To be clear: I do not want to know how to make a backup copy I know
how to make a working backup.

In a standard (EULA) End users License Agreement it says that you can
make a backup copy if you buy an original.

Section 117 copyright laws state that you can make a backup copy OR
have someone make a backup copy on your behalf.

How can a software manufacture such as (Evil empire)(OPINION)
microsoft has software built in to stop you from makeing copies of
your software. You must have specific knowledge to circumvent these to
make a working copy.

Now on a legal basis how can they do this? Say you can make a backup
but block the average computer user from doing this? By adding this
software to their programs to stop you from coping the CD aren't they
in violation of section 117 that enables a legitimate user to have a
backup?

Thank you
Steve

I will assume you mean that MS software is copy-protected (a
technological, coded-in, inability to make a backup copy) and that you
are ~not~ talking about a prohibition in the MS EULA.  Does this copy
protection actually stop you from making an archival backup copy?  If
I go out and buy a retail copy of MS Office, the software prevents me
from making an archival backup copy?  I did not know that.  Well,
let's assume that's true.  The law you cite (17 U.S.C. Section 117)
says that you are permitted to make an archival backup copy without
infringing the copyright owner's rights.  That's different that saying
the copyright owner MUST give you that right.  Assume that there's a
law that says you can paint your house green.  The you go and buy a
lot in a subdivision, and that subdivision's covenants say, "No green
houses."  Because you voluntarily bought the lot (software) and agreed
to the terms when you bought it, the fact that there's a law that
might run contrary to a right you voluntarily gave away is not, in and
of itself, improper.  There are lots of examples where people contract
away a right given by a law. The only time it is problematic is where
the contract tries to make you do something criminal, like deal drugs
or commit murder.

"But wait," you say, "I did not enter into a contract with MS."  Yes
you did--you bought the software, and by buying and using it you
agreed to their terms of use, which also apparently prohibit making
backup copies.  Again, section 117 doesn't say you MUST be given the
right to make a backup.  It says that, absent any contrary contractual
prohibitions, you MAY make a backup copy without infringing the
copyright owner's rights.

I understand where you are coming from but 

1) From a .Gov site
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html
You use the example if I paint my home...... So if I move to a city
and city law states I can paint my home what ever color I want BUT the
association says that I cannot. You are stating that the association
by-laws outlaw the city law.
2) When you buy a copy at the store you do not agree to a EULA. You
only agree to EULA during install. So if you were 1 of the 1000
installs that actually read this information and did not agree then
you are stuck with an open box item that you cannot return because you
based your beliefs on how the government perceives it. (If you were to
put that much thought into it BUT like I said 99% of the public does
not know what a EULA is nor do they care)

Thanks
Steve

Steve,

As to (1) in your comment, it's not that the by-laws trump city law. 
The legal principle is that you CAN contract away legal (statutory)
rights.  The association regulations and the subdivsion covenants are
CONTRACTS, not laws.  Another example: I see contracts every day that
say something like this: "The parties agree that all causes of action
arising out of this contract must be brought within one year of the
date the cause of action accrued."  If I sign that, well, I have
waived the applicable statute of limitations, which may have given me,
say, three years in which to bring a lawsuit.

As to (2), your beef at that point is with the retailer who won't let
you return an open-box product.  But I see your point.  If someone
ever challeged the MS EULA in court as conflicting with section 117,
MS would simply argue that it is a matter of contract and that if a
person does not want to waive his or her rights under section 117 to
make an archival back up copy, then don't buy the product.  As a
purely legal argument, MS would likely win.

Here's a summary of the problem.
1)You are legally allowed to make a backup copy of media.
2)Software Company implements scheme that prevents you from making backup copy.
3)DMCA prevents you from circumventing copy protection scheme.

Before the DMCA, you were allowed to circumvent copy protection in the
pursuit of your fair use rights. Software Company had no legal ability
to prevent this.

Now, the common view these days, among nerds at least, is that a EULA
is not a legally binding contract. That is, it is unable to cause you
to lose rights. It hasn't been tested in court unfortunately.

Furthermore, regarding point 3 above, recent decisions seem to
indicate that it may be allowable to circumvent copy protection in
fair use scenarios, though again, it is an area that is legally
ambiguous.