Define a �reasonable� backup

[Dylan]

A software company that made DVD copying software was shut down today which got me thinking about what could be considered a reasonable and legal backup. Story here . For how much software cost and how easily media can be scratched or damaged or stolen, I personally dont see a problem of making copies of software as long as you have a license and dont distribute it. It shouldnt matter if I make 20 backups of my software as long as I only have as many copies installed as I have licenses for. For example, I build a ton of PCs every month with either XP Home of Pro. Instead of using the media that comes with each OEM user pack I use a CDR copy. That way, the user I build the system for has an untainted CD in case they have to reinstall their OS at a later date. However, Im still using the specified license number that came with the media to install it, so it is perfectly legal.

[doug osborne]

I agree that your take on this is reasonable.

 

The prevailing legal wisdom on technology and content is from the Betamax case, and holds that as long as there can be substantial non-infringing use of a technology, it will be permitted. Hense, home video was permitted and a huge industry was born.

 

321's software obviously has substantial non-infringing use, particularly in backing up content to which you own a license. This software should have fallen reasonably between the hysterical side that says all art should be free and the hysterical side that wants to limit the experience of any work by license to one user via biometrics. Instead, free enterprise and small business is attacked by short-sighted politically-powerful special interest groups.

 

Many technologies or things that are legal could be used for illegal things - you can kill someone with water, or a bible. It's the act that can be legislated, and copyright infringement already is.