Question about DRM prosecutions

[tabstock]

I recently read that a couple had received a notice of intended prosecution because they had allegedly downloaded a copy of some Atari racing game via bit torrent.

My question is this: If I downloaded a pirated copy of say, Red Alert 3 and then a few weeks later received one of these prosecution letters. Could I then go out and buy a copy of the game and claim I had bought the game on the day of relese, thus I am fully entitled by law to download a copy of material that I already own and that I did so to avoid putting all the DRM/malware that is present on the retail copy (that I own) on my computer, because to do so would slow down or damage my PC?

 

[Elurindel]

I'm not entirely familiar with these laws, but I'm sure that under most circumstances, it's permittable to download software that you own, provided that it's for your own use. Of course, there's a matter of dates to be concerned with. If EA cared enough, they could probably ask the store you bought the game from when you bought it. Not sure how much they would care, though.

 

[cappp]

It?s an unclear area of the law and of course you could spin the wheel and cross your fingers if you so choose. However, if the company were serious they could prove your violation with relative ease. The language of the regulation suggests that if you buy a copy after downloading it you are not shielded by the backup provisions. Further, the plain text describes ?archival use? specifically and an argument can be made that archiving and primary use are two distinct, and mutually exclusive, actions. I?d recommend checking out the relevant statutes (assuming you?re a US citizen) as pointed to here : http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html

 

[Scorched_Cascade]

Could we have a source here please? I'm intrested in reading into the case a bit further before I comment.

 

[Calobi]

I was under the impression that there a was a precedent of something like that. The defendant who downloaded something claimed they owned a copy of the game so the download was of material that was theirs. The persecutor claimed that buying a game does not mean you have insurance on it forever and that if it breaks or you lose it, sucks to be you (paraphrasing a bit there). I believe that the defendant lost that case, so that plan would probably fail.

I am, however, basing that on something I believe I'm remembering right and that you live in a country that would agree that that precedent is correct and that you're not a lucky person.

Also, since you downloaded the game before buying it, I doubt many people would side with you. You may have purchased the game eventually, but many people would see the initial act as theft (which it is), and the act of buying the game just a way to convince them that you always intended to buy it when that may not be true.

 

[Scorched_Cascade]

Also, since you downloaded the game before buying it, I doubt many people would side with you.

How do you prove this in a court of law? Assuming you were smart, burned the recipt and paid by cash? Also by this I mean buying in person not online and I'm discounting CCTV.

 

[Calobi]

Also, since you downloaded the game before buying it, I doubt many people would side with you.

How do you prove this in a court of law? Assuming you were smart, burned the recipt and paid by cash?

They could ask the store about you/your purchase, check the date that you installed the program, check your download log, etc. Also, I believe most people when faced with being sued by some large company (assuming you stole Red Alert 3, EA is large) will invariably make some mistake with in their false story.

 

[Flour]

Could we have a source here please? I'm intrested in reading into the case a bit further before I comment.

Quite sure that the TC means this: First illegal game-sharer prosecuted in UK [http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=103218]

This is only for uploading games, which is illegal in many countries.
A lot of countries(America is not one of those) an EULA has no power to forbid a backup copy, but because of IP rights, it has to be an exact copy(no DRM removal allowed)
But research the laws of where you live, or just don't torrent a game.

 

[Scorched_Cascade]

Also, since you downloaded the game before buying it, I doubt many people would side with you.

How do you prove this in a court of law? Assuming you were smart, burned the recipt and paid by cash?

They could ask the store about you/your purchase, check the date that you installed the program, check your download log, etc. Also, I believe most people when faced with being sued by some large company (assuming you stole Red Alert 3, EA is large) will invariably make some mistake with in their false story.

Firstly how would they know what store to ask? Where I'm from there are at least 6 game shops and 4+ pawn shops that sell games that I know of while they could go from store to store asking its doubtful. As for checking install dates wouldn't they need to see your computer for that? Meaning they need enough evidence to convice a judge a warrant is worth it first. If we discount the asking the shops then I can't see where they would get this evidence. As for your last post I agree that here is where a person is most likely to go wrong; often the same with every crime the person panics and then makes stupid mistakes.

Sorry to pick your points apart but I know very little here myself so I'm trying to encourage open debate.

 

[tabstock]

Just to clarify a couple of points I was trying to make. Firstly, even though you may buy the game after you downloaded it, you would obviously lie and say that you bought the game before you downloaded it. It is the prosecutions job to prove that you bought the game after you downloaded it and, as Scorched_Cascade has pointed out, this would be almost impossible if you paid by cash, threw away the receipt and forgot which store you bought it from. Remember, it's their job to prove you bought it after, not your job to prove you didn't. Secondly, it is your legal right to archive your legitimately bought software. You could argue that in order to exercise your legal right to archive you had no other choice but to download a copy because you were unable to archive the bought copy due to the copy protection that is on the disc.

 

[Scorched_Cascade]

Could we have a source here please? I'm intrested in reading into the case a bit further before I comment.

Quite sure that the TC means this: First illegal game-sharer prosecuted in UK [http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=103218]

Cheers for the link; right now I know what I'm talking about. On further investigating more info can be found here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1046607/Up-25-000-British-illegal-downloaders-sued-300-games-developers-turn-courts.html I warn you though it's the daily mail-hardly an unbiased source (for those that don't know the DM is infamous for its "oh-no-we-are-all-going-to-die" approach to journalism; that and its immigrants are taking all the jobs and wrecking house prices views). Aprantly this women didn't bother to even turn up to court and fight the case. Also shes an un-employed single mother of two so collecting that fine is going to be fun indeed.

 

[chronobreak]

If they intened to prosecute, then you need to get a lawyer who specializes in copyright law or something. Or, maybe they won't prosecute. Recently, I was sent a similar letter by HBO for torrenting a few shows, and never heard back from them. I own the season set, so there's not much they can do I think. But, there can be serious fines associated with a succesful prosecution, and they will get the money from you no matter what, even if it means seizing your house, car, and everything you hold dear. So, consult a lawyer, consultation is usually free, if he/she is any good, the least a lawyer could do is get the fines reduced.

 

[bkd69]

My question is this: If I downloaded a pirated copy of say, Red Alert 3 and then a few weeks later received one of these prosecution letters. Could I then go out and buy a copy of the game and claim I had bought the game on the day of relese, thus I am fully entitled by law to download a copy of material that I already own and that I did so to avoid putting all the DRM/malware that is present on the retail copy (that I own) on my computer, because to do so would slow down or damage my PC?

Err, no.

There was an RIAA case here where the defendant got the smack down for trying to alter evidence. If you're nicked, you're nicked. That being said, just buy the game, and if you torrent a cracked copy after the fact, and they try to come after you for it, well, you shouldn't be convicted, though going to trial will be expensive, and there's not necessarily precedent in your favor yet.

 

[cappp]

You?re not going to get a clear answer because the case law really doesn?t support either side. In the end you?re going to have to do a personal risk assessment and decide if the potential for adverse legal action is outweighed by the potential for blissful non-action. Bear in mind that these firms retain copyright lawyers as standard business practice and have the right under copyright law to request significant amounts in damages. Sure they may not catch you, and if they do they may not pursue the case, but if they do there are notable and obvious repercussions. Some of these cases get bounced around the system so long that just paying for representation will beggar you, there is a good chance you?ll be fined a huge amount of money, and if nothing else your internet service provider may no longer provide service as you have violated their terms of use.
Again, at the end of the day it?s all about how lucky you?re feeling if considered in a purely legal sense.

 

[Calobi]

Also, since you downloaded the game before buying it, I doubt many people would side with you.

How do you prove this in a court of law? Assuming you were smart, burned the recipt and paid by cash?

They could ask the store about you/your purchase, check the date that you installed the program, check your download log, etc. Also, I believe most people when faced with being sued by some large company (assuming you stole Red Alert 3, EA is large) will invariably make some mistake with in their false story.

Firstly how would they know what store to ask? Where I'm from there are at least 6 game shops and 4+ pawn shops that sell games that I know of while they could go from store to store asking its doubtful. As for checking install dates wouldn't they need to see your computer for that? Meaning they need enough evidence to convice a judge a warrant is worth it first. If we discount the asking the shops then I can't see where they would get this evidence. As for your last post I agree that here is where a person is most likely to go wrong; often the same with every crime the person panics and then makes stupid mistakes.

Sorry to pick your points apart but I know very little here myself so I'm trying to encourage open debate.

First off, anything past here is just what I believe is true. I'm not sure how the things I'm talking about work all the time, just that in some cases these are true. So, here we go.

When a company ships a product out (like a copy of Red Alert 3), they put a bunch of them together in a shipping container. All of the ones in one shipping container would have sequential numbers from the production company. This way, if there is a defective set of copies, they can recall specific copies of their product. these numbers, I believe, are also linked to the bar code on the back of each individual copy of the game.

Now (I'm assuming for this part) the authorities can look at your copy of the game, or at the very least the box of it. They would look at your bar code, scan it, and use that to determine where you purchased it and when it was shipped and received at the store. If it was received too long ago, they would only need to go to the store where it was shipped and check when the code was scanned as a sale. Again, assuming they can see your computer at this point, you would be hosed.

Now then, if they can't look at your computer, they could still check your download and Internet usage history for suspicion of theft, either by calling it such or possibly as a "random search" or audit of your history (depending on where you live). If they can't do that, you would probably be safe, but since most governments are very angry at pirates you would most likely have to give up your computer to show you didn't do anything. If you don't volunteer it, it may be taken under the assumption that only the guilty have something to hide. Short of destroying the hard drive, or running some sort of complete disk overwrite program, there would still be come information about your habits on the disk for enough time to prove you are a bad man.

Again, all of that is just my thoughts, and I'm not 100% sure of any of it. If you see any flaws feel free to point them out. Just wanted to respond with my $.02 (or around $.10 now, as the case may be).

 

[Laughing Man]

To put it simply Calobi the answer is NO. Whilst they may well place unique identifiers o each of the boxes so as to be able to list them as a batch amount on the off chance of a recall the barcodes on each and every item will be exactly the same. Items sold in shops do not have a unqiue barcode for every item of the same type. Every copy of Red Alert 3 will have a barcode on it that is exactly the same, and that may even extend as far as all of them being exactly the same even though they are sold in different shops.

The barcode is scanned in by the folks at HQ and then data, such as what the product is, where on their computer system it is stored, how much it costs and weather it is age restricted is programmed in to the central system database. Beyond that you couldn't tell the difference between two identical copies of the game just from the barcode data.

Here's an interesting thought. You're allowed to make an exact copy of the game / software. You aren't allowed to modify the game in anyway what about; zipping, compressing and backing up hard drives. All of these change the original data files prior to completing their operations. Only difference is when you restore that copy you're undoing what you did to it doesn't change the fact that you still have a modified copy of their data as a back up.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

Yeah, I gave up torrenting after I got a stern warning from my ISP.

 

[Altorin]

this particular case is quite funny

because it was a retired couple who got accused of downloading a really old atari racing game.

and their response was something alone the lines of "We don't even know what a bit torrent is, get off my lawn"

ok, I added that last bit.. but ScrewAttack.com has been having a good laugh about this on their Hard News show for a couple days now

 

[Shadow Tyrant]

On the subject of downloading something you already own, theoretically, would it be legal to download a game for PC if you bought it for the 360? I mean, it's the same game, it's just on a different platform.

 

[Altorin]

I don't think there's much legal precedent to download any game, whether you own it or not.

that's what they used to say about game emulation, but I'm pretty sure it was legal hoohaw.