Is this Pirating?

[vun]

Spoiler: Indeed, you are correct - you can set the speed to 0

Indeed, you are correct - you can set the speed to 0

Well, technically you can do it, however, it's a breach of the torrent protocol and is achieved through cheating the whole system.

While simply setting the speed to 0 will set upload speed to unlimited, there are several ways to stop uploading, although I can't clearly remember everything as I don't often use torrents and when I do* I don't have to fiddle with upload anything.
And yes, while not uploading makes you a bit of a dick and will get you kicked from private trackers, not to mention going against the whole idea of torrenting in general, there's nothing stopping you from doing it on public trackers. In cases where only uploading the material is illegal I'd say being a dick is better than being sued.

*I don't always use torrents, but when I do, it's for legal stuff. Don't want any overzealous mods banning me because they're getting the wrong impressions.

 

[Wintermoot]

nope, you already payed for the license/data. You are simply running a slightly different version of it.

 

[144_v1legacy]

The law-inclined posters have already made amazingly clear what counts as legal regarding the situation (although the poster before me seems to have not read any of it).

Also, people generally believe it is probably morally ok, and I can't really disagree with them.

The problem is that this behavior does, in fact, set a poor precedent. It implies that the answer to "how do I play something that isn't working/doesn't exist/I've paid for differently?" is "download it for free, like you could have to begin with," begging the question, why buy it legally to begin with?

I'm not saying you've done anything wrong, I don't think you have, but I do think that when the answer to dissatisfaction is piracy, it makes piracy seem like a good thing, and the industry will therefore move harder to restrict distribution rather than find ways to meet demand for those who desire the product.

 

[Shadowcreed]

The law-inclined posters have already made amazingly clear what counts as legal regarding the situation (although the poster before me seems to have not read any of it).

Also, people generally believe it is probably morally ok, and I can't really disagree with them.

The problem is that this behavior does, in fact, set a poor precedent. It implies that the answer to "how do I play something that isn't working/doesn't exist/I've paid for differently?" is "download it for free, like you could have to begin with," begging the question, why buy it legally to begin with?

I'm not saying you've done anything wrong, I don't think you have, but I do think that when the answer to dissatisfaction is piracy, it makes piracy seem like a good thing, and the industry will therefore move harder to restrict distribution rather than find ways to meet demand for those who desire the product.

I don't believe someone that actually has bought the game and then downloads a copy of it is promoting piracy, fact of the matter is you paid for the product so you're entitled to use it. IF you leave out the fact that OP has bought this game already THEN you'd be promoting piracy by saying its OK to download it.

Reasons are important, morality is too - its just that the law can't go into that much detail.
If morally you're not doing anything wrong then I don't see why the law would be against it.

 

[144_v1legacy]

The law-inclined posters have already made amazingly clear what counts as legal regarding the situation (although the poster before me seems to have not read any of it).

Also, people generally believe it is probably morally ok, and I can't really disagree with them.

The problem is that this behavior does, in fact, set a poor precedent. It implies that the answer to "how do I play something that isn't working/doesn't exist/I've paid for differently?" is "download it for free, like you could have to begin with," begging the question, why buy it legally to begin with?

I'm not saying you've done anything wrong, I don't think you have, but I do think that when the answer to dissatisfaction is piracy, it makes piracy seem like a good thing, and the industry will therefore move harder to restrict distribution rather than find ways to meet demand for those who desire the product.

I don't believe someone that actually has bought the game and then downloads a copy of it is promoting piracy, fact of the matter is you paid for the product so you're entitled to use it. IF you leave out the fact that OP has bought this game already THEN you'd be promoting piracy by saying its OK to download it.

Reasons are important, morality is too - its just that the law can't go into that much detail.
If morally you're not doing anything wrong then I don't see why the law would be against it.

Think about all the terrible, awful, stupid court cases and court decisions you've heard of in your lifetime, (McDonald's Coffee, OJ Simpson, etc.) and then ask yourself if it's a good idea to trust the court to make a "moral" decision that isn't spelled out in writing.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

Salute Escapists!

Anyhow, I'll get straight to the point. I own and bought Skyrim and all its DLC (steam owned) however some mods have slight issues with Steam support and overall I didn't want to go through the headache of fixing that so I downloaded through torrent the game and the DLC I owned which is all of it. Then I happily installed the stuff I desired and it all works perfectly.

However, is this pirating? I do own the game itself so to say but you might also argue I only own a license available through steam and not the game per-se.

What are your thoughts on this particular kind of 'piracy'? This might also apply to, for example owning your old Majora's Mask and Ocarina of Time cartridge but not owning a N64 anymore, so you DL a ROM. Is that pirating? You still own and have the cartridge. Where does one draw the line?

Thanks for all and any input!

As far as I am aware, that's perfectly legal.
However, I'm not sure about the N64 part. I think the BIOS for the N64 is illegal to download (or for any console). There are legit ways of running emulators but only for certain systems, and you need to prove that you acquired the BIOS properly. I think.

 

[Shadowcreed]

snip

I already think its a bad idea to have a single person the be-all power to basically smash down his hammer and say .
Rather than having a tribunal with multiple people and a voting system to pleed guilty / innocent.

I agree with you that there has to be a simple, clear line that states when something is illegal or not. However;
I do feel that the court needs to take in account the morality and reasoning behind the actions before passing judgement.
dumb example:
There's a kitten trapped in a tree - you want to help the poor kitty out. You're actually an idiot and chug a rock to the kitty so that it will be startled and inclined to climb out of the tree. Instead what happens is the kitty is startled by your rock, jumps into a pool and drowns.
Would you say that the person throwing the rock should be punished by law? After all, he pretty much caused the kitten to die.
Would you say that he should be less severely punished? Because he obviously did not want this to happen and it wasn't his intention.
Or should he be unscathed? Since he took action when there was a need for it.

I'd go with the 2nd option, taking in account the reasoning.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

snip

snip

Think about all the terrible, awful, stupid court cases and court decisions you've heard of in your lifetime, (McDonald's Coffee, OJ Simpson, etc.) and then ask yourself if it's a good idea to trust the court to make a "moral" decision that isn't spelled out in writing.

I know nothing about the OJ case, but I feel that I simply MUST speak out about the McDonald's coffee case. Turns out that said coffee was far hotter than it should have been, and while the woman should not have been trying to drink coffee and drive, the fact that it gave her 3rd degree burns does put McDonald's at fault and I do believe is worth compensation as skin grafts are not cheap and she had to take time off work to have them performed.
I'd structure that sentence better, but I'm just not capable right now.

 

[Mr Binary]

I'd say technically it is, because you purchased one copy of the game for one license. From a moral point of view, I see nothing wrong with it though as Steam didn't support the mods and that is a pretty big selling point for the PC port of the game.

 

[Entitled]

The problem is that this behavior does, in fact, set a poor precedent. It implies that the answer to "how do I play something that isn't working/doesn't exist/I've paid for differently?" is "download it for free, like you could have to begin with," begging the question, why buy it legally to begin with?

I'm not saying you've done anything wrong, I don't think you have, but I do think that when the answer to dissatisfaction is piracy, it makes piracy seem like a good thing, and the industry will therefore move harder to restrict distribution rather than find ways to meet demand for those who desire the product.

And the answer is an obvious "Buy it legally, to financially support the development of games like that".

Everyone who doesn't want to support the industry, is already pirating everything. Everyone KNOWS that piracy exists, there is no need to fear that such downloads will open up some naive newbie's eyes to it. Most people are either commited buyers, committed pirates, or both.

I think this case sets a great precedent, as it helps to define the difference between piracy, and the harm that might be caused by piracy, and it opens up the minds of people to similar issues like pirating things that you can't access, or couldn't afford, or don't like (but need a specific screenshot from the middle of it or something), or that you want to financially harm.

Think about all the terrible, awful, stupid court cases and court decisions you've heard of in your lifetime, (McDonald's Coffee

You mean that case where a woman got hospitalized with third digree burns from coffee that was, as McDonalds quality assurance manager admitted, "not fit for consumption"? Or do you mean one of the earlier 700 injury cases where people complained that McDonald's coffee is fucking dangerous, and far hotter than normal coffee?

http://www.caoc.org/index.cfm?pg=facts

 

[Entitled]

...while the woman should not have been trying to drink coffee and drive...

That's why she didn't do it, she was sitting in a parking car.

 

[DarthFennec]

I do own the game itself so to say but you might also argue I only own a license available through steam and not the game per-se.

The only people who own "the game itself" are Bethesda, all the consumer ever buys is the license and sometimes the physical medium (disk and packaging, which isn't worth much). Since you own the license already, I wouldn't consider it piracy.

This might also apply to, for example owning your old Majora's Mask and Ocarina of Time cartridge but not owning a N64 anymore, so you DL a ROM. Is that pirating? You still own and have the cartridge. Where does one draw the line?

Right, or maybe you do still own an N64 but you have no way of, say, recording footage from it for a Let's Play or something. This seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I think most game companies would agree.

When you buy a game, or any software, you're really just buying the license to use it, and when you do that you have to agree to a contract called the EULA. Basically an EULA says "I agree to these terms, and pay this amount of money, and in return, I'm allowed to use this software." So ultimately, what's "considered pirating" all depends on what's in the EULA, and therefore, it's always the decision of the copyright holder. When writing an EULA, the main concern is keeping yourself from getting screwed over financially, even if it means a consumer or two have less-than-optimal experiences with the software (I personally despise this mode of thinking, but hey, it's the world we live in). It can be very easy to lose track of whether something detriments the average consumer, when trying to outsmart the few people trying to steal your profit. But for the most part, it doesn't matter as much. If what you're doing is clearly not doing any damage to the copyright holder, and it's clearly not what they had in mind when they wrote the EULA, then they're very unlikely to prosecute you, or even to notice you. People don't just take other people to court lightly, and it's usually a corporation's last line of defense. It's fucking expensive. Also, if you take absolutely every insignificant little copyright infringement to court, you're going to get bad rep. So nobody ever does it unless they feel really badly financially threatened by the particular infringement.

That's the idea, anyway. I don't know how adherent Bethesda is to it. I know a lot of people haven't been in the past, though. I think that's mainly because of the difference in culture/thought process probably, consumers and lawyers don't really have a clue how each others' minds work and so they interpret the actions of the other incorrectly, leading to problems. I think that's what ultimately lead to the RIAA being the worst thing to ever happen to anyone a few years back. You can tell the MPAA doesn't really get it either, what with that anti-piracy advert with the foreign guy selling the burnt DVD, and then all the shots of gang violence and child labor and drug cartels and whatever the hell they think is going on. I feel like the only large corporation that really understands the mindset of the average pirate is Valve, and that's why Steam's been so damn successful.

 

[Savagezion]

The big question here is, did you torrent it? If so, you acted as a seeder for other people to download it who may or may not have bought it which puts you as an illegal distributor.The fact that you downloaded it isn't an issue, the fact that if you were torrenting it, you were illegally distributing it is.

I am not really anti-piracy anymore for reasons I am not allowed to discuss which I find ironic considering the nature of the site, but I still am pro-pay-for-your-shit/vote with your wallet. So yeah, morally, what you did is fine - even if it was torrented to me.

Torrenting is still being discussed on legal grounds and not many people want to pick up that banner in the legal field as there are way too many dodgy aspects to it. For example, the only way to track it is through IP address which is easily faked. A case last year involving the porn industry trying to extort money out of people based on IP address even ruled that IP address is not a valid form of ID as evidence. How many innocent people had money extorted from them fearing that such a case risks their job and/or their marriage? This case is one of many things wrong with the anti-piracy side of the debate.

So basically, if you torrented it, you pirated it. However, US law is not equipped to prove it yet. If you downloaded it from a file sharing site, you should be in the clear. However, once again the game companies need laws put in place to hold them accountable. If a game is a service (license) then obtaining a copy to use your license should be provided for you or you should be able to provide one for yourself. (Yet, they would have a file sharing site remove the game if they found out it was distributing it.) If it is a product, then you would have to pay for an additional copy. The problem is no law has been put into place either way and the game companies want it both ways so that they can charge for lost, stolen, or DRM blocked copies but you are not allowed ownership rights over the product so that they can maximize their profits. This is also the problem with the argument tying it to a "steam copy" of the game. If you are buying a license, and not a product, then the copy of DRM or where it was distributed is largely irrelevant as it doesn't pertain to the license in question. There may be something that could be debated over steam requiring a license but the cards don't necessarily fall one way or the other there without a proper investigation of both licenses.

This don't even cover all of it and I actually tried to keep it short. But, this'll do. I don't see a problem with what you did and only a lawyer or someone on with a high horse complex would even try to press the issue. The fact is, you have suppported the developers and people involved with making the game by obtaining the right to play through paying a fee they agreed to. Any pressing of the issue is futile at this point or a simple exercise in discussion of the stranger aspects of this topic.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

...while the woman should not have been trying to drink coffee and drive...

That's why she didn't do it, she was sitting in a parking car.

Ah yes, correct you are, my mistake.

 

[144_v1legacy]

You mean that case where a woman got hospitalized with third digree burns from coffee that was, as McDonalds quality assurance manager admitted, "not fit for consumption"? Or do you mean one of the earlier 700 injury cases where people complained that McDonald's coffee is fucking dangerous, and far hotter than normal coffee?

http://www.caoc.org/index.cfm?pg=facts

Ugh. Fine. Then pick a case you like better. How about the recent one between Apple and Samsung. The point I was trying to make had to do with doubting the security the poster felt that a court would "do the morally right thing." The "legally right thing," in an ideal world, is the same as the "morally right thing." It is legally the right thing to pursue those who would download illegally. It is also morally the right thing to fix something you own through your own means. In courts, for the most part, when those two zones of "legally right" and "morally right" intersect, the "legally right" usually wins.

WHICH IS WHY, (back to my original statement) in spite of whether or not the "piracy" was justified, it is almost irrelevant, and therefore a good idea to know what the actual law is before you break it.

 

[144_v1legacy]

snip

I already think its a bad idea to have a single person the be-all power to basically smash down his hammer and say .
Rather than having a tribunal with multiple people and a voting system to pleed guilty / innocent.

I agree with you that there has to be a simple, clear line that states when something is illegal or not. However;
I do feel that the court needs to take in account the morality and reasoning behind the actions before passing judgement.
dumb example:
There's a kitten trapped in a tree - you want to help the poor kitty out. You're actually an idiot and chug a rock to the kitty so that it will be startled and inclined to climb out of the tree. Instead what happens is the kitty is startled by your rock, jumps into a pool and drowns.
Would you say that the person throwing the rock should be punished by law? After all, he pretty much caused the kitten to die.
Would you say that he should be less severely punished? Because he obviously did not want this to happen and it wasn't his intention.
Or should he be unscathed? Since he took action when there was a need for it.

I'd go with the 2nd option, taking in account the reasoning.

Are you quoting the right person? I'm not making a point as to what's right or wrong. I'm adding my insight as to what would happen in a hypothetical legal scenario should one occur.

 

[Shadowcreed]

Are you quoting the right person? I'm not making a point as to what's right or wrong. I'm adding my insight as to what would happen in a hypothetical legal scenario should one occur.

And I agree with you on what would happen in a legal scenario - cause that's how the law works on this. Though what I'm asking - is that the proper judgement to hand out or not?
Just trying to get a moral discussion going really =]

 

[DoPo]

You mean that case where a woman got hospitalized with third digree burns from coffee that was, as McDonalds quality assurance manager admitted, "not fit for consumption"? Or do you mean one of the earlier 700 injury cases where people complained that McDonald's coffee is fucking dangerous, and far hotter than normal coffee?

http://www.caoc.org/index.cfm?pg=facts

Ugh. Fine. Then pick a case you like better.

related, just yesterday I read an interesting article [http://www.aaronsanderslaw.com/blog/virtual-goods-the-first-sale-doctrine] it's mainly going through some differences of physical vs virtual products. OK, it may not be actually that interesting for everybody, but one of the cases referred to was actually worth pointing out - Costco vs Omega. I'll summarise it - Omega sell watches around the world and set different prices in different places to maximise the sales (so you could have a 60$ watch in the USA and the same one being 30? in Germany). The retail chain Costco, however, bought Omega watches from some third party which imported them from another country where they were cheaper. This meant that Costco sold the same Omega watches for a lower price and Omega didn't get a cent of it, either. Right, this is the setup. But Omega couldn't actually sue, because there were no grounds to - being physical products, Omega couldn't exercise control over the distribution after they were sold. But Omega did something...erm, legally tricky, let's call it - they imprinted a small symbol on the back of the watches then sued Costco for copyright infringement - distributing the symbol without the right to do so.

Just something I thought might be of interest and slightly relevant to the topic.

 

[Rick Oortwijn]

I don't think it's considered piracy, even if by downloading the torrent you automatically seed it to others. You see the license you have bought is about the CD key or Steam key, so the the version you downloaded isn't really illegal, only if you use a keygen right? I think redownloading software and using the key you bought falls under home copying rights or something like that.

TL;DR The CD-key is the license you bought, redownloading the software isn't illegal I think as long as you use your own cd-key. Seeding the software isn't either if there's no keygen attached

 

[Something Amyss]

You mean that case where a woman got hospitalized with third digree burns from coffee that was, as McDonalds quality assurance manager admitted, "not fit for consumption"? Or do you mean one of the earlier 700 injury cases where people complained that McDonald's coffee is fucking dangerous, and far hotter than normal coffee?

http://www.caoc.org/index.cfm?pg=facts

Yeah, but think about how stupid that is! I mean, she expected food that wouldn't injure her and dared to take it "to go!"