Is this Pirating?

[Shadowcreed]

I think its 100% fine to download a copy of a game you've already bought and paid for, It's not like you're freebee-ing the product.
As regards to uploading it while downloading it via a torrent - yeah I suppose you can think of that as a gray area.
The way I see it, and this might not be in line with what the law says;
Your reasons for downloading the copy is for convenience - you actually do not intent to distribute the copy to others. The torrent program is doing that regardless, though the intent is not to enable people to 'steal' something. Consider that everyone else might have [though probably not] paid for the product in question themselves much like you, and are looking for the same convenience.

What I'll ask - do intentions matter in this case? Probably not for the law. It does for me.
Morality goes a long way in my book.

 

[RubyT]

Yes, it is "pirating"?

Depending on where you're at, it is very likely that you violate laws by obtaining copyrighted software from an illegal source. However, seeing as you are a private citizen, you actually bought a copy of the game and the monetary value of Skyrim+DLCs should be under 100$ these days, you will not be punished for downloading. I don't think any private person has ever been tried for that.

Seeing as you used BitTorrent, chances are you also uploaded data. That might get you into real trouble, once again depending on where you are.

 

[Shadowcreed]

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=

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".

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.

The downloading in and of itself isn't considered piracy in this case is it? The fact that you're uploading the files to others is.
The way I see it is you're entitled to the product in question since you've already paid for a license to it.
The place where you get the same piece of software shouldn't be a factor.

If you'd buy a 20 dollar coupon for some product - does it matter where you get the product? All that matters is that you've paid for it - and thus are entitled to your product.
It doesn't matter if you get it in store A or store B, as long as the coupon stays legit.
For software it's basically the same story - only that you don't need to turn in the coupon upon acquiring the product.

 

[Entitled]

I'm almost amused at the piracy threads. When people go "Well, MORALLY, it isn't" what's next "Was I speeding" "Well, MORALLY you weren't speeding"? It's a legal thing not how one feels about it.

That's just a terminology debate.

It's not uncommon for words to have both legal, and moral definitions.

Is it rape if a Kenyan man in Kenya forces a girl to marry him, and then to have sex with him? According to the law, it isn't. Is it rape if two Californian 17 year olds willingly have sex with each other? According to the law, yes, it is statutory rape. Is it still rape if two West Virginian 17 year olds do the same? No, it isn't.

Yet, it wouldn't be that strange for one to say that only the first of these three is "morally rape", and the latter two shouldn't be comparable to it.

While a word like "rape" can be applied to either a legally allowed sin, or a morally neutral illegality, it's even worse with piracy, that is also used by piracy apologists to describe a morally neutral and legally neutral act, as in "Switzerland legalized piracy, and we should as well", and also by copyright apologists, as in "Those dirty commie Swiss even allow piracy, they don't respect our moral properties".

 

[Not Lord Atkin]

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.

Yes, it does matter where the software comes from. This is where the inaccuracies in this topic come from.

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 can mostly see what you're saying, I didn't really think of the seeding thing. Oh well.

That said, that last sentence is not exactly correct. There is no moral issue with this. From the moral standpoint, you own the game and therefore should be able to play it by any means necessary. Even if it means pirating the game.

What's harder to find is the legal ground for this and that's exactly what I was trying to get to. The fact that EULA does not mention torrenting games does not make it a no-go, quite the opposite actually. Seeding a torrent might be considered to be redistribution of software, which is illegal, I'll give you that. However, simply using defferent means to obtain the software data, i.e. the files, when you already own and have paid for the software license... well as you said, there's nothing in the EULA about that, which also means that there's nothing in the EULA that prohibits it.

Don't get me wrong, I do not pirate games and I resent the implication. And I do not have a personal stake in this argument. That's just what I think is the correct way to approach the issue.

 

[DoPo]

I'm almost amused at the piracy threads. When people go "Well, MORALLY, it isn't" what's next "Was I speeding" "Well, MORALLY you weren't speeding"? It's a legal thing not how one feels about it.

That's just a terminology debate.

It's not uncommon for words to have both legal, and moral definitions.

I see no moral definition of "piracy". It is, and has always been, copyright infringement. And a bunch of people who don't understand what it means. Some of the justifications sound downright arcane, if we give it a couple of years, I suppose might start seeing "Well, it's not piracy, if you used this herb to make an ointment and rub it over your left hand at midnight".

 

[Entitled]

I'm almost amused at the piracy threads. When people go "Well, MORALLY, it isn't" what's next "Was I speeding" "Well, MORALLY you weren't speeding"? It's a legal thing not how one feels about it.

That's just a terminology debate.

It's not uncommon for words to have both legal, and moral definitions.

I see no moral definition of "piracy". It is, and has always been, copyright infringement. And a bunch of people who don't understand what it means. Some of the justifications sound downright arcane, if we give it a couple of years, I suppose might start seeing "Well, it's not piracy, if you used this herb to make an ointment and rub it over your left hand at midnight".

While I support descriptive linguistics, I admit there are some limits to it, where a single, consistent authority has always held to a single definition. For example, whales will never become fishes just because enough people ignore the rules of taxonomy.

HOWEVER this would only be the case here, if "piracy" would be the formal legal jargon for copyright infringement, as opposed to... well... "copyright infringement". And that's not the case. In an actual legal text, "piracy" would still refer to high-seas robbery and kidnapping.

The problem is, that while publishers starting to apply "piracy" to a specific crime is a sort of "legal definition", it's still also as much of an informal slang as users applying it to cases of "harming the artist's profitability", or pirate parties applying it to "obtaining digital content without the creator's permission".

 

[Shadowcreed]

I'm almost amused at the piracy threads. When people go "Well, MORALLY, it isn't" what's next "Was I speeding" "Well, MORALLY you weren't speeding"? It's a legal thing not how one feels about it.

That's just a terminology debate.

It's not uncommon for words to have both legal, and moral definitions.

I see no moral definition of "piracy". It is, and has always been, copyright infringement. And a bunch of people who don't understand what it means. Some of the justifications sound downright arcane, if we give it a couple of years, I suppose might start seeing "Well, it's not piracy, if you used this herb to make an ointment and rub it over your left hand at midnight".

All good and well what the law sates, though you're not doing any harm here to anyone if you've already bought and paid for the game previously, and simply get your merchandise some other way. What other reason does this law of piracy and copyright infringement have than to protect the producers? They've got their share of the money, you already paid for it! Where's the harm done?
I'll agree on the uploading part - you be causing him [and probably are] to the developers by enabling people to freebee the product in question.

Hypothetically - if you avoid uploading the files, you've already paid for the product but you choose to download it from a torrent - is it piracy?
If that would be considered piracy than I'll say that the piracy laws are heavily flawed. Unless there's actually real harm being done here that I'm not seeing.

 

[ThisGuyLikesNoTacos]

You're only authorized to the copy you bought, the steam version.
It's piracy.

 

[fenrizz]

You're only authorized to the copy you bought, the steam version.
It's piracy.

Norwegian law says otherwise.

It's not black and white, and the law varies from country to country.

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.

Problem is that the law of the land varies.
Also, I don't know of many countries where the EULA actually is legally binding.

 

[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