At least in the US if I were to legally purchase the old game and create a patch for it to remove the DRM that's something I'm allowed to do.
Removing the DRM from your own game is illegal in the U.S, even in your own home for your own use. The act of creating a patch to remove DRM that "effectively controls access" is illegal.
Only exceptions are handed out by the Library of Congress and they're only allowing game hacks for the sole purpose of preserving them in museums once the authorization servers are gone (not before) or if you are security researcher doing it for your job (not to play the game).
Removing the DRM from your own game is illegal in the U.S, even in your own home for your own use. The act of creating a patch to remove DRM that "effectively controls access" is illegal.
According to what law is doing this illegal? It's not my job to prove your argument for you, so please try to be as unambiguous as possible.
Only exceptions are handed out by the Library of Congress and they're only allowing game hacks for the sole purpose of preserving them in museums once the authorization servers are gone (not before) or if you are security researcher doing it for your job (not to play the game).
I very much doubt that, but I won't call you a liar just yet.
In that case DRM is considered an "Access Control" under 1201.
The way he worded it still sounds wrong somehow, so I wouldn't blame anyone for being skeptical. I have no idea how tested in court this is. The whole DMCA should be unconstitutional anyway.
I have a feeling that the courts are corrupt enough to uphold it, regardless of how stupid it seems. Thanks for the direct link. Very helpful to have the exact source on hand, so I'm definitely going to bookmark that one for the future.
The DMCA my dude. Seriously what rock did you crawl out from under? I'd accuse you or being Rip van Winkel but he was only asleep for 20 years and DMCA is 25 years old.
Removing the DRM from your own game is illegal in the U.S, even in your own home for your own use. The act of creating a patch to remove DRM that "effectively controls access" is illegal.
Only exceptions are handed out by the Library of Congress and they're only allowing game hacks for the sole purpose of preserving them in museums once the authorization servers are gone (not before) or if you are security researcher doing it for your job (not to play the game).
According to what law is doing this illegal? It's not my job to prove your argument for you, so please try to be as unambiguous as possible.
I very much doubt that, but I won't call you a liar just yet.
I assume he's talking about the DMCA and this.
In that case DRM is considered an "Access Control" under 1201.
The way he worded it still sounds wrong somehow, so I wouldn't blame anyone for being skeptical. I have no idea how tested in court this is. The whole DMCA should be unconstitutional anyway.
I should have said removing DRM from "a game you own" instead of "your own game", but context should have cleared that up.
I have a feeling that the courts are corrupt enough to uphold it, regardless of how stupid it seems. Thanks for the direct link. Very helpful to have the exact source on hand, so I'm definitely going to bookmark that one for the future.
The DMCA my dude. Seriously what rock did you crawl out from under? I'd accuse you or being Rip van Winkel but he was only asleep for 20 years and DMCA is 25 years old.