Hmz.. they must've changed that law in the last 15 or so years... Or I have been conf00sed all that time
Maybe Latok can shed some light on this? (Given that he studied law ^_^)

Quote:

Ok. About MSX revival project. May be I haven’t followed close enough all the information published on MRC, so if I'm mistaken just correct me:

Her come the corrections:

Quote:

The last big MSX developments (basically Konami and other major game industries) were done 10 or 15 years ago. That is an eternity in computer entertainment.

Agreed

Quote:

So: what's the point in reintroducing MSX? -Purely a commercial and marketing manoeuvre; trying to get the enthusiastic people that has a good opinion of the word “MSX” but what ever they do now, it won’t be no where near what we all have in mind for a MSX computer.

Of course the one-chip-computer will be more than a machine with MSX specifications. But as far as I know, there is currently no single computer system around that has the open documentation, strict standardization and easy of use/development the MSX has. The new one-chip computer will be built on these principles. I'm hoping it will have the 'MSX Feeling' in it.

Second, you write as if you think the one-chip MSX is going to be nothing more but a simple project. Please, DO browse our news archive and find out that what makes this new MSX interesting is the combination of several projects like Wireless Radio Internet, Universal Network Language, FPGA, extremely low price etc. etc. etc. In many of these plans, I recognize the MSX spirit.

Quote:

But I am not making nor going to make any profit from it, so honestly I don’t feel guilty about it.

Breaking the law doesn't always mean you're making money.

As for the MRC policy on remakes: We have reported about them in the past, and intend to report about them in the future as well.

Quote:

If I download something, it isn't particularly illegal,

You are contradicting yourself there Grauw...

Quote:

I'll give you a quote from the site of the Dutch foundation Thuiskopie ("home copy": [..] "The copy however must be made by the user himself." [..] ~Grauw

So if the copy you have comes from kazaa, dcc, www or whatever, YOU STILL CAN'T HAVE IT...
so downloading STILL is 'particularly illegal'...

Very perspicacious, msxxpress

Glad i've got the MCCM Millennium disc's...
So i still can play those great games legal

Oh GuyveR800, the last time a saw an original complete version of sd snatcher on
E-bay they asked a little fortune... it's probably worth it but i'm no milionaire

Quote:

"The copy however must be made by the user himself." So if the copy you have comes from kazaa, dcc, www or whatever, YOU STILL CAN'T HAVE IT... so downloading STILL is 'particularly illegal'...

Uh... downloading a file making a copy aswell. Just from a different computer... The person offering the file for download is at err, and has illegal content on his site, can get in trouble for that. I however, if I download, can not, because the law allows it.

If I, say, would telnet/ssh to a computer of a friend of mine, who 'happens to have' the original disk of say, Psycho World in his diskdrive, and I would create an image of that and upload it to my own FTP server, would you consider that to fulfill the "the copy however must be made by the user himself" requirement? Yes. Well then, I can tell you, downloading a file from a web site is basically the same process, though simplified and more automated. But still what you are doing is, you are giving your computer the instruction to copy a file from somewhere onto your own computer.

By the way, maybe you didn't notice, but it doesn't say anywhere that the original you copy it from must be an original (it can be a copy of a copy), and neither does it say the end result needs to be put on the same medium (so converting to mp3 is no problem either).


~Grauw

I'd still like to hear about that from an expert, because I've never heard about such a law before... :/
It sounds more like wishful thinking.

Quote:

I'd still like to hear about that from an expert, because I've never heard about such a law before... :/ It sounds more like wishful thinking.

*sigh* must I really provide an url for people to believe I didn't make such a quote up??
www.cedar.nl/thuiskopie/

or, in particular, the first alinea of
www.cedar.nl/thuiskopie/info-gebruikers.html

Please note that the Thuiskopie foundation is an official bureau appointed by the government, and it would therefore be very unlikely that it would host incorrect information on its site. Also check out:
www.cedar.nl/thuiskopie/wetgeving-jurisprudentie.html

in particular article 16a on page 6 of this law, and article 10a on page 6 of this law

Any questions? ^_^


~Grauw *sighs: why won't people just believe me*

p.s. Heh, the law is not always bad for us, disallowing things all the time ;p. See for example also the law about 'consumentenkoop' which tells you there is often no need to pay additional money for that 3-year-guarantee you'd prefer to have on your new purchase. There are loads of people who don't know about that, so why would it be so strange if you didn't know about this particular law?

Some more things on my mind .

Quote:

The person offering the file for download is at err, and has illegal content on his site, can get in trouble for that.

This was the whole point of my original remark ^_^. Publishing material without the proper permission from the copyright holders is illegal. Period. (for the moment don't mind the exceptions for audio material like that you may distribute the first 30 seconds of every track... ). Still, the other side of the coin might also be of interest, not so much related to the original topic, but heh, the *real* original topic was something altogether different anyway . It makes 'to download or not to download' question more a moral issue -something which is what the law itself is imho actually all about-.

Quote:

Well then, I can tell you, downloading a file from a web site is basically the same process, though simplified and more automated.

Note: how far the two copies apart is not an issue. Maybe you can see it more clearly if I give you the analogy of "TV programme vs. VCR" for "MP3 on Kazaa vs. Computer". The only condition is that *you*, the person the copy is intended for, create the copy, another person may not create it for you (this law does not justify bootlegs or anything similar, no matter if it is being sold for profit or given away).

The point is, it talks about people. You will always need devices to make copies, and those devices follow your orders (at least if Bill doesn't intervene ;p). Be it a copy machine, a tape recorder, or a computer, as long as you or I give <some device> the order to copy from a certain source, be it a broadcasted television signal, a dvd, or some other computer far away, there is no problem as far as the law is concerned.

Also, as I already said, it doesn't matter if the source of your copy is an original or not, good or bad, legal or illegal. It is about needing to ask permission to the holder of the copyrights to make the copy. If I went to a pop band and asked them 'can I copy this MP3 of a bootleg recording a friend of mine has of your concert?', and they give permission, that makes it ok, no matter if my source is illegal or no. And since according to this law I do not need to ask this permission I just talked about, that basically leaves 'that makes it ok'.

Ofcourse, this is a dangerous law, as people must not start to abuse it and just copy everything they need. That's where ethics come in. When do you, and when do you not purchase a product. First of all, there is the fact that you are supporting the creators. They worked hard for it, just like you do on your job, and they want to feed themselves and their children aswell. If they do not get paid enough by it, they will probably (have to) go find another job which pays more, and stop producing the very thing you apparantly like enough to make a copy of. I think this is the principal message that you have to get through to everyone. It gives you somewhat of I choice to either say 'I like you, go on' or 'I don't like it, please stop'. Then there is the additional value an original can have compared to a copy. I personally find purchasing for example an anime DVD easier, cooler, and better (quality-wise) than downloading/ripping a DivX file of that DVD. All that aside from the 'support the anime industry' argument.

Now let's give an example of the contrary: I refuse to import anime from outside my DVD region. American distribution companies usually did not pay the original authors the additional money for a European license, and in addition to that I would be harming the local anime market by doing so (if I may quote from an employee of a very wellknown Dutch anime release company: "With every DVD you import, you are making the interest of the local stores to have our DVD's in their shelves for low prices smaller". In addition to that I just don't like that the Americans 'have it all' and we don't ;p, and I don't want to pay those American people to get even more while I still don't. And as it is, I am purchasing enough (Dutch) DVD's anyways. Alas, this is the 'morality' I was talking about.

I guess everyone has to justify his own actions for himself, and any discussion taking place concerning topics like these should be about opinions and morals, not about 'legal' or 'illegal' (unless it concerns bootlegs or other factual illegal things). If you really think you are doing something illegal and should actually be buying 'the real stuff', then that is imho truly wrong, and you are very lame just don't buy it then. If you think there's nothing wrong with making an occasional copy of a CD because it's so hard to find otherwise, or promise yourself to buy an original when you have your next paycheck, then go ahead. And if you don't agree with that, please be my guest and have a discussion about why you think it should not be done, just don't mention it is illegal, for it is not. Mkay?

So, despite all those arguments there are in favour of owning originals, people must not and can not say to me I have not got the legal right to own a number of copies. It is regular practice, and allowed by the law. Only those which I made myself, by the way. So that bootleg I have... it definately *does* make me the guilty one there, even though I did not know it was one when I purchased it, while I'm fully aware of what I am doing if I copy something . And uh, Guyver, could you return that Chrono Trigger CD I copied for you? ;p Nah, if they want me or you to buy that game, they should just take the effort to publish it here in the Netherlands, hehehe. If they don't, there's not any revenue here for them anyway, so they should not complain. That's the way I feel about it, and I think it is reasonable.

Anyways, one final word about the law itself. I think it's a fair law. I don't like the idea of being a criminal if I merely copy a few pages of sheet music from a book I borrowed from the library, or when I tape a TV programme, or download a CD with a lame nonstandard protection which does not play in my PS2 which I use for audio playback instead of buying it... I feel those are my basic rights, and that is probably why this law is still intact and also present in other countries.


~Grauw

p.s. no it's not something from the most recent 15 years . more like, 1912... hehe...

Ok, ok, let's say something about it.....And people, this only goes for Dutch law. I don't know how everything works in other countries.

Intellectual rights are always difficult. In this ever changing world with new media constantly, it's very hard to keep the laws up to date. And what about the global village we're living in? Very, very, difficult stuff here.....

Some dutch now, sorry

"Artikel 16b Auteurswet.
lid 1. Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk van letterkunde, wetenschap of kunst wordt niet beschouwd, tenzij het een met elektronische middelen toegankelijke verzameling als bedoeld in artikel 10, derde lid, betreft, de verveelvoudiging, welke beperkt blijft tot enkele exemplaren en uitsluitend dient tot eigen oefening, studie of gebruik van degene die de verveelvoudiging vervaardigt of tot het verveelvoudigen uitsluitend ten behoeve van zichzelf opdracht geeft."

Ok, to say something about article 16b Auteurswet, which indeed allows making SOME copies of 'auteursrechtelijke werken'. Of course, when you borrow a book at the library and you copy some pages or even the whole book, it is NO problem. You must copy it for yourself, though. If you borrow a cd, you can copy that one as well. As long as YOU use it yourself.

Art. 16b Auteurswet says '....of tot het verveelvoudigen uitsluitend ten behoeve van zichzelf opdracht geeft.' Does this mean you can give some retailer an order to make a copy for 'yourself only' for which copy you pay that retailer? Is that allowed? NO. Why not? Because article 16b Auteurswet only allows a limited amount of copies. And this way, the retailer simply is trying to make money and crosses the article 16b Auteurswet line.....It can't be considered as 'a limited amount'.

For the copies which are being made legally, the original authors do get paid. How? Because the manufacturers of CDrecordables, paper and other possible 'holders of protected intellectual rights' pay for you! And no worries, these manufacturers pass the increase on in higher prices for your CDrecordables and paper

Finally, some important remark about copyright protected computersoftware. GuyveR800, you will like this Grauw, I'm sorry

In article 45n Auteurswet we can read the following: 'De artikelen 16b, eerste lid, en 17, eerste lid, zijn niet van toepassing op de in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 12, bedoelde werken'. Article 10, eerste lid, onder 12 reads: '12. computerprogramma's en het voorbereidend materiaal'. This means one is NOT allowed to make copies of copyright protected computersoftware for private use at all! Article 45n Auteurswet gives an exception on article 16b, eerste lid, for computersoftware.

Don't you love them laws? They're like computerprograms themselves, you know

And to make the story complete, because I now expect questions about making a backup of your original software. 'Isn't that allowed then?', I see some of you ask in despair....

Here's the answer:

'Artikel 45k Auteurswet
Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid onder 12, wordt niet beschouwd de verveelvoudiging, vervaardigd door de rechtmatige gebruiker van eerder genoemd werk, die dient als reservekopie indien zulks voor het met dat werk beoogde gebruik noodzakelijk is'.

One is always allowed to make a back up from computersoftware you have in your possession LEGALLY.....So you MUST be the LEGAL user of this software. Then you're allowed to make a back up....

Thank you Latok, for clearing that up!

Ok, so copying music, videos e.g. is allowed, unless:
'tenzij het een met elektronische middelen toegankelijke verzameling als bedoeld in artikel 10, derde lid'

'Artikel 10, derde lid
Verzamelingen van werken, gegevens of andere zelfstandige elementen, systematisch of methodisch geordend, en afzonderlijk met elektronische middelen of anderszins toegankelijk, worden, onverminderd andere rechten op de verzameling en onverminderd het auteursrecht of andere rechten op de in de verzameling opgenomen werken, gegevens of andere elementen, als zelfstandige werken beschermd.'
So this means downloading mp3's, DVD-rips, whatever is _not_ legal (unless you own the original). But the word electronically confuses me a bit, a CD-recorder is electronical as well, so that would mean using that to create copies would be illegal as well.

Some other nice questions:
I have an original version of Final Fantasy X. Would it be legal for me to have the MP3's of the OST (except for the songs that aren't in the original game, and maybe some artwork)??? I would think it's illegal too, because the MP3's were taken from another production, not from FFX itself...

Quote:

Finally, some important remark about copyright protected computersoftware. GuyveR800, you will like this Grauw, I'm sorry

I don't mind the computer software . That's my branche after all.
Anyways er, no, I was more shocked about the part Arjan referred to (however you didn't even mention anything about it!). Since the legal terms are somewhat confusing to me (I read it 3 times and still don't get it), maybe you can er... translate that part for me?

At least the site of the Thuiskopie foundation doesn't make such a distinction... But then again, it doesn't say anything about the computer software either.

Uh, by the way, the section 16a you mentioned is different from the one I linked to... (this one)... How come?
[edit]sorry I didn't look right[/edit]

~Grauw

Just some note I am not 100% sure of :
to make a BACKUP-COPY of cartridges and stuff (iow, creating a ROM-file), one must use Reverse-engineering, which in most countries is illegal as well (am I right)
and therefor a backupcopy would be illegal as well...