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

[pontifex]

You don't get to take a copy of a car home with you, or eat that whole cake and then decide not to buy it. Please stop this.

and computer files are not a physical object. stop comparing them to things that are. while i agree it's wrong to pirate, you can't compare a physical object to a non-physical one.

if someone eats an ice cream cake, it's no longer there. if i copy files from a website its still there. it may prevent a sale, but you're not removing a piece of inventory so that it can't be sold.

 

[pontifex]

http://store.steampowered.com/app/40140/
http://store.steampowered.com/app/410/
http://www.bigdownload.com/games/call-of-duty/pc/call-of-duty-demo/
http://download.cnet.com/Call-of-Duty-2-demo/3000-7441_4-10440599.html
http://www.filefront.com/8774322/Call-of-Duty-4-Modern-Warfare-Demo/
http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2010...demo-now-downloadable-from-playstation-store/
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/02/23/mlb-2k10-demo-available-on-xbox-live-coming-to-psn-next-thursda/
http://battlefield.ea.com/battlefield/bf/BF2142_Demo_News.aspx
http://www.crysisdemo.com/
http://www.warcraft.com/

Ohh, Which major titles were you referring to? With a single exception (I couldn't find a demo for dragon age: origins), every major title I could think of had a demo with the game.

Most of this stuff came up instantly after typing into google "game name demo"

call of duty and call of duty 2 huh? and when were those released? i think you're stretching a bit. i mean, you found what, 10 games over a 10 year period with demos? most games don't have demos. oh and like 4 of them were for the same game series.

 

[Spike]

Personally I like pirated games. While I have 100% converted to buying all my PC games now (back in the school days this was not the case) I still often download the pirated version after I purchase a retail copy. Why you ask? It's all about the DRM. In every case I make sure to remove all plastic wrap and actually open the game so it can't be sold as new (not that I have ever resold a game but whatever) but I refuse to install some of the crap they come with these days.

Is that illegal? Heck yes. Do I care? No way.

 

[Cogman]

call of duty and call of duty 2 huh? and when were those released? i think you're stretching a bit. i mean, you found what, 10 games over a 10 year period with demos? most games don't have demos. oh and like 4 of them were for the same game series.

name some games, I did those because I have no idea what modern popular games are out right now. (you'll notice that call of duty 4 is in there as well.)

Nothing to do with stretching, and everything to do with the fact that I don't play a whole lot of PC games.

Unless their game really sucks, game manufacturers have nothing to lose from publishing a demo of their game. (other then perhaps the time it takes to cut out features, limit the size of a map, or whatever)

 

[BassBomb]

not legal if you buy it after it was pirated still
to me buying after is morally sound (IMO)

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

and computer files are not a physical object. stop comparing them to things that are. while i agree it's wrong to pirate, you can't compare a physical object to a non-physical one.

if someone eats an ice cream cake, it's no longer there. if i copy files from a website its still there. it may prevent a sale, but you're not removing a piece of inventory so that it can't be sold.

That was... exactly my point.

 

[pontifex]

That was... exactly my point.

must have misread it. sorry.

 

[lothar]

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.

I agree with every single thing you've said so far, but that part is a really gray area.

What if my friend installs it on my own computer himself? It's his license and he can install it on any computer he chooses as long as he intends to use the product on the computers it was installed?
What if I play it at his house? What if I borrow his computer tower and bring it in my house to play it?
What if he gives it to me as a free gift and I later return it to him saying I don't like it or give it to someone else as a gift? What if he sells it to me for 1 cent? What if I rent or lease his game/license key for a time period?

I legally purchased Office 2003 and installed it on both my computer and mom's laptop gift(It's technically mine since I bought it anyway and registered it to DELL under my own name)...Didn't have to circumvent any activation either because Office 2003 doesn't have it.
I have Windows 7 Ultimate registered to me. Is it illegal for anyone else besides me to use my computer?

 

[lothar]

Let's say you download a game on the 5th. You like it and purchase the game on the 7th.

What you just suggested is illegal, plain and simple.
No ifs, ands, or buts.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

I agree with every single thing you've said so far, but that part is a really gray area.

What if my friend installs it on my own computer himself? It's his license and he can install it on any computer he chooses as long as he intends to use the product on the computers it was installed?
What if I play it at his house? What if I borrow his computer tower and bring it in my house to play it?
What if he gives it to me as a free gift and I later return it to him saying I don't like it or give it to someone else as a gift? What if he sells it to me for 1 cent? What if I rent or lease his game/license key for a time period?

I legally purchased Office 2003 and installed it on both my computer and mom's laptop gift(It's technically mine since I bought it anyway and registered it to DELL under my own name)...Didn't have to circumvent any activation either because Office 2003 doesn't have it.
I have Windows 7 Ultimate registered to me. Is it illegal for anyone else besides me to use my computer?

I'd suggest you ask a lawyer about these scenarios, but I'd say a company could make a case against your friend if he installed software on a machine he did not own or regularly use. Fancy footwork around "gifting" or selling for a penny might not fly if it can be reasonably assumed that this arrangement was engineered to get around a license agreement and you really intended to pass it back and forth. I don't know. This sort of thing may never have resulted in a civil trial, so there's no precedent that I'm aware of. Read up on copyright law and let us know your conclusions?

As far as resale, that's a big issue. I personally believe first-sale doctrine should apply to software, but vendors have tried to deny that right by claiming that they don't sell software, they license it. And the terms of those licenses tend to state that the license is non-transferable. That way, first sale doctrine doesn't apply and reselling software is technically copyright infringement. This has bounced around in the legal system for a while, and as recently as 2008, federal courts have upheld consumer rights on this one. It still tends to be murky.

 

[lothar]

I'd suggest you ask a lawyer about these scenarios, but I'd say a company could make a case against your friend if he installed software on a machine he did not own or regularly use. Fancy footwork around "gifting" or selling for a penny might not fly if it can be reasonably assumed that this arrangement was engineered to get around a license agreement and you really intended to pass it back and forth. I don't know. This sort of thing may never have resulted in a civil trial, so there's no precedent that I'm aware of. Read up on copyright law and let us know your conclusions?

As far as resale, that's a big issue. I personally believe first-sale doctrine should apply to software, but vendors have tried to deny that right by claiming that they don't sell software, they license it. And the terms of those licenses tend to state that the license is non-transferable. That way, first sale doctrine doesn't apply and reselling software is technically copyright infringement. This has bounced around in the legal system for a while, and as recently as 2008, federal courts have upheld consumer rights on this one. It still tends to be murky.

If that's the case, then Gamestop would have been out of business a long time ago.
Considering they buy used games for $2-3 and sell it for $20. That's were the majority of their profits comes from.
They don't make squat from new games.

I see no reason why it's okay for Gamestop to do so while it's not for 2 consenting individuals to do the same.

 

[kollkolen]

There are good points and bad points to every argument for example i copy my games yet i don't illegally download games i don't own. The same thing for people overseas who download the American version of a game cause it would not be released in their country. Europe used to do it all the time you can take away regional coding and then it would be different unfortunately the real world does not work like that. If you copy your games then you have in essence broken the law even if you want a particular song from an album and you took it off the cd its still illegal.

 

[rchiu]

Morally I say its very wrong,you have options ie wait for a demo version or read lots of reviews,maybe a friend has the game you can try on his PC before you decide to buy a retail game,end of the day game developers work hard and to unrealistic deadlines for the most part,its their bread and butter and something where pirates are happy to steal from and don't care about morals.

Well in a black and white world, we'd all call Robin hood a thief and end of story. But the real world is not black and white and big gaming/software companies put up fvcked up DRM's and charge equivalent of monthly salary in some developing countries for software. And yes I agree games you can live without if you don't agree to the term, but some software like OS, Office suite...etc are required if you want to compete, or your kids to compete in this society.

Me personally I am lucky enough to be able to afford anything I want to buy. But I won't pass judgment to all these pirates, especially in the third world countries because of all the f'ed pricing structure that software companies put up.

 

[Ben90]

Stealing does not equal copyright infringement. There are clear differences if you actually researched it. You guys are trying to get technical and attempting to reinterpret laws. Unfortunately in order to have a civilized debate you cannot just make up whatever you want.

As for morality, I think I can sum it up best with this:

I think that sums up this thread pretty well. I have a personal set of morals. You have a personal set of morals. They don't necessarily match. One person's morals might say that you're going to hell if you're not in church every Sunday, and another person's morals might say that the previous person is violating their rights by shoving that religious crap down their throat.

I think it's good to discuss these things in a calm, collective manner. However, some people get a bit heated and result in talking down to other from their moral high-horse because they uphold the absolute letter of the law and moral code (which happens to be their own moral code that they think should be applied to everyone else).

/thread

 

[Mem]

Well in a black and white world, we'd all call Robin hood a thief and end of story. But the real world is not black and white and big gaming/software companies put up fvcked up DRM's and charge equivalent of monthly salary in some developing countries for software. And yes I agree games you can live without if you don't agree to the term, but some software like OS, Office suite...etc are required if you want to compete, or your kids to compete in this society.

Me personally I am lucky enough to be able to afford anything I want to buy. But I won't pass judgment to all these pirates, especially in the third world countries because of all the f'ed pricing structure that software companies put up.

We are are not talking about third world countries but about if its right to try a pirated game before you buy etc... as to Office suite well I use Open Office which is legally free,also heard of Linux?...bottom line not everything is free and you can't expect to use pirating as an excuse legally of morally.

You bring up DRM but hey you have the choice of buying the game or not,personally I have over 300 retail games and DRM has never been an issue for me,IMHO thats blown out of proportion and I also do beta game testing too,end of the day game companies have a right to protect their investment ,if you don't like DRM on games then don't buy the game,however don't try and justify its right to play a pirated game legally or morally because its not far as I and many others are concerned.

Btw there are plenty of legally free games out there,however if you want one of those retail games then you know your options which have been covered in this thread.

 

[Tristicus]

At least you're honest, and you also understand the situation perfectly. Sounds like you're also willing to accept the consequences for your actions - even if it's while kicking and swearing the whole way.

I'm not scared one bit about the consequences. They're going to nab me for actually wanting to try something before I spend $60 on a game that could be a major piece of shit? Pfft, let them. In fact, I told myself, that if I do make a game, whether I sell it or it is crapware, I'm going to put it on the torrent sites I visit myself.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

If that's the case, then Gamestop would have been out of business a long time ago.
Considering they buy used games for $2-3 and sell it for $20. That's were the majority of their profits comes from.
They don't make squat from new games.

I see no reason why it's okay for Gamestop to do so while it's not for 2 consenting individuals to do the same.

GameStop does not buy or sell used PC games. Consoles are different.

 

[SunnyD]

I'm not scared one bit about the consequences. They're going to nab me for actually wanting to try something before I spend $60 on a game that could be a major piece of shit? Pfft, let them. In fact, I told myself, that if I do make a game, whether I sell it or it is crapware, I'm going to put it on the torrent sites I visit myself.

And that's exactly the way it should be done. Hang the title out there, limited in some fashion. You don't have to deal with distribution costs, and you get free exposure. If people like the game, then they come and buy the whole thing - it's called "a demo".

That's the beef most people have though - most developers are too engrossed in making money that they don't want to risk the potential of hurting their title's profit margin by dropping a demo. Here's a hit to the devs: Don't make crap and people will buy it.

But that's neither here nor there.

and computer files are not a physical object. stop comparing them to things that are. while i agree it's wrong to pirate, you can't compare a physical object to a non-physical one.

if someone eats an ice cream cake, it's no longer there. if i copy files from a website its still there. it may prevent a sale, but you're not removing a piece of inventory so that it can't be sold.

Theft of services is the same thing as physical theft.

Besides, you could regurgitate said cake and return it, there by having "utilized" it in the process.

So the bits on your computer's HDD don't actually exist? Given the fact that you duplicated an original authorized copy, thereby infringing on the actual property owner's exclusive right to distribution... but it's somehow different?

 

[lothar]

GameStop does not buy or sell used PC games. Consoles are different.

They used to under EB Games. I know because I bought Age of Empires used from them.
The reason they don't do that now isn't because of the law or copyright infringement. It's simply because there's nothing stopping someone from writing the CDKey down, making copies, and returning said item.

When you say "Consoles are different"...How are they different?
Is there a different section on the DMCA that applies to consoles only or specifically excludes them?

 

[pontifex]

And that's exactly the way it should be done. Hang the title out there, limited in some fashion. You don't have to deal with distribution costs, and you get free exposure. If people like the game, then they come and buy the whole thing - it's called "a demo".

That's the beef most people have though - most developers are too engrossed in making money that they don't want to risk the potential of hurting their title's profit margin by dropping a demo. Here's a hit to the devs: Don't make crap and people will buy it.

But that's neither here nor there.



Theft of services is the same thing as physical theft.

Besides, you could regurgitate said cake and return it, there by having "utilized" it in the process.

So the bits on your computer's HDD don't actually exist? Given the fact that you duplicated an original authorized copy, thereby infringing on the actual property owner's exclusive right to distribution... but it's somehow different?

what part of i agree its illegal did you miss?

you still can't compare data to something physical though. you are not removing the physical ability to sell that product. if you stole the actual game dvd thats different. you are preventing the sale of that physical product. if someone takes a copy of that product and puts it online, you are not removing the ability to sell the product. if i steal a car from the dealer lot, there is no way to recoup that cost. they would have to create a new car from scratch.

i don't see what's so hard to understand here.

so you would purchase the regurgitated cake? sounds like you have more problems than just trying to understand this concept.

 

[lothar]

This thread is about legality.
I'm not sure why people are even bringing morals or Robin Hood examples to justify their point in pirating a game of the internet.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Theft of services is the same thing as physical theft.

Besides, you could regurgitate said cake and return it, there by having "utilized" it in the process.

So the bits on your computer's HDD don't actually exist? Given the fact that you duplicated an original authorized copy, thereby infringing on the actual property owner's exclusive right to distribution... but it's somehow different?

I'm not entirely sure about what you're trying to say here. The cake scenario is not an example of theft of services. Copyright infringement is also not an equivalent crime, although I'm not sure you were trying to form that link.

Copyright infringement is not theft, definitively in terms of the law. For anyone unsure about copyright infringement's relationship to theft, please refer to the Supreme Court's decision in Dowling v. United States:

Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

Also see Title 17 of the United States Code, Chapter 5 for definitions of offenses and possible penalties. Note that these are distinct from any discussion of the crime of theft.

The key difference is that copyright infringement does not deprive the copyright owner of any physical goods, nor the copyright itself.

 

[kalrith]

First you said:

My point is that neither your moral stance nor mine can be used to dictate any kind of general policy on software piracy, so that entire discussion is worth precisely nil. That's what the law is for, and I have seen no valid justification for breaking the ones we have. Overturning or rewriting them? Maybe.

Then you said:

We aren't talking about traffic laws. We're talking about copyright law. To say that breaking one permits or relates to the other is totally absurd, legally and morally. Do you want me to answer your questions just so you can cry hypocrisy? I would cross at your hypothetical light after checking for traffic, and yes, I break the speed limit on occasion. I do not think either of these laws are unjust, but I knowingly choose to break them, accepting that I may be penalized for it. Does that invalidate my claims about copyright? I don't believe it does.

This is what I was getting at. Several people have basically said: "Whether you think it's OK to pirate or not, it's against the law, which therefore makes it morally wrong." However, you don't apply that same thing to other laws that you knowingly choose to break. That is the very definition of hypocrisy. You can say all you want that traffic laws are morally OK to break but copyright laws fall into the category of laws that are morally wrong to break, but that's not true. The law is the law. If you think that breaking the law = immorality, then breaking any law (jaywalking, speeding, or copyright infringement) = immorality.

I want to take a break to point out that I'm NOT saying that breaking any law = breaking any other law. Obviously I wouldn't put jaywalking up there with murder. However, that makes for a good example. Murder is obviously morally wrong to pretty much everyone, but things like jaywalking, speeding, and (for some) pirating are all definitely against the law but not necessarily morally wrong.

Edit: There are also things that many think are morally wrong (i.e. abortion) that are legal. If you think illegal = immoral and legal = moral, then that is a very sad place to be.

Again, I'll say that I haven't pirated in over 5 years, I know it's illegal, I'm not sure whether it's morally OK under certain circumstances, and I do think it's morally wrong to just pirate it and use it forever. With that being said, I don't think that taking the stand of "That's what the law is for, and I have seen no valid justification for breaking the ones we have" is where someone should get their morals from. If you do, then you are going counter to your morals every single day on your commute to and from work.

Which is worse: someone who has loose morals but adheres to them fully, or someone who has strict morals and knowingly breaks them daily? I'll let James 4:17 clear that up:

So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.

 

[lothar]

We are are not talking about third world countries but about if its right to try a pirated game before you buy etc... as to Office suite well I use Open Office which is legally free,also heard of Linux?...bottom line not everything is free and you can't expect to use pirating as an excuse legally of morally.

You bring up DRM but hey you have the choice of buying the game or not,personally I have over 300 retail games and DRM has never been an issue for me,IMHO thats blown out of proportion and I also do beta game testing too,end of the day game companies have a right to protect their investment ,if you don't like DRM on games then don't buy the game,however don't try and justify its right to play a pirated game legally or morally because its not far as I and many others are concerned.

Btw there are plenty of legally free games out there,however if you want one of those retail games then you know your options which have been covered in this thread.

They've never been a problem for me either.
I've never bought a StarForce game, and I never will.
I haven't bought a Ubisoft game since Rayman II and I probably never will unless they get rid of their invasive protection schemes.

Vote with your wallet.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

They used to under EB Games. I know because I bought Age of Empires used from them.
The reason they don't do that now isn't because of the law or copyright infringement. It's simply because there's nothing stopping someone from writing the CDKey down, making copies, and returning said item.

When you say "Consoles are different"...How are they different?
Is there a different section on the DMCA that applies to consoles only or specifically excludes them?

I believe (but am not certain) that buying a console game entails buying a copy, not a license, which is clearer in terms of law and what rights the purchaser has. Without the licensing loophole, vendors have no legal ground on which to claim exception to first-sale doctrine. I have not seen an EULA with any console game I've bought, anecdotally.

GameStop/EB may have once sold used PC games, but they were criticized, if not threatened legally, by publishers who claimed they were violating the outlined terms of the licenses. Even though this kind of first-sale suppression has been challenged in court, I think we can assume that GameStop wanted to avoid any hassle in this arena so agreed to drop its used PC game section.