LostGryphon said:
I'm aware of the distinction. I was trying to draw a parallel through example and apparently failed at it.
Probably because you picked a bad example.
From what I understand, the legal implications vary and the law itself is in a state of flux. There are so many variables, especially when the concept of a license is involved, that it's genuinely difficult to write a sweeping mandate rather than approach these things on a case by case basis.
This is true, but we're not making a sweeping mandate. We're asking if it's copyright infringement if you download a copy of a game to use as a backup to your purchased copy. Answer: it totally still is.
If it's copyright infringement to copy a book then, logically, it's infringement to copy my Skyrim folder to another place on my computer. Point being, the language needs refinement.
Yes! It is, and it does. You've been listening. The law is
stupid, but it is also the law, and no-one has a better alternative other than sticking their fingers in their ears and singing the Power Rangers theme song while trying to extradite Kim Dotcom.
And technically, as we've all been made so painfully aware by the DRM toting publishers, we are not purchasing the game proper. We're purchasing a license to use the data which makes up the game. The very nature of data, being intangible and all, prohibits comparative statements from being made because they just wind up like my Ferrari example.
The thing about intellectual property is that it is inherently intangible; that's why it's called intellectual property and not real property. You seem to think that it's not possible to draw a comparison between tangible and intangible copyright infringement. This is true, but not how you think it is; it's the other way around.
When I photocopy a book, the subject of the copyright is not the physical book itself. The book is a collection of papers in which are written a series of words. The
words are the intellectual property, and they're the subject of the copyright. The
book is just the paper the word is written on. That's why it's still copyright infringement for me to make a scan of the book, even if the resulting document is physically very different to the master copy.
You're sort of going "Copyright infringement doesn't work on intangible objects!" That's not the problem. All copyright applies to intangible objects. When you claim copyright in a book or any work of art, you are asserting a property right to the
idea behind it, not to its physical form. That's why an artist can sue a person who scans their painting and uploads it to the Internet, or who repaints it with different paint on different canvas. It's why a sculptor can sue for a man copying their statue even if they make it out of plaster instead of marble.
The problem with copyright and software isn't the intangibility of the software. It's the fact that software functions by making copies of itself on a regular and unavoidable basis. That's the legally tricky part. You commit copyright infringement by installing the software on your hard drive, or by backing it up onto an external storage device, or by emailing it to someone. This is why guys like Richard Stallman hate intellectual property; you literally can't make good software without infringing on someone's copyright or patent or what have you.
The question then becomes how extensive your license to use the product is, and that's a practical question asked by examining the end user license agreement.
Now, that's all very dumb, and we both recognise that it's dumb, but the important thing is that it's still the law, so if OP wants to know whether what he did was legal or not, the answer is "hell no" not "in my opinion this should be legal."