I dont think the backup argument aplies since you cant lose your steam copy. I also dont think it aplies if the copy isn't from the same source/format and for the same destiny/plataform (I might not be explaining myself correctly)
Is this Pirating?
- Thread starter Zyst
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If you pirate a game it's pirating. The company will care but you and I won't because we don't really see any wrongdoing in it.
yes that is pirating. you can justify it all you want and in this case im sure plenty of people will say its okay. but i get the impression that you didnt try to fix the problem and instead turned to torrents as your immediate solution. im not passing judgement if your question is whether or not youre pirating material, the answer is obviously yes. if your question is whether or not its wrong...well thats a bit of a grey area i suppose. but my immediate feeling is that you should have tried as hard as you could to fix the problem legally, before torrenting it even entered your mind.
but thats just me
but thats just me
You're fiiiiine. Ya own the game.
You've purchased a license to make use of that particular arrangement of 1s and 0s. The fact that they're a different copy, from a torrent, is inconsequential.
This isn't the same as, say, taking a Ferrari because you own one with a tick in the engine and want a new one in working order.
People need to understand that data and physical objects are not comparable.
You've purchased a license to make use of that particular arrangement of 1s and 0s. The fact that they're a different copy, from a torrent, is inconsequential.
This isn't the same as, say, taking a Ferrari because you own one with a tick in the engine and want a new one in working order.
People need to understand that data and physical objects are not comparable.
What you're describing is correct, and it's one good example of how conventional intellectual property laws become fundamentally incoherent when applied to the software industry.DoPo said:
For those interested who don't understand the problem; technically, every time I view a web page, I am making a copy of that web page for display in my browser. That's how the Internet works; it sends packets of data that are reassembled in my browser to display information. That web page may include copyrighted content, such as a journal article or a section of an online novel. By viewing it on my browser, I am technically committing copyright infringement.
Think about that for a minute. Under a strict understanding of copyright law, the Internet cannot legally function.
Ladies and gentlemen, a round of applause for copyright law! It's here every night this week, and for seventy years after the death of the author.
Sorry to double post, but this is something I should maybe clarify.
This may be hard to swallow for both sides of the piracy issue, but theft and copyright infringement are not the same thing.
Look, from a strict legal standpoint there is no difference betwen making a copy of Skyrim and scanning and printing a full copy of a book you bought. Both infringe the rightsholder's copyright, because he or she is the holder of the right to copy. It is that simple.
Where it gets complicated is where copyright infringement is required because of a function of the software, as DoPo described. That's the problem with copyrighted software. The problem isn't that it's not theft; the law knows that copyright infringement isn't theft, that's they it's called copyright infringement and not theft.
We all know that the OP hasn't stolen a copy of Skyrim. The question is whether he had the right to make a copy of it, and if his EULA was written by anyone sane, he definitely didn't.
You are correct; that would be theft. What the OP describes is, however, copyright infringement.LostGryphon said:
This may be hard to swallow for both sides of the piracy issue, but theft and copyright infringement are not the same thing.
Under the eyes of the law, they totally are, and that's why video game piracy is a thing.
Look, from a strict legal standpoint there is no difference betwen making a copy of Skyrim and scanning and printing a full copy of a book you bought. Both infringe the rightsholder's copyright, because he or she is the holder of the right to copy. It is that simple.
Where it gets complicated is where copyright infringement is required because of a function of the software, as DoPo described. That's the problem with copyrighted software. The problem isn't that it's not theft; the law knows that copyright infringement isn't theft, that's they it's called copyright infringement and not theft.
We all know that the OP hasn't stolen a copy of Skyrim. The question is whether he had the right to make a copy of it, and if his EULA was written by anyone sane, he definitely didn't.
I have a question, what about games like Vampires The Masquerade Bloodlines? They released a game which was incomplete in terms of being able to finish the game (you couldn't due to a glitch). They didn't patch said glitch, so the only way to actually complete the game was to alter the source code (illegal) or if you weren't good with coding, to pirate an edited version of the game or copy a friends already altered file (also illegal).
So... to all the people who bought a game that couldn't function to it's full implied potential (being able to finish it without it glitching), what is their legal standpoint against those releases?
For any other item here the DFT rules are pretty simple, you aren't allowed to sell an item that does not fulfill it's implied action. The good will in that case being the return of said item.
I know it has been claimed by a few developers that when a gamer purchases a game they are buying a very specific licence to that data in that specific format, however they also outright ignore laws surrounding quality control and advertising.
When they play the line between wanting to classify their item as both a physical product and a digital license, the line between what they are actually selling becomes blurred. Frankly I'd love this to be cleared up, if it's a digital license to play a game then they are required to provide that service even if you lose your cartridge (along the lines of what Steam does), you can copy it to as many computers as you want however it requires online access to play those games legally and can only be accessed via the installation account. If it's a physical copy then the data is transferable for backup purposes, however if it includes a preset installation then you are required to use that as your backup (you can install the game to your computer and install it to a hard drive just not copy it directly because that process is how the developer intended it) <- it's basically why everything auto-runs installation these days.
Gaming Publishers have successfully sued people using both formats... which makes it really unclear what the actual laws are.
IMO:
Backing up using the intended installation method should be fine as long as you own the data storage and it is private. Taking it from online resources = illegal.
Backing up a game your are digitally licensed to play is alright. I get friends to DL games I have on steam, use the backup for them then transfer that backup to my computer as my DL limit is quite low. Since I'm still playing a game using the intended digital verification of my access to said game, then it is seemingly ok (Steam has a FAQ about doing this).
Acquiring a game that isn't working as intended, (here it would be illegal not to offer a return policy). I think should be a grey area if said return policy isn't enabled. If you sell faulty products to someone they are entitled to a full refund. This is the one where it's usually argued that it's a license to play that specific game in that format, but you'd need to be a complete jerk to try and prosecute this one after selling something that doesn't work.
Acquiring a game working as intended for the point of modding. Illegal. But not unprecedented, for example Yogbox for Minecraft basically is a new installation of the game, but was well received by both the gaming community and Mojang.
Acquiring a game not available in your region. Illegal, however I wish there was more availability worldwide... Steam. Having to buy copies off Ebay or Amazon is the biggest pain in the ass, and even now copies are region specific.
And last but not least, don't even think about acquiring something you don't own, completely illegal.
So... to all the people who bought a game that couldn't function to it's full implied potential (being able to finish it without it glitching), what is their legal standpoint against those releases?
For any other item here the DFT rules are pretty simple, you aren't allowed to sell an item that does not fulfill it's implied action. The good will in that case being the return of said item.
I know it has been claimed by a few developers that when a gamer purchases a game they are buying a very specific licence to that data in that specific format, however they also outright ignore laws surrounding quality control and advertising.
When they play the line between wanting to classify their item as both a physical product and a digital license, the line between what they are actually selling becomes blurred. Frankly I'd love this to be cleared up, if it's a digital license to play a game then they are required to provide that service even if you lose your cartridge (along the lines of what Steam does), you can copy it to as many computers as you want however it requires online access to play those games legally and can only be accessed via the installation account. If it's a physical copy then the data is transferable for backup purposes, however if it includes a preset installation then you are required to use that as your backup (you can install the game to your computer and install it to a hard drive just not copy it directly because that process is how the developer intended it) <- it's basically why everything auto-runs installation these days.
Gaming Publishers have successfully sued people using both formats... which makes it really unclear what the actual laws are.
IMO:
Backing up using the intended installation method should be fine as long as you own the data storage and it is private. Taking it from online resources = illegal.
Backing up a game your are digitally licensed to play is alright. I get friends to DL games I have on steam, use the backup for them then transfer that backup to my computer as my DL limit is quite low. Since I'm still playing a game using the intended digital verification of my access to said game, then it is seemingly ok (Steam has a FAQ about doing this).
Acquiring a game that isn't working as intended, (here it would be illegal not to offer a return policy). I think should be a grey area if said return policy isn't enabled. If you sell faulty products to someone they are entitled to a full refund. This is the one where it's usually argued that it's a license to play that specific game in that format, but you'd need to be a complete jerk to try and prosecute this one after selling something that doesn't work.
Acquiring a game working as intended for the point of modding. Illegal. But not unprecedented, for example Yogbox for Minecraft basically is a new installation of the game, but was well received by both the gaming community and Mojang.
Acquiring a game not available in your region. Illegal, however I wish there was more availability worldwide... Steam. Having to buy copies off Ebay or Amazon is the biggest pain in the ass, and even now copies are region specific.
And last but not least, don't even think about acquiring something you don't own, completely illegal.
I'm aware of the distinction. I was trying to draw a parallel through example and apparently failed at it.bastardofmelbourne said:
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.bastardofmelbourne said:
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.
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.
This is all just my opinion, mind, but the law is in serious need of reform if something like this could be considered copyright infringement.
Probably because you picked a bad example.LostGryphon said:
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.
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.
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."
Erm, I didn't play it straight at release but I did play it with 1.2 and that was as stable as possible. As in, there wasn't a permanent not passable section of any description. In fact, many people played it with 1.2 - when I played it (in 2005-ish) the Unofficial Patch wasn't even considered mandatory by any extent. A nice addition but not mandatory.Raioken18 said:
Anyway, mods are not illegal. At least not all of them (I'm looking at you Origin) - if I remember correctly, they fall under derivative works.
Such a grey area it's impossible to say. Since you've brought a legal copy, I wouldn't say it's morally wrong, and I don't believe a lot of countries consider it piracy. It's probably against the EULA, but, again, a lot of legal systems don't particularly care about this (it's pretty much a private matter - they can try and sue you if you break the EULA, but the police aren't going to arrest you for it. IIRC, some European court recently ruled that EULAs aren't legally binding, too)
On a side note, though, isn't the Steam version of Skyrim the only version of Skyrim? What sort of person makes a mod that doesn't support the only legal version of the game? D=
On a side note, though, isn't the Steam version of Skyrim the only version of Skyrim? What sort of person makes a mod that doesn't support the only legal version of the game? D=
The question you're asking is not if this is piracy, because it is. You are downloading a game for free instead of buying it, and therefore it's piracy.Zyst said:
The real question you want to ask is if it's right or not, and in this case, I'd say you're in the right. You bought the game already, and you're just using the downloaded version because it works better.
This is the question that I keep asking myself. What mods are you using that don't work with a legal copy of the game? I use mods heavily from various modding sites and I have never found a mod that had an issue with steam and like people have pointed out SKSE allows you to play without steam running in the first place so I see absolutely no need to obtain an ill gotten copy of a game so you can "mod it".Daverson said:
OT, it is pirating like it or not. The fact that you can play the game without steam because someone has manipulated the game files to do so is also against the TOS so even if it wasn't pirating it would still be considered a no no. Morally I don't think it is wrong but when it comes to laws morals mean nothing.
Not Piracy. by purchasing the game on steam, you have also purchased the right to use the software license. It doesn't matter where the software comes from, you have paid for it so you can use it. The only difference in this would be if the steam version was somehow different but I believe that skyrim on PC being a steam-exclusive game in the first place, torrents would contain the exact same version but cracked.
So no, torrenting a game you already own is perfectly legal. The software itself does not really matter, you did not pay for the files, the important part and the thing you actually paid for is the right to play the game.
So no, torrenting a game you already own is perfectly legal. The software itself does not really matter, you did not pay for the files, the important part and the thing you actually paid for is the right to play the game.
Pretty sure downloading it isn't piracy since you buy the right to use the game not just that one physical copy or download from one source.....but....don't you upload the part of a torrent you have already downloaded aswell as you download a torrent? Which would be illegal i guess as you make the content available to people who might not have bought the game
in the united states, it is a legitimate defense against a charge of piracy if you have paid for the material. This includes digital transactions, provided the purchase does not expire (zunepass, etc) and a record can be produced.
Companies might still take you to court, but unless they prove that you then illegally provided copies to others, you will win the case.
Companies might still take you to court, but unless they prove that you then illegally provided copies to others, you will win the case.
Yes, it does matter where the software comes from. This is where the inaccuracies in this topic come from.Johny_X2 said:
If I downloaded a product from a torrent site, and (in the process) allow 3 or 4 more people to get the same product via sharing of chunks of the same file, that is piracy. Plain and simple.
In the strictest sense of the term, a software licence only gives you the ability to make a personal backup copy of your product. It does not cover whether you should download it off a site and allow others to piggyback off your incomplete file at the same time. Unless you're setting your upload speed to "0" (as others have mentioned), you'll unwittingly share your product with other users. Even in that case, the fact that you still downloaded a copyrighted file off a torrent site would make it an act of piracy, regardless of whether you had good intentions or not.
As I've said before, if you're going to pirate something, pirate it. Don't hide behind weasel words and ridiculous arguments, because morally, you have no ground to stand on.
I'm fervently anti-piracy, but as you already paid for the game, you're actually legally entitled to download the same thing for free all you wish.
And I think there's nothing morally wrong with it. You bought the game, you ran into technical issues, so you downloaded the same product from a different source.
And I think there's nothing morally wrong with it. You bought the game, you ran into technical issues, so you downloaded the same product from a different source.
