Copyright warning

[mastermind]

A new string has recently been added to DT Pro:

This software is only for the purpose of legal use of duplication under the current copyright laws. Any duplication without permission by copyright owners is illegal under the current copyright laws. Users are liable for criminal and civil penalty under the current law for illegal duplication.

I have taken the liberty to change the message (meaning) of this string in the Norwegian translation. I am not a great legal expert, and am not too familiar with the copyright laws in other countries, but this is not entirely correct according to Norwegian laws. Here in Norway, it is generally legal to make backup copies of copyrighted material IF the following conditions are met:

• One does not "break", "crack" or reverse-engineer any copy protections (which is illegal in all cases, in accordance with EU and EEA conventions).
• One only makes a copy with the intention of making a backup copy for personal use. This also allows for making a copy for e.g. a family member (the law states that copying is allowed within one's "near social circle")

If the copyright holder grants permission (through written consent) to reproduce their material, it is of course also allowed - as is stated in the original DT Pro string. This includes GPL software licenses, non-commercial music etc.

Isn't by the way one of the "official" purposes of DT and DT Pro to enable users to use backup images (which also are considered "copies") of physical optical media? That has honestly always been my impression. The way I interpret the above copyright warning, even that should be illegal.

Don't misread me, this is not meant as criticism towards the DT team, an expression of disrespect towards current law regulations or anything like that. I just feel there is room for a healthy and serious discussion about this. What is in reality allowed and not allowed to do with DT products? I know fairly well what the law states in my own country, but what about other countries?

[evlncrn8]

think its meant for dt, not what dt does...
ie : its illegal to crack dt etc...

[mastermind]

If that's true, then I've misunderstood. But the following gives me the impression that it describes what DT does:

This software is only for the purpose of legal use of duplication under the current copyright laws

[evlncrn8]

that part.. yep..
the part you made in bold i think is meant for daemon tools itself

hmm though, after reading it i can totally understand the confusion

[Alco]

it is OK.

of course local laws always prevail: we just have to insure ourselves in these legalistic papers

[oder2]

Any duplication without permission by copyright owners is illegal under the current copyright laws.

If there is a local law that allows some kind of duplication, does not it automatically mean that all the copyright owners have to automatically allow duplication that is allowed by that law if they distribute their content in that country?

[mastermind]

Any duplication without permission by copyright owners is illegal under the current copyright laws.
If there is a local law that allows some kind of duplication, does not it automatically mean that all the copyright owners have to automatically allow duplication that is allowed by that law if they distribute their content in that country?

No, I don't feel that it would be correct to say that. Because it would not be the copyright owner that allows it, neither implicitly or explicitly, it would be the governing laws of that specific country.

You would still be in violation of the copyright owner's "terms" (if they state that you can under no circumstance reproduce any of their work), but you would not be in violation of your national laws.

[bismax]

In Germany no EULA has any power.

[mastermind]

In Germany no EULA has any power.

They don't have any real power here either. But it is still possible to violate something, even though it has no real consequences.

Personally, if I for example use a piece of computer software, it is almost always a choice - i.e. I appreciate and prefer that piece of software. I generally respect the authors of the copyrighted material that I use, be it software or music or books (or whatever). By respecting the author, I also wish to respect the author's terms. Not because I'm afraid of the consequences if I don't, but entirely out of respect and good form.

However, in some exceptions, I have limited respect of a copyright owner's terms, and if the law allows me to duplicate something that such terms do not, I tend to ignore the copyright owner's terms. Some companies have an extremely strict view of what you should and should not do with their products, to an unreasonable extent. For example, the Hollywood movie industry prohibits you to make backups of any of their movies. That is in my opinion horribly unreasonable, seeing how easily a disc can be damaged. Sadly, because of the copy protection, it is also illegal to make backups. The EU (and also, the US) has in my opinion given copyright holders too much power in this case.