Pour qui comprend l’anglais, il y a un long article qui traite de la légalité de dumper du matériel sous copyright que l’on possède :
La conclusion :
Copyright law says that I have the legal right to archive computer software that I have legitimately obtained (17 USC 117). It says nothing whatsoever about preserving the original format of the software in question, nor does it require that I have to follow the vendor's intent in this matter. I can make my backup on any media and in any format I want. So much for disk image ROMs. Just because it's a disk image doesn't mean it's not a backup
Case law has demonstrated that an uncirculated, unauthorized derivative work based upon a program originally stored in ROM can be noninfringing (Nintendo v. Galoob). As long as I paid for the original, and as long as that noninfringing derivative work remains with me, then no harm is done to the original vendor. So much for binary dump ROMs. They are not automatically infringing.
Both copyright law and case law recognize a user's need to modify a given computer program in order that it may perform as designed irrespective of vendor desire (17 USC 117, Vault v. Quaid, Narrell v. Freeman). Such works are certainly derivative, but the courts have ruled them to be noninfringing. So much for the vendor's infringement claims. Just because a derivative work is made doesn't automatically mean it's infringing.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the personal use of copyrighted material, irrespective of how those copies are made, or in what format they are stored - even if it differs from the original, is noninfringing (Sony v. Universal). Personal use is noncommercial use. The Supreme Court made the case that noncommerical use is noninfringing, so long as it does not cause harm to the vendor. Personal use does not cause harm to the vendor by its very nature - the vendor doesn't know about it and has no access to works derived under personal use. They can only speculate about its possibly infringing nature, and they are forbidden by the Supreme Court from engaging in speculation. If a ROM is made for the express purpose of personal use, then it qualifies for protection under the high court's Betamax decision.
Ergo,
ROMs made for personal use are noninfringing!
Q.E.D.
L’article : http://www.overclocked.org/emufaq/EmuFAQ_Y2KAddendum2.htm
