I'm not trying to take sides on the debate. I don't care if you offer to make backups. Really.
However, like some other people, it bothers me to hear people repeat the same mis-information over and over as justification for their actions.
<ie, Magical chase is worth $5000, because there are only 500 copies in existence.>
I really did think by reading the copyright laws 117 to be exact, that you could perform a backup for someone else.
Go back and read section 117 closely, with a lawyers eyes. There are only 2 cases when it is legal to make a backup copy, whether the owner does it or someone else is paid to do it:
1) If it is -essential- to the operations -of the program-.
My lawyer refers to this as the hard-drive clause; you can make a copy (ie, install to a hard drive or other medium) if it is required to use the program. More specifically, if the program runs fine from the supplied medium. you may -not- make a legal copy (not even copy to a hard drive). You must use the original medium.
2) It is an archive copy of the program.
This clause allows you to make (or cause to be made) backup, archive copies of programs. Many people believe this is what allows you to make copies for others; in a sense, this is true. You can hire someone to backup up all of your computers and it is legal - provided the copies meet the definitions of backup/archive copies. Which means they must be stored securely, and only used in the case of failure resulting in the loss of the original program. Even then, they may only be used to restore the computer to its original state.
I fail to see how a cdr copy of a game, that plays fine from a cd without installation, meets either of these clauses.
.....................
My other remark was more of a warning to you. Once you accept money for performing a service, you have certain legal requirements. One of those is that you must make sure the copies you provide are legal copies. That means lots of paperwork and verification to make sure they are stored correctly (generally under lock-and-key for backups) and not used in violation of the law. Should you fail to provide such proof, -YOU- are liable for any damages, not the person receiving the copies. Any profits could quickly evaporate under even a single copyright suit - not to mention your house, car, etc.
...................
As for the need of a 1-1 copy for backup? It's an easy way to prove whether a copy is a legitimate backup or not. If information is missing, by definition the copy is -not- a backup. It's an easy way to prove whether or not the copy was produced "in a lawful manner". Note that this does not mean you have to have a direct copy of the original discs; it is possible to make a 1-1 copy of software installed to a hard drive, provided -all- information from an original installation is preserved.
For the record, a company I used to work for often embedded information in unused sectors on a disc, via a program they wrote, just to detect whether people were making copies of their software.
The software would install and run fine; but if the signature/serial was not present on the disc when the sotware was installed, it would e-mail the company with information about where it was installed, and when. Many companies rushed to buy extra licenses when they were informed about their copies being leaked to employees for home use
Just fyi: as was explained to me, the 'derivate work' clause essentially means you may alter user-editable files (ie, configuration files) and still have a legitimate copy.
...............
As for everyone shouting 'abandonware': Legally, someone still owns the rights to the software. Living in the era of patent trolls and blanket lawsuits over music sharing, I can easily picture a day when some bright person puts together a company that buys the rights to out-of-print games, for pennies in many cases, and then proceeds to sue everyone who has ever made a copy and distributed it.
Filing a lawsuit is cheap. Even if the company only wins 1% of their cases, they will make a profit - and that's the actual intent of the company. If they can get people to settle out of court, even for $10, that's probably more than they paid for the rights in the first place. Multiply that by the number of sites offering roms, and by the number of roms they distribute. It's all profit for them. And disaster for those who get caught. By offering to make many copies cheaply, you'll be one of the first in their sites.
Finally, remember copyrights last a long time. 30 years from now, some one could decide to sue you over a breach made now. Their proof? Let's check the WayBack machine, or the internet archives....
'Nuff said.
