I have some dead boards in the loft which I can now play on MAME, and some laserdiscs which I can play on Daphne. So your above post is a bit off target.
And your point here is what??? You personally may well ONLY have ROMs for and play the games that you actually own the original hardware of and wish to remain totally within the legal domain and for that you have my greatest respect, and I applaud you for it. BUT are you seriously suggesting that this is the case for everyone on this board??? If you're not, then it's not at all off target is it.
Since your comments are UK biased we can exclude them in this discussion as it doesn't impact you.
That's simply not the case..... None of my comments in any way specifically UK biased. There is also absolutely nothing which prevents a US Court reaching a judgement on a citizen of a foreign country. So while the UK is outside of the Jurisdiction of the DMCA, it most certainly does apply to me over here, because hypothetically if I had committed a crime under US Law, the next time I'm in the USA I would probably then be arrested if a US Court reached a Judgement against me. So it most certainly does apply to me.
Even if that judgement is not necessarily enforceable in another jurisdiction (in this case the UK), there is also nothing preventing the US Government from requesting that a UK Court apply the judgement so reached, and this has happened on both sides of the Atlantic several times. Our respective Governments do cooperate with each other when needed you know.
As I cannot see the DMCA's reach being able to grab you Fozzy... [SNIP]
Not correct.... see above!
Can you qualify yourself Fozzy with the both comments made on both threads? Are you a solicitor or some way trained in US copyright law?
Yes I am trained in Copyright Law, UK, EU and US..... I had to be in order to protect some of my own intellectual properties, some of them software and some of motion picture related.
In specific relation to both the original questions in both threads:
This ruling by the US Library Of Congress. Does not apply to our hobby, however much you would like it to, because it states:
1)
"when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive."WE, individually, are not a legally recognised library or archive. Circumventing those protections for the purpose of playing games is not an archival purpose (I take it you do play the games that you have ROM's for).
2) It also states:
"Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works" The majority of people here, quite unlike your good self, do NOT make non infringing uses. Simply because you can probably count on one hand, the number of people who only play games which they own the original arcade boards for.
3) The ruling specifically ONLY permits a right to circumvent protection. The ruling specifically does NOT diminish the rights of the original copyright owners or their assignees. The right to copy or distribute or licence the actual material software remains with its original owners.
In other words: It STILL does not grant any right to make a copy and such copies and use of them STILL falls under the terms of the DMCA.
At the end of the day, I have to agree with FrizzleFried when he says:
Not to sound crude...who really...WHO GIVES A "POO"? If you can point out ONE SINGLE person here who owns EVERY SINGLE ROM he has on his system, I can point you to some kickass OCEAN FRONT PROPERTY in Kansas that is a helluva steal!
He's absolutely right!! Who Gives A Poo! Nothing whatsoever has changed, in relation to our hobby. No matter how much you would like it apply to us, the additional freedoms and rights it grants to libraries archives and educational institutions, simply don't apply to us.
Also....
What about games who had copyrights owned by companies who are no longer in existance or the status of a copyright is unknown.
Sorry Lew, but that's very sticky and dangerous as an argument. Just because you don't know who owns the software, doesn't mean that somebody doesn't. Lots of game companies went out of business but were bought and sold as commodities, hence the rights to that software could well still be owned by some corporation or person or other.
Look at it this way..... Lets say you're walking down the street, and you see a parked car that has been sitting there for a couple of years. You think to yourself "Hmmmm I like the look of that car, I think I want it" you ask around and nobody you ask seems to know who owns it. So you get in, start it up and drive it away!.... just as you do that, the owner of the car looks out of his top floor window and sees his car being taken. How long is it then before there's a State Trooper on your tail???...... get the point?? even if you don't know who owns something, it doesn't make it
"Legally" OK to help yourself to it.
Best Regards,
Julian (Fozzy The Bear)