it impossible for him to use his backup copy, I wish him the best of luck and a very thick wallet.

[mgh 89]

I'll respond to the recent posts.Michael (KDFW)Copyright encourages development of software commercially by restricting unauthorised copying. Without copyright I guess we would have little choice of software, it would be of poor quality, and computing would be still in the dark ages.It is copyright law that, quite properly, gives developers rights and remedies again piracy. However UK law (based on EU law), equally properly, gives rights to uses. These, in summary, are limited to:1) the right to make a backup copy so that the user doesn't need recourse to the developer to continue to use software he is entitled to;2) the right to decompile a program as far as is necessary to develop an independent program which can be operated with the program decompiled. How would the absence of this have affected FSUIPC and similar programs that probe Flight Simular's workings?3) the right (which I haven't mentioned before) to amend a program to correct errors.Why shouldn't users be aware of their rights? I imagine you wouldn't suggest that developers sack all their copyright lawyers who advise them of their rights. Ian PMy EULA says "It is illegal to make unauthorized copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT or circumvent any copy protection technology employed in the SOFTWARE PRODUCT." The words on my disks say "Do not make illegal copies of the disk" Backup copies made in accordance with UK law are neither unauthorised nor illegal. My earlier post suggests that a private individual is not committing a criminal or civil offence by possessing a means to circumvent copy protection or using it to make a backup copy under UK law.It's worth noting that Microsoft doesn't actually say that copying disks or circumventing copy protection invalidates the EULA. Even if it did, any clause about copying would be void under UK law and have no effect. I suspect that is why Microsoft has worded that sentence rather oddly - after all breaking the speed limit is also illegal.JohnCiI have often seen it said in the forums that Microsoft will replace Disk 4. I haven't found anywhere a committment from Microsoft to do this. Has Microsoft formally made such a commitment?jrwentingAs you say, Microsoft doesn't attempt to state that CD can't be copied to make a backup (presumably because it knows that such clause would be void under UK law) but applies copy protection to circumvent the user's lawful rights. There is often talk about moral high ground in relation to piracy but where does this approach leave Microsoft?The contract is not leading if it includes a clause that national law states is void."(3) Where an act is permitted under this section, it is irrelevant whether or not there exists any term or condition in an agreement which purports to prohibit or restrict the act (such terms being, by virtue of section 296A, void)."

[John_Cillis 2,406]

I certainly agree and no one should feel otherwise--no law gives the right to distribute cracks, NO-CD hacks, or other copy protection evasion schemes. I just killed a post the other day which was headed in that direction. I do question the way some of these laws read--since they make it sound like the law trumps any license or contract we choose to make our clients accept, and some laws make it sound like a client could hack our code to their heart's content for "research" purposes. Still, I consider it unfair to always suspect someone a pirate because they want to discuss the law. You make many strong points in your posts and we always need more people sensitive to what developers endure. But it is a topic that can give everyone interesting insight, not just in law as it applies to software, but in giving people the knowledge that just because someone forces you to accapt a contract, doesn't mean all the items within are legally binding in your locality. One problem we have here stateside is we tend to force our customers to be legal experts when they are most vulnerable. An elderly friend purchased a car last year. Three days later it was repo'd out of their driveway and they found another, stripped model in its place! The local dealer said the VIN was wrong on the paperwork--they didn't purchase "that" car, but a stripped model. I didn't suggest a lawyer, because they did sign a contract, probably after sitting in an office for several hours going through the sales hustle that buying a car in the States has become. I hooked them up with the media. They kept their car. How many people check VIN's on their paperwork when buying a car, and compare it to the car they were steered to in the lot? All auto contracts contain a clause stating that errors make the contract null and void.Most people don't see the license terms for software until they load it on their computer. A good portion of them don't know anything about the license at Point of Sale. Is the license legal? Where local law allows, yes. But is it right? That's a decision we as developers must weigh if we're to keep our clients and we should consider our license terms accordingly, especially when it comes to allowing people access to software they are licensed to use. -John

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"I have often seen it said in the forums that Microsoft will replace Disk 4. I haven't found anywhere a committment from Microsoft to do this. Has Microsoft formally made such a commitment?'I don't believe they have. People in this forum have had bad CD's, and my understanding is in most instances, Microsoft has replaced them at no charge. But I imagine they would have a nominal charge to replace a CD for a user overseas. I do know that in years of use, I have only had one CD out of thousands go bad, and it was a CD I burned so I could have access to some of my source code while on a client's site. But many people are unaware of the fact that the most sensitive side of a CD is the label side--if you place an object there that scratches deeply enough, it will destroy the CD. It is much easier to damage a CD from that side vs. the side the data is read from. I believe the average home user, after using a CD every day as most simmers do, well eventually have it fail unless they have a backup. -John

[mgh 89]

JohnI don't know if there is an equivalent elsewhere to the UK's Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (These are based on EU requirements).They apply to contractual terms that have not been individually negotiated, such as when they have been drafted in advance and are presented to the consumer on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, such as standard agreements.Schedule 5 contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair. The Office of Fair Trading (OFT)responds to complaints from consumers and can intervene to get unfair conditions changed and can, if necessary obtain a court order against an offending company.One of the most recent interventions related to a leading mobile phone company whose terms allowed it to charge a consumer for re-connecting their phone. They relied on this to charge a consumer for re-connecting even when the disconnection was the company's fault. They had to change it!An IT company had to change terms:- excluding liability for defective or misdescribed goods by requiring consumers to inspect the goods and notify faults within a very short time- excluding liability for mistakes or inaccuracies on its website- excluding or limiting liability for defective software- having the option to vary the price and specification of goods- providing confusing information about delivery charges- restricting consumer cancellation rights.In an earlier post, I pointed out that many developers of Flight Simulation add-ons were in breach of the UK Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000. (These are also based on EU requirements.). These require that the seller must provide clear and comprehensible information to enable the consumer to decide whether to buy. This must include:- the seller's name and, if payment is required in advance, his/her postal address - a description of the goods or services - the price including all taxes - delivery costs where they apply - arrangements for payment - arrangements and date for delivery - the right to cancel the order -how long the offer or the price remains valid.Life can get very complicated!!!