«

[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.