Is it Legal?

[lpc300]

Hi all,

Just wondering. If I make a backup copy of a copyrighted piece of software (MS Office 2000, for example) for my own purposes ONLY, is this legal?

Thanks in advance.

[juppy]

I have always heard you can legally make one backup copy of the software as long as you bought the original program. Don't know for sure if this is the law or if I've been fed a line of BS for a long time but that's how I have been told it works.

[DilLy]

It depends on the peice of software. Usually in the Agreement, it would say, for example: "you are allowed to make one copy of this software for backup purposes". That is just one exapmple and depends on the software, but most usually let you make a backup.

I often make backups of backups.

Let it be known that M$ is often one of the stricter companies when it comes to that stuff.

[lpc300]

Sounds like with most I can make at least one backup. What programs would you suggest to do this? Would Nero do it, or do I have to go with something like CloneCD?

[DilLy]

Nero would do it just fine. Some CDs have too heavy of copyright protection, and the backup CD can't be used for the CD check itself.

What programs are you backing up?

[Blakhart]

Clone gets my vote.

[HAL9000]

CloneCD for sure.

[Mac Medic]

the eula for most m$ products says "the original media is your backup". Check the eula 1st.

[DilLy]

Are you guys talking about the CloneCD made by "elby"???

[lpc300]

Looking to backup some of my most important and expensive software...Win2k, Office 2000, Lotus Smartsuite, etc... I am very careful with them, but want backups just in case of accidental damage or theft. Tried backups with both Nero and CloneCD. CloneCD was faster, but I got an error message at the end that it failed. Nero worked fine.

[not important]

I have, legally purchased, versions of Windows 98, 98SE, ME, 2000, and XP. I have made 2 backup copies of each of them. I did this in the privacy of my own home for my own use.

[audiyoda]

Originally posted by not important I have, legally purchased, versions of Windows 98, 98SE, ME, 2000, and XP. I have made 2 backup copies of each of them. I did this in the privacy of my own home for my own use.

That's all well and good, but if you look at the EULA that came with those M$ discs, you'd notice that for ME, 2000 and XP, it says your original media is your backup -- there by if you agree to the EULA, you are agreeing to NOT make copies of those CD's. So legally, your copies of 98 and 98se are legit -- the others really aren't.

What it really comes down to is knowing your legal rights when you agree to a End Users Licensing Agreement. Many times we just click Agree without reading what is there. By doing that, you theoretically could be setting yourself up for a fall.

-Craig

[smokealotapotimus]

It's getting pretty sad when you cannot even legally make one backup copy of your own purchased software.

But then again, would you expect any less from a company that still expects payment from charities, and non-profit organizations for use of outdated OS's? With 40 Billion dollars in the bank already, I might add.

[lpc300]

The money-grubbing tactics of M$ are the reason that, at least right now, I do not believe that I will EVER purchase WinXP or any other piece of M$ software that uses product activation. M$ says that if I buy software, I can install it on one computer...if I own another, because it's configuration is different, I need to purchase another copy of XP. I have 4 computers. I REFUSE to spend the $800 to install XP on all of them. I OWN all 4 of the computers! That's like Sony saying, " You can buy that new Bruce Springsteen CD to play on your home stereo. Wanna play it on your computer's CD? Can't. Have to buy another copy. Car's CD player? Sorry, need to get another copy. Your diskman? Sorry, yet another copy." See how ridiculous this is? I'm not into piracy. Just want to use what I legally purchase on what I legally purchase.

BTW, if I'm wrong about this (which I don't think I am), I will reconsider my thoughts on purchasing XP (though using it on other's computers I fix, I'm not impressed, anyway).

[Confused]

Although we need a lot more people to change the way things are, I agree with you totally lpc300. The way I use legally purchased software for my household is my business.

Now if I make a copy and give it to someone else, MS has every right to come after me.

Chas

[audiyoda]

As much as we don't like it, the creator of a product like software or music has the legal right to determine how their product is used -- to a limited extent.

When you buy a DVD, you are buying the right to view that film -- not make copies. When you buy software, you are buying the right to use that software -- you are not buying the right for others to use it. Therefore most companies have steps in place to ensure that you don't. When you buy a CD, you have the legal right to make one personal copy -- but the record companies have a legal right to protect their recordings -- so now we have copy-protected CDs.

Regardless as to liking it or not, the fact remains that protections are in place for creators of music, movies, software, videos......the list goes on. We've had copyright laws for many years, but now that we are in a digital age, those same laws seem antiquated. They really aren't, we just have more ways to break them.

As a producer and copyright owner on over 3 dozen titles, I know how it feels to have what you have created taken and manipulated in ways I did not intend. There is one specific recording that I own currently being used by a production company against my consent. They have broken the law but it is up to me to prove it and they know it. And they have a lot more money than I do....so most likey they will continue to use my property for their financial gain.

So I know both sides of the spectrum -- I don't like copyright laws but I use them to protect my rights and they do very little to help me.

-Craig

[glc]

I think I need to restate the Mech's policy on piracy etc. here if I'm going to leave this thread open for discussion. A quote from the FAQ:

Members are not permitted to use these forums to pass copyrighted information or to link to copyrighted information (with the exception of publicly available information or information that was placed online with the agreed purpose if being publicly viewable).
Members are not permitted to use this forum as a means to share or distribute copyrighted software, licenses, license numbers, registration information, warez software, cracks, key generators, viruses, or any information which promotes or instructs on any of these activities. Any material which in any way aids in the destruction of property, property rights, or causes harm, damage, loss of time or work, or allows entry into computer hardware, software or networks is strictly prohibited.

Now - this does not prohibit all discussion of piracy, etc. but the spirit of this is to keep things above board here. In this light, Craig has summed things up very well and shown us an insight. However, posts like lpc300's most recent one in this thread is kinda getting out of scope here because the EULA is clear as a bell, one OS, one computer. We cannot have posts in this forum that advocate breaking the law (regardless of your opinion of the law), and this is exactly what that is.

In this light, please review your posts before hitting the Submit button. Thanks.

[lpc300]

I appologize for my earlier post, and agree that I will be more aware before I hit the 'Submit' button. I am certainly against piracy. I often ask myself, if I wrote a program, how would I feel if people were freely sharing something that I had worked long and hard to produce. I wouldn't like it at all.

I will continue to advocate change in the policy, but will not advocate breaking the policy while it is effect.

Again, appologies to members/moderators of PCMech.