What is the legality behind pirating and then buying a game?

[dguy6789]

Wow, so people who disagree with your law breaking ways are sheeple kept in line by the man. You are a sad person.

Do you think at all before you post? Do you have anything to contribute or are you just stupid? There is a huge difference between disagreeing/debating with my opinion and flaming my opinion like a moron without giving any reason for why they think that way besides "it's the law". Most people in this thread did the latter. I'm not the one who got hostile.

By your logic, all laws that have existed at all times in the history of mankind are good and should be followed.

Do you think slavery is okay? Do you think women should be treated as inferior to men? Do you think it is okay to beat your woman? Do you think gays should be killed? People who masturbate? I could go on and on listing stupid laws that existed in the past that were considered perfectly fine by many people at the time. Something being the law isn't an argument at all.

You guys act like it's the worst thing in the world to do what was suggested in the OP. Plenty of games never have a demo. A user may never get a chance to see if they like the game or not. For more products than not in America, you can return the item for a replacement or a refund if you find it not to your liking. With the way advertising exaggerates and lies, it is ridiculous to have a no return and no refund policy on virtually anything. If users were able to return their games for a refund, then there would be no reason to download a game and try it out first.

A user trying a game before buying it might end up liking a game they were unsure of and then buying it. If the user never had the chance to try it in the first place, they may have never bought it. The developer didn't lose any money or resource when the user tried their game. Giving the user the chance to try the game could arguably put more money into the pocket of the developer. Nobody in this thread suggested pirating the game instead of buying it, which is the only scenario where the developer could lose money or be negatively impacted in any way.

Does anyone want to explain how downloading the game, trying it, and then buying it is any different from borrowing the game from a friend and trying it and then buying it from a developer's point of view? What is the difference between downloading the game, trying it, not liking it, uninstalling it, and borrowing the game from a friend, trying it, not liking it, uninstalling it? I want to know why one hurts a developer and the other does not. Let's hear it. Do you guys think reading a chapter of a book in a book store before buying it is stealing too?

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

As others have said, you have no inherent right to try before you buy. You might think it's BS, but you have no legal alternative other than urging the developer/publisher to provide a demo. Based on existing law, there's really no way to argue the legality of this. Whether you end up purchasing or not, it's a crime.

 

[Jeeebus]

YAIPBT?? (Yet Another Is Pirating Bad Thread)

Seriously - have we not discussed this subject enough?

 

[Darklife]

In my opinion there's nothing wrong with pirating a game and then buying it. Nobody loses here, not the developer, publisher and whatever distribution channel you get it from. It's a matter of principle, but what good does that do you if there is no impact of your actions?

Somebody used the eat ice cream on the spot-pay for empty package, that's exactly what it looks like.

 

[destrekor]

More like you eat the Ice Cream Cake while walking around the store, and then pay for the empty package on the way out.

That's actually quite the interesting argument.

For everyone:
How many times have you been at a store, and depending on the type of store were walking around with a consumable item, or you were in line...
anyhow, so you begin to eat it. You do not own this item yet, considering you have not purchased it.
At this point in time, you merely have an intent to purchase. This intent is ambiguous, as someone could walk around, eat the item, toss the wrapper and pretend it never happened.
But most people who begin to consume the item, or consume all of it, will pay for it when they get to the register.

I wonder what the legal argument is for that.
Now, it's not trial, because as soon as it is opened, it must be paid for, or it is stolen goods.
Consuming before legal transaction is the point worth driving home here.

As for software and intellectual property, acquiring full software and circumventing the license system is illegal, no matter how you slice it.
Everyone who wishes to go by the old adage "vote with your wallet" will state that you are wrong no matter what if you do this and purchase it later.
Because then the argument is, what if you decided not to buy it?
That's the curious and important argument. Everyone acknowledges "download, try, then buy", but ignores the opposite "download, try, nope don't like", or the worse offense "download, try.... ehh, not good enough to buy. but I want to finish this product first."

The best, and I'd argue completely legal means to accomplish this try before buy action, is buy, don't break the shrinkwrap, then download and try.
I wonder how that would hold up in court.
Because software, or intellectual property, is not physical. The physical product is merely packaging, with a non-physical license attached to a physical product.
If you download, technically you own a license, so you are merely acquiring the software to that license in a different means (versus the physical disc). Now, when you install it, likely you will have to circumvent the license system since you cannot see the license key in the still-sealed physical package, but that license is still in your possession.

If you don't like, you can get rid of the software, and then return the still sealed package. You had physical ownership of the product since you had purchased it, you just didn't make use of the actual physical package to use the software. You can return it since it is still sealed, and following the return transaction you now have no legal right to use of the product and the license attached.

Any lawyers want to tackle that? I don't argue that as fact, but rather as legal theory. That is actually a very interesting situation that I wonder if there is any actual case for defense.


The curious argument with the above example, is the whole issue with return capability of a software product.
If you don't break the seal, that physical license was never activated, so while your legal use of the software is definitely questionable, it has not lost retail value.
The fact that software is difficult to return with full value after the seal is broke (or more importantly, a software license activated), is definitely a huge issue that needs to be reworked.

For PC games, I think the best solution is for publishers to make use of iron-fist activation systems for shareware purposes. Provide full access to the software, maybe remove a key feature or two, and force a time limit. After so much time, the software cannot be used until a license is activated. This can be through retail packages or online license registration.

 

[dguy6789]

As others have said, you have no inherent right to try before you buy. You might think it's BS, but you have no legal alternative other than urging the developer/publisher to provide a demo. Based on existing law, there's really no way to argue the legality of this. Whether you end up purchasing or not, it's a crime.

I'm not arguing the legality of it. I said in my very first post that it isn't legal. I'm arguing that what was mentioned in the OP doesn't cause any harm.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Do you think at all before you post? Do you have anything to contribute or are you just stupid? There is a huge difference between disagreeing/debating with my opinion and flaming my opinion like a moron without giving any reason for why they think that way besides "it's the law". Most people in this thread did the latter. I'm not the one who got hostile.

By your logic, all laws that have existed at all times in the history of mankind are good and should be followed.

Do you think slavery is okay? Do you think women should be treated as inferior to men? Do you think it is okay to beat your woman? Do you think gays should be killed? People who masturbate? I could go on and on listing stupid laws that existed in the past that were considered perfectly fine by many people at the time. Something being the law isn't an argument at all.

You guys act like it's the worst thing in the world to do what was suggested in the OP. Plenty of games never have a demo. A user may never get a chance to see if they like the game or not. For more products than not in America, you can return the item for a replacement or a refund if you find it not to your liking. With the way advertising exaggerates and lies, it is ridiculous to have a no return and no refund policy on virtually anything. If users were able to return their games for a refund, then there would be no reason to download a game and try it out first.

A user trying a game before buying it might end up liking a game they were unsure of and then buying it. If the user never had the chance to try it in the first place, they may have never bought it. The developer didn't lose any money or resource when the user tried their game. Giving the user the chance to try the game could arguably put more money into the pocket of the developer. Nobody in this thread suggested pirating the game instead of buying it, which is the only scenario where the developer could lose money or be negatively impacted in any way.

Does anyone want to explain how downloading the game, trying it, and then buying it is any different from borrowing the game from a friend and trying it and then buying it from a developer's point of view? What is the difference between downloading the game, trying it, not liking it, uninstalling it, and borrowing the game from a friend, trying it, not liking it, uninstalling it? I want to know why one hurts a developer and the other does not. Let's hear it.

This is downright fucking asinine. I reread the thread, and clearly nobody acted like piracy is "the worst thing in the world." You're the one being defensive. Perhaps you just don't want to consider your own moral bankruptcy or confront your misplaced sense of entitlement. Just because some products can be tried out, rented, or purchased and returned doesn't mean the same is true of everything. It's not your place to say so if you neither produce nor sell the thing.

Comparing copyright law to slavery, domestic abuse, and hate crimes is disgustingly obtuse and hollow. You should be ashamed of your stupid analogies. And just because you disagree with copyright law or consider it unjust doesn't mean you get to break it. There is a process for changing the law, and you are ignoring it in favor of your own convenience, laziness, and cheapness.

I fully agree that publishers are generally greedy, demos and rentals are welcome, and industry leaders seem out of touch with what consumers want. I'm extremely anti-DRM, and I've studied copyright law in some detail to understand how the system has been shoehorned and strongarmed into gratuitously punishing offenders. But the sad state of things still doesn't give you the legal or ethical right to commit a crime. Fix the law, don't break it.

By the way, borrowing and installing a friend's copy could arguably also be considered illegal. It's just that enforcement is near impossible outside of install limits. Piracy is easier to track and prosecute.

 

[spittledip]

Legally it's not okay and you could get in trouble.

Morally, it's perfectly okay. It's BS that you have to buy a game at full price to try it and you can't return it or get a refund if you don't like it. Nothing wrong with trying before you buy as long as you buy it if you intend to keep it.

Morals and law are two completely different things. For this reason, I agree with dguy.

 

[SunnyD]

I'm not arguing the legality of it. I said in my very first post that it isn't legal. I'm arguing that what was mentioned in the OP doesn't cause any harm.

And what about the case that you don't like the title after trying it? You've just denied a sale, yet still utilized said title in the capacity it was meant to be sold for.

Yeah, there's all sorts of gray in here, especially with DRM and new activation methods removing customers' rights of first sale, but none the less, what about this situation?

Oh, and to destrekor, it absolutely fucking drives me nuts when people pick up a consumable in the store and start consuming it before paying for it. I've even yelled at my wife for doing such things.

 

[dguy6789]

This is downright fucking asinine. I reread the thread, and clearly nobody acted like piracy is "the worst thing in the world." You're the one being defensive. Perhaps you just don't want to consider your own moral bankruptcy or confront your misplaced sense of entitlement. Just because some products can be tried out, rented, or purchased and returned doesn't mean the same is true of everything. It's not your place to say so if you neither produce nor sell the thing.

Comparing copyright law to slavery, domestic abuse, and hate crimes is disgustingly obtuse and hollow. You should be ashamed of your stupid analogies. And just because you disagree with copyright law or consider it unjust doesn't mean you get to break it. There is a process for changing the law, and you are ignoring it in favor of your own convenience, laziness, and cheapness.

I fully agree that publishers are generally greedy, demos and rentals are welcome, and industry leaders seem out of touch with what consumers want. I'm extremely anti-DRM, and I've studied copyright law in some detail to understand how the system has been shoehorned and strongarmed into gratuitously punishing offenders. But the sad state of things still doesn't give you the legal or ethical right to commit a crime. Fix the law, don't break it.

By the way, borrowing and installing a friend's copy could arguably also be considered illegal. It's just that enforcement is near impossible outside of install limits. Piracy is easier to track and prosecute.

Based on this post, you didn't read my entire post. Instead of calling my points stupid or asinine or ridiculous, why don't you make a point as to why you disagree? I have yet to hear an explanation for why. All I keep hearing is "It's the law". Borrowing a friend's game can be considered illegal now? What about borrowing a book? A bicycle? A CD? Hello nanny state. I weep for our nation if people can possibly think that.

 

[dguy6789]

And what about the case that you don't like the title after trying it? You've just denied a sale, yet still utilized said title in the capacity it was meant to be sold for.

Yeah, there's all sorts of gray in here, especially with DRM and new activation methods removing customers' rights of first sale, but none the less, what about this situation?

Oh, and to destrekor, it absolutely fucking drives me nuts when people pick up a consumable in the store and start consuming it before paying for it. I've even yelled at my wife for doing such things.

Lots and lots of gray area. See my book in a bookstore analogy.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Re: downloading a copy of a game you purchased but did not open.

This is also a criminal act of copyright infringement. It's a violation of the exclusive right of distribution, for one thing, and if the copy you download also circumvents DRM that's another strike against you. The only legally safe copy is one you make yourself.

 

[fatpat268]

I did it for BC2, I downloaded the game the day before release because I wanted to see how well it'd perform on my PC.

I played 1 1/2 single player levels and I was satisfied and so I bought the game on steam that same day. I would've downloaded a demo, but there was none available (I didn't do the beta).

 

[stag3]

what if you bought the game, lost the disk, then pirate it because you don't want to buy another copy?

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Based on this post, you didn't read my entire post. Instead of calling my points stupid or asinine or ridiculous, why don't you make a point as to why you disagree? I have yet to hear an explanation for why. All I keep hearing is "It's the law". Borrowing a friend's game can be considered illegal now? What about borrowing a book? A bicycle? A CD? Hello nanny state. I weep for our nation if people can possibly think that.

I did read your post and some of your points are stupid, asinine, and ridiculous. Your hyperbolic comparisons in particular are absurd, but here you offer more of them. What explanation are you looking for? It is the law. Your moral stance on the level of intrinsic harm is irrelevant. You have no right in any philosophical arena to download a game before you buy it unless the publisher allows it. Why don't you understand that you are not entitled to such use? Just because you want the right doesn't mean you get it.

I understand, but do not share, the notion of no-harm no-foul if you download and subsequently buy. But the fact that you claim to be doing this as essentially a free rental implies the chance that you might not buy the game after trying it, at which point you have used the product but will never pay. Even if you do pay eventually, your initial usage was unauthorized. Harm or not, it's criminal infringement.

Arguing the morality of it is utterly pointless. If you're comfortable with breaking copyright laws to do what you want, so be it. But don't try to take some moral high ground on the issue or try philosophizing about the absence of hypothetical damages; I have more respect for people who will at least admit that they just want something for free and don't care if and whom it causes harm.

Edit: Also, you would do well to stop comparing software copyright infringement with protections of other media. Physical objects like books and bikes are governed by different laws and so the analogy is not apt, even if it is grounded in some common sense. The point about borrowing from a friend is that the friend is likely the license holder, and installing on your machine is essentially creating an unauthorized copy even if the friend provided the physical media and gave you permission. Note that I have made no judgement about this being "right" or "wrong".

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

what if you bought the game, lost the disk, then pirate it because you don't want to buy another copy?

Also probably illegal. Downloading any unauthorized copy is an infringement. It was your responsibility to make your own backup copy (which is usually difficult or impossible to do without circumventing copy protections on the disc -- another crime!). You should contact the publisher to find out about obtaining a replacement disc if you want to take the legal route.

 

[xCxStylex]

As with the above poster, people need to understand that morality and legality are often completely different. Legality, at least in THIS case, is black and white. Morality, in most cases, is far from absolute, and in my opinion, is best and only defined as an opinion.

I don't think that dboy is arguing that just because he thinks it's ok to "try before you buy" that the law should be changed or that it shouldn't be illegal. He never said it should be legal to try before you buy. He just doesn't think doing so is immoral. With that being said, all of you who attack dguy6789's opinion on the morality of the issue are are a bit quick to jump down his throat and seem to be very intolerant of other's opinions on morality.


Consider that it is extremely immoral AND illegal for women to be anywhere alone in public without a male relative escort (husband/father) or to not be fully covered in some "ultra conservative" middle eastern Muslim states. However, do you agree that either of these are immoral? Probably not, and for the love of equality I sure hope you don't.

Morality is one's opinion, and generally should be because of personal ideals, not "just because it's the law." Whether any person agrees or disagrees with another's ideal of morality is a completely different story.

 

[dguy6789]

I did read your post and some of your points are stupid, asinine, and ridiculous. Your hyperbolic comparisons in particular are absurd, but here you offer more of them. What explanation are you looking for? It is the law. Your moral stance on the level of intrinsic harm is irrelevant. You have no right in any philosophical arena to download a game before you buy it unless the publisher allows it. Why don't you understand that you are not entitled to such use? Just because you want the right doesn't mean you get it.

I understand, but do not share, the notion of no-harm no-foul if you download and subsequently buy. But the fact that you claim to be doing this as essentially a free rental implies the chance that you might not buy the game after trying it, at which point you have used the product but will never pay. Even if you do pay eventually, your initial usage was unauthorized. Harm or not, it's criminal infringement.

Arguing the morality of it is utterly pointless. If you're comfortable with breaking copyright laws to do what you want, so be it. But don't try to take some moral high ground on the issue or try philosophizing about the absence of hypothetical damages; I have more respect for people who will at least admit that they just want something for free and don't if and whom it causes harm.

It is fine that you disagree. Obeying a law because it is the law isn't something I agree with. I will never see "It's already the law" as a justification for a law. A stupid law is a stupid law, my analogies with past stupid laws are sound(There are people even today who think some of my examples of past laws were good laws). You are free to agree or disagree with if a certain law is stupid or not. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Many of my points have not been argued as to why there is a problem. What is the difference between going to a bookstore and reading a little bit of a book you were considering to buy and doing the same thing with a game through the internet? Why is one action completely legal and one not? The answer is an arbitrary law. There is no difference between a book and a game at all. My local music store lets you scan the barcode on a CD and listen to the songs on it all you want before you buy. Is it piracy to borrow a game from a friend and then buy it later? How about borrowing a game from a friend, finishing it, then giving it back to the friend and not buying the game at all? Should be people be fined for that? Arrested? It should be clear that copyright laws regarding software and games is based on very fuzzy logic at best.

 

[sgaliger]

I agree with the poster above: pirating PC games is killing the industry and leading to crappier games. I always pay for my games for the basic principle that someone has spent their time. talent, effort and money making the game and I am stealing their time, talent, effort and money if I illegally copy it. If you ever create something of your own that you sell, maybe you will be less cavalier about people stealing it.

That being said, I think back to William Gibson's Neuromancer book. Been years since I read it, but basically, companies would protect their data by putting nasty bugs in it (I think they could actually kill you). Wouldn't that be an interesting idea if, say, Blizzard put out a copy of BC2 posing as a pirated copy except it had a nice bug in it that say, wiped out all your data. Heck they could even say they were "sampling" your data, and will give it back to you when you buy the game. You would of course be outraged, but how is that any different from you stealing their IP?

 

[vshah]

this is why I really love android's 24 hour refund option

 

[dguy6789]

this is why I really love android's 24 hour refund option

It's an extremely awesome policy. :thumbsup:

Something like this would be relatively easy to implement on Steam too. Here's to hoping it happens someday.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

It is fine that you disagree. Obeying a law because it is the law isn't something I agree with. I will never see "It's already the law" as a justification for a law. A stupid law is a stupid law, my analogies with past stupid laws are sound(There are people even today who think some of my examples of past laws were good laws). You are free to agree or disagree with if a certain law is stupid or not. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I never once argued that copyright law is good or sound, only that downloading as a try-before-buy scenario is indeed a crime whether you like it or not. It is what it is. You are obligated to obey or accept the risk of repercussions. Claiming the law is unjust or stupid is not a defense in court.

If you truly believe the law is wrong, it's your obligation to get it changed.

Many of my points have not been argued as to why there is a problem. What is the difference between going to a bookstore and reading a little bit of a book you were considering to buy and doing the same thing with a game? Why is one action completely legal and one not? The answer is an arbitrary law. There is no difference between a book and a game at all. Is it piracy to borrow a game from a friend and then buy it later? How about borrowing a game from a friend, finishing it, then giving it back to the friend and not buying the game at all? It should be clear that copyright laws regarding software and games is based on very fuzzy logic.

I hesitate to even entertain this, but okay. If book publishers explicitly wanted to deny readers the ability to flip through a book before they buy it, they could shrink wrap the books and offer instructions to distributors and stores to stop the practice. Again, it would not be your inherent right to break the wrap and leaf through the book before purchasing if it was specifically denied by the content creators. But the fact that books are available in libraries should tell you how authors and publishers feel about this.

I would also guess that book publishers would consider it less feasible that someone will sit in a bookstore and read a whole book without buying it. The same cannot be said of people who download an entire game to their own personal computer at home.

In fact, a more fitting question would be: Do you think it's legal to photocopy the first chapter of a copyrighted book so you can read it at home before you decide to buy it? I'll give you a hint: it's not. How about morally acceptable?

 

[AndroidVageta]

This thread is ridiculous...OMG HE DOWNLOADED A GAME THEN BOUGHT IT! HANG HIM!

Legal or not...if a published doesnt release a demo, I see NOTHING WRONG with downloading the game via bittorrent/IRC/Whatever to try it out first and if you like it you buy it.

THE PUBLISHER LOSES NOTHING IN THIS ACT! You people crying "Its illegal!" or "Its not right!" are hypocrites! Have you ever borrowed a game from a friend? Or SHIT...borrowed a cup of sugar or milk? OMG! YOU STOLE A CUP OF SUGAR FROM THE COMPANY THAT MADE IT CAUSE YOU DIDNT PAY FOR IT! Granted thats a bit of an extreme...but goddamn...you download a game to try it out...you like it you buy it...as its been said, this is NO different than borrowing a console game or book from someone.

I KNOW PIRATING IS NOT LEGAL! THIS IS OBVIOUS! But if you buy the game then you have done nothing wrong...whether its the law or not you would not be charged criminally by the United States court system if they arrested you for downloading a game then found out you bought the game the next day or so later...why? Because even they would realize that it would be complete stupid to do so...

OMG...some of the people in here with your big drawn out well written posts does nothing to make you point any more stronger or right/wrong...

dguy6789 I completely agree with you on this topic! 100%!

If it wasnt for piracy I would not have bought (recently I may add) Bad Company 2...Star Wars the Force Unleashed...STALKER Call of Pripyat...all pirated...all games I liked...all games bought legally.

 

[dguy6789]

I never once argued that copyright law is good or sound, only that downloading as a try-before-buy scenario is indeed a crime whether you like it or not. It is what it is. You are obligated to obey or accept the risk of repercussions. Claiming the law is unjust or stupid is not a defense in court.

If you truly believe the law is wrong, it's your obligation to get it changed.

I agree that it's illegal, a crime, and none of my comments would hold up in court. Courts are for upholding the law. That said, none of my arguments about civil rights would hold up in a court in the past in regards to something like treating different races and sexes equally either. It doesn't automatically mean I'm wrong if something doesn't hold up in court.

I hesitate to even entertain this, but okay. If book publishers explicitly wanted to deny readers the ability to flip through a book before they buy it, they could shrink wrap the books and offer instructions to distributors and stores to stop the practice. Again, it would not be your inherent right to break the wrap and leaf through the book before purchasing if it was specifically denied by the content creators. But the fact that books are available in libraries should tell you how authors and publishers feel about this.

I would also guess that book publishers would consider it less feasible that someone will sit in a bookstore and read a whole book without buying it. The same cannot be said of people who download an entire game to their own personal computer at home.

In fact, a more fitting question would be: Do you think it's legal to photocopy the first chapter of a copyrighted book so you can read it at home before you decide to buy it? I'll give you a hint: it's not. How about morally acceptable?

I don't see the problem with a photocopy as long as you only use it for what is intended(Something to try and dispose of after to help determine if the product is worth buying). Afterall, reading the first chapter of a book in a store or in your home is the same thing. Why does the location matter if the content and use is the same? Does convenience make it illegal? It's certainly easy to just keep it, but to assume everyone would and is just looking for something for free isn't fair. Some people are just trying to avoid being ripped off by false promises, advertising, and everything else.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

This thread is ridiculous...OMG HE DOWNLOADED A GAME THEN BOUGHT IT! HANG HIM!

Legal or not...if a published doesnt release a demo, I see NOTHING WRONG with downloading the game via bittorrent/IRC/Whatever to try it out first and if you like it you buy it.

THE PUBLISHER LOSES NOTHING IN THIS ACT! You people crying "Its illegal!" or "Its not right!" are hypocrites! Have you ever borrowed a game from a friend? Or SHIT...borrowed a cup of sugar or milk? OMG! YOU STOLE A CUP OF SUGAR FROM THE COMPANY THAT MADE IT CAUSE YOU DIDNT PAY FOR IT!

I stopped reading right here. You're a moron if you think this makes any sense. A cup of sugar is a consumable item, already purchased. Your taking it deprives only your neighbor of the item, and in your example is assumed to be given freely. There is no concern, legal or moral, about this.

Software is not a physical consumable. The law governs the use of copies. Don't be an idiot.