People who have obviously never heard of Pandora?


Do you update frequently the bios of your PSX, MegaDrive, GBA, etc. by downloading the BIOS files from official sources?


I may have overgeneralized because my english is a bit limited (my mother tongue is french, I learnt english basics at school and the rest from videogames and MMORPG chat…).


But I was thinking that the people around here could make an educated guess and understand that I wasn't talking about modern consoles (almost all of them need an internet connection) that have their firmware updated every week or so.


The old "offline" consoles have a fixed bios that doesn't change, to have an "updated" version of the BIOS you had to buy a new console.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think there may be a problem with that law (or interpretation of the law). That is: What if you own the machine and you want to update the BIOS on it? Is it illegal to download a new BIOS to update the one on your machine? If it's not, then why would it be illegal to download a BIOS update and use it in an emulator? If that's OK, then why should downloading a BIOS that you already have a copy of on your machine be illegal?
Source. When downloading an official update, you are downloading it from an official source with the companies blessing. They are giving you the right to make a copy, because it is within their power as copyright holder to do so. It is also within their power as copyright holder to define how that copy can be used, and they define it as updating official hardware. Absolutely no problems here. If I draw a picture, I can give someone the right to use that picture in a commercial of my choosing. That doesn't give them the right to start using it in other commercials as well, just because they've already been granted the right to use it once, nor does it grant that person to use a different picture that I've created just because they've been granted the use of this one.


There are a lot of things to get upset over about copyright law, things that are truly unfair, or ambiguous/inconsistent. This is not one of them. This particular rule is actually as much if not more beneficial to your average Joe Artist as it is for the big name companies.

No, that's not the way it works in the US (and most copyright laws are similar). It's not making copies of something that you legally obtained that is illegal, it's distributing copies. Any use that you put the copies to that does not involve distribution is perfectly legal. This is part of fair use. Copyright law in no way defines how a copy of something that you possess can be used as long as that use doesn't involve redistribution of it.


Your example with the advertisement is not relevant because it involves redistribution (broadcasting an ad is also, of course, considered redistribution). Still, you have to be careful about the specifics of the copyright license you granted in order to be sure you the other party can't use it in future ads.


Of course, possessing 3,000 copies of a DVD that you made will still get you into trouble because it becomes clear that you are intending to redistribute them. However, taking a DVD and ripping it, then copying it to multiple devices that are for you personal use is legal.


So, yes, the source of the download is relevant, but only because it involves unauthorized redistribution. That means that getting a BIOS update from the an authorized distributor and using it in an emulator is technically legal. (These companies' efforts to claim that this is somehow illegal are not supported by Title 17 in the US.) What is technically illegal is making a BIOS or ROM available for download without a copyright license. The gray area involves the person who is downloading a BIOS or ROM from an unauthorized source. If they haven't already legally obtained a copy of that BIOS or ROM from somewhere else, then they are guilty of contributory infringement. If they do have a legal copy of the BIOS or ROM already, then it's legal for them to possess another copy for personal use, so does that still make them guilty of contributory infringement? It doesn't really make sense for it to, but not making sense has never been considered an obstacle by most copyright lawyers.
 
Yes, it is actually illegal to make a copy if you don't have the rights to make a copy, no distribution required. If you rent a DVD and make a copy of it, then return that DVD, you have distributed nothing but you still made an illegal copy. If you rent the DVD, make a copy, and then destroy the copy, you have still created an illegal copy, even if there's no evidence of it.


But that's completely irrelevant to the point. The argument that was originally given was "since manufacturers give updates to their BIOS for free download, I should therefore be allowed to download that BIOS and use it in an emulator" to which my response was "the manufacturer is giving owners of the hardware free downloads to updated BIOS. Downloading it from a third party source who does not have the rights to distribute it is illegal" which is basically what you were also saying, so I don't know what it is you were trying to argue here. Or were you simply agreeing with me? (except for the part about distribution being the illegal part, of course)
 
What is most definitely illegal in the US is to circumvent copyright protections, even if you are simply making a backup copy of your own legally-obtained property, which fair use says is okay.


I hate intellectual property law. I almost went to law school to be an IP lawyer and fight this crap. But then I realized that even though I'm passionate about the subject, it's not the right kind of passion. It's more of a hatred than a love. Brewing beer, however...
 
Yes, it is actually illegal to make a copy if you don't have the rights to make a copy, no distribution required. If you rent a DVD and make a copy of it, then return that DVD, you have distributed nothing but you still made an illegal copy. If you rent the DVD, make a copy, and then destroy the copy, you have still created an illegal copy, even if there's no evidence of it.


But that's completely irrelevant to the point. The argument that was originally given was "since manufacturers give updates to their BIOS for free download, I should therefore be allowed to download that BIOS and use it in an emulator" to which my response was "the manufacturer is giving owners of the hardware free downloads to updated BIOS. Downloading it from a third party source who does not have the rights to distribute it is illegal" which is basically what you were also saying, so I don't know what it is you were trying to argue here. Or were you simply agreeing with me? (except for the part about distribution being the illegal part, of course)

Actually, as soon as you returned one copy and kept one, you distributed a copy. So, yes, distribution was involved. In fact, technically, making the copy is not illegal until you return the original and keep the copy, so if you make a copy and destroy it before you return the original, then you never created an illegal copy. Making copies without distributing them is not illegal in the US.


(Edit: I should mention that in a way you are correct about the copy you make of the DVD being illegal, but it's because there is no legitimate purpose for making the copy. Basically, US copyright law starts out by saying that all copies of copyrighted material are illegal, and here are the exceptions (sort of like firewall rules that say that all connections are denied, and here are the exceptions). Then it goes on in the fair use part to say basically that anything that does not affect marketability (what they really mean is whether it's likely they could have sold at least one more original) of the material is allowed. So, since the only likely reason for you to make a copy of a DVD is to keep it for yourself when you return the original, it could be considered illegal. On the other hand, you could argue that ripping it to play on a tablet while you are renting it, and erasing the rip when you return it is a legitimate use.)


If you want to get into the technicalities, I believe that both renting and loaning without compensation are treated basically as temporary transfer of ownership. The concept of "first sale" is the basis for reselling, renting, and loaning copyrighted material. That is, if you buy a copy of something, then you can treat that copy just like any other physical property as long as you don't distribute additional copies, which means you can sell it, rent it out, or loan it out. The exceptions to this are that sound recordings (like CDs) and computer programs that can be installed cannot be rented or loaned for commercial purposes. (This provision was added in 1990 because it was so easy to rent and copy sound recordings or install and return the media for computer programs. Now the same could be said of DVDs as CDs, really, but the law has never been extended to them).


Also, when you buy a copyrighted DVD, for example, you can create additional copies in other formats to use in other players, or things like that. If you later decide to sell that disc, it is perfectly legal to do so as long as you either include your additional copies in the sale, or destroy them.


Renting a DVD is treated the same way as a sale, which means transfer of copies must be complete, you cannot retain one copy and rent out another, and the person renting the DVD cannot return one copy and retain another. Technically, either party could make additional copies as long as they were transferred along with the original (although doing this makes little to no sense when dealing with rented media unless you are planning to violate copyright).


My original point was twofold. The first point is that downloading a BIOS from an authorized distributor and using it in an emulator is legal despite some publishers claims to the contrary. My second point was that, since legally owning one copy of a BIOS or ROM makes it legal for you to possess an additional copy, what difference should it make how you obtain the additional copy? Technically, getting the additional copy from a friend is illegal (unless he makes the copy from your original and returns both to you at the same time). Of course with online downloads the problem is that nothing is stopping people who have no original from obtaining a copy. However, why should downloaders who do have an original copy still be guilty of contributory infringement when they have a right to possess the copy? Technically, it may be illegal for you to download a copy of a BIOS that you already own from an unauthorized distributor, but for practical (ethical) purposes, it's not really much of a concern.


My actual reason for replying was that you said, "It is also within their power as copyright holder to define how that copy can be used, and they define it as updating official hardware," and that statement is not true. If you have a legally obtained copy of something and decide to incorporate it into a device to create a light show on your ceiling, or shred it up and sprinkle it on your breakfast cereal, it's none of the copyright holder's business, as long as you don't distribute additional copies.


(Edit: It should also be noted that wherever I talked about distribution, in some (though certainly not all) cases that would also include public display.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What is most definitely illegal in the US is to circumvent copyright protections, even if you are simply making a backup copy of your own legally-obtained property, which fair use says is okay.

That's technically how the law seems to read. However, a recent court decision (I don't have time to look it up right now) seems to interpret that part of the DMCA differently, and say that circumventing copyright protection is only illegal if you intend to violate copyright. This is still not a clear cut issue, however.


Strictly speaking, the DMCA seems to make it illegal even to use copy protected material because you have to circumvent the protection to view or listen to it. Obviously, this is not the case, so strictly speaking the DMCA essentially paves the way for content providers to control what players/viewers are available for consumers because it makes unauthorized players illegal. So it becomes a step toward making behavior that would normally violate anti-trust laws suddenly legal in a way that was never intended for copyright law to do. That may be why new case law is attempting to interpret the DMCA in a way that makes a little more sense.
 
Back
Top