Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cerapa]

I would think that downloading a CRACKED copy of a piece of software would violate the eula of the game you bought.

*Edit*
Though I'm a Computer and Network Security major so I guess I'm taught to be better safe then sorry when it comes to downloading stuff online on the limits of legality.

Wouldnt a violation be cracking the game, rather than playing a cracked game? Totally correct me if Im wrong.

[Soulwynd]

The american law has a precedence for owning software. When you buy a software, you're not buying the license to use it, you actually own a copy of it no matter what the EULA tries to tell you. Also, a license only dictates how many copies of your software you can run.

If it's legal to torrent a copy since you cannot run your own, I don't know, at least I haven't seen any court case on this mentioned anywhere.

yes, using any other torrent client will completly protect you from prosecution, go ahead, download some nice mainstream stuff.

There are precious few places where talk of, or commentary on, piracy isn't brutally stomped on, unless you're just chanting "piracies are bad mmkay?" Not surprising, when you consider how many forums are festering, repressive shitholes. Thankfully, there are places that just draw the line at "don't link to it." Like here, where even moral arguments in favor of it pass without question.

Toady is one of the good guys indeed. I am and will always be against copyright, at least until someone points an argument I haven't heard yet that actually has enough merit to make me rethink my opinion.

Though I'm a Computer and Network Security major so I guess I'm taught to be better safe then sorry when it comes to downloading stuff online on the limits of legality.

I was taught to make others feel sorry. (While being a nice guy overall)

Wouldnt a violation be cracking the game, rather than playing a cracked game? Totally correct me if Im wrong.

Click-wrap contracts usually cover running modified software, so depends on how thoughtful the dumbasses were while writing that contract you need to bend over for if you want to run said software.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Piracy is a cultural thing, now. Snubbing out any conversation related to it is akin to censorship, really.

Paradox Interactive's moderators are fascists anyways.

[Cthulhu]

If you're downloading a torrent, you're also seeding it to others who probably don't legally own the game.

In other words, even if cracking a game you own isn't illegal (And I don't see a problem with that) what you're doing is still illegal.  If you're willing to play fast and loose with the rules, which you must be if you're justifying cracking games you own, then surely you can circumvent that by using Rapidhorrible or Mediafire.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

As far as I can tell, what the software manufacturers want their license to mean is this:

1: You have the right to use the software contained in this CD.
2: You can't use it in ways we don't intend (reverse-engineering, copying to another medium, modifying the code, using it on more than one machine).

Steam seems to be a different thing. You're right, it's a distribution service and you may have a separate EULA regarding Steam.

Separate from that, the DMCA pretty much screws you on a second level. Regardless of EULA the DMCA makes it illegal to do just about everything, including probably using the software as intended. It's one of those stupid complicated laws that runs 900 pages and nobody actually read except the guys who pushed it through and a couple congressional aides.

cerapa that's an interesting point, but commonly in law trafficking in the goods of illegal activity is often also illegal. For example, a fence who sells stolen goods may be guilty of something (not theft, probably). What happens to the guy who buys something from the fence? I'm not sure. Does the DMCA make the same sort of sense? Who knows?

I'm not sure if the OP meant this to be the issue, but it sounds like the issue is that he bought a CD key so he feels like he should be able to use any copy of the game in any way he wants. I'd say check the EULA for language like "and we reserve any rights not specifically given to the user" because that pretty much tries to close up any other loopholes. If the EULA says "don't distribute this to other people" then seeding it is against the EULA because other people might pick up the torrent you seeded. If you leech it you haven't agreed to the EULA yet so you're not in EULA territory, you're just in DMCA territory.

Have EULAs been defended in court? It's possible if they have it's a side effect of a conviction for piracy and not a pure case of EULA violation. Any citations?

[Fayrik]

If it's legal to torrent a copy since you cannot run your own, I don't know, at least I haven't seen any court case on this mentioned anywhere.

Actually, yeah. This part, spesifically, needs to be clarified.

What I think would help fix the problem, would be sturdier distrubution laws on the end of the games sellers and makers.
The fact that people are pirating the games when they own a legal copy of it just goes to show that they're being let down by the people they've purchased the game from. And thusly, I'd encourage pirating games you already own if that's the case. No one's going to lose money, or IP rights, in that case, the customer just gets what they've paid for.

There are precious few places where talk of, or commentary on, piracy isn't brutally stomped on, unless you're just chanting "piracies are bad mmkay?" Not surprising, when you consider how many forums are festering, repressive shitholes. Thankfully, there are places that just draw the line at "don't link to it." Like here, where even moral arguments in favor of it pass without question.

Toady is one of the good guys indeed. I am and will always be against copyright, at least until someone points an argument I haven't heard yet that actually has enough merit to make me rethink my opinion.

Actually, I'd just like to put thoughts in, that, this is a really nice forum. It's probably on of very very few forums (if not the only one), where people actually enjoy talking about difficult subjects such as internet piracy and politics. Okay, sometimes things don't stay calm and civil, but the fact everyone manages it most of the time goes to show that this is actually a pretty good place for discussing such delicate subjects.

I also hate to draw on one quote twice, but...

I am and will always be against copyright, at least until someone points an argument I haven't heard yet that actually has enough merit to make me rethink my opinion.

It's a fair oppinion. But it's one I don't really share.
Copyrights have been abused alot in the past ten years, and the trend is continuing, however, they where set in place, originally, for a reason.
And, for all their ups and downs, copyrights are still what is keeping back the hoards and hoards of terrible games that are just really bad unlicenced rip-offs of other things.
...We just need a law now that stops films being turned into games. At least before they are released.

If you're downloading a torrent, you're also seeding it to others who probably don't legally own the game.

I never seed. I will, however, point out, I never download games either... But the few times I have torrented things (mostly from OCRemix.org), I never seed.
Selfish? Yes. But I have measly upload speed, and I'm hosting a website on it. 'Nuff said.

[Karlito]

What do you guys think of this whole ridiculous mess?

No idea on the legality, as I am not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem unethical from a ripping-off-the content-providers standpoint, as long as you leech the torrent.

[Sergius]

Toady is one of the good guys indeed. I am and will always be against copyright, at least until someone points an argument I haven't heard yet that actually has enough merit to make me rethink my opinion.

Copyright is a form of protectionism, specifically a sanctioned monopoly, and as such, prone to all the flaws of those. Ironically, the most hurt by these are the creators themselves: why innovate if you can litigate? Instead of figuring WHY people are downloading torrents "illegally" (answer: because you fucked them over with your game install service) and fix it, send in the lawyers!

[Greenbane]

As Cthulhu said, the only real problem with this method is that you'd be seeding the copy to other people. Many Paradox games (including their own grand strategy series) don't use any form of copy protection, so there are no cracks nor keygens in the picture. If you torrent the game, you're getting essentially the same game you'd get from an official source. And if you have already paid for that copy, it doesn't make any logical difference where you get it from.

Now, I understand them not wanting torrents to be discussed on the forum, since that'd be a mess to regulate. Just banning all discussion of them seems easier, and it's a position which they've taken in regard to other subjects as well (like swastikas and nazism).

So, bottomline, don't discuss it and just do it. You paid for the game, which means you obviously deserve it. Personally, I'd have stayed the hell away from Steam and buy it through Gamersgate in the first place, but that's another story.

[Soulwynd]

It's a fair oppinion. But it's one I don't really share.
Copyrights have been abused alot in the past ten years, and the trend is continuing, however, they where set in place, originally, for a reason.
And, for all their ups and downs, copyrights are still what is keeping back the hoards and hoards of terrible games that are just really bad unlicenced rip-offs of other things.
...We just need a law now that stops films being turned into games. At least before they are released.

It was at a time when if someone copied your book, it meant they were selling your work. I don't agree with the dirty side of piracy, as in, -selling- the stuff. The problem is, copyright was extended to absurd notions. I'm sure you can find all my arguments about it somewhere else, I don't feel like retyping it yet again.

Oh, and it also keeps any potentially amazing game using said IP from coming out.

But yes, movie-games should be made illegal in general. They should never ever happen.

Copyright is a form of protectionism, specifically a sanctioned monopoly, and as such, prone to all the flaws of those.

If it protected it from and only from people selling someone's unmodified work. I would be fine with it. But people should be able to modify and sell the modified work, copy at their own expenses and give it away for free. One may be rabblerabblerabble against that, but if so, all one is in favor of are a few people getting a lot of money and the rest of us being deprived of improvements. If someone has a better idea of how to use someone's work, we should all get to see/buy and modify even further upon it. Let us choose who gets the money out of it. If someone's work is good, it doesn't need protection. Toady doesn't need it. Good games don't need it. Even if we pirate those, we end up buying them if we have money and they're good.

[Frumple]

What happens to the guy who buys something from the fence? I'm not sure.

Oh hey, I can contribute. The short answer is, if the buyer wasn't complicit (i.e. was buying from a legit store, say a pawnshop -- who themselves may not have known the goods were stolen -- and didn't know the goods were stolen) then pretty much nothing. The material they bought may be confiscated for evidential purposes for a time, but generally either the buyer gets to keep the material or the seller/original thief (depending on who's at fault for selling the stolen goods -- the seller may be faultless) has to refund the cost, possibly with some extra on the side.

S'how it works in one of the US states (Florida), anyway. Just recently had a relative of a relative hauled in for selling stuff that wunnit his to pawn shops.

How this applies to p2p distro... blazes if I know. Still, general message seems to be complicity (or at least demonstrable non-complicity or doubtful complicity.) is the bigger issue than the goods in question actually being stolen.

[Vel]

Wow, wait, did someone seriously claim 'It'd be like going into the store and taking another box!!'?

It's more like 'going back to the store and returning your copy for a functioning replacement one', which any store is going to honor because they like not having people sue their asses off for selling faulty nonfunctioning products and refusing to replace it.


Software sales are not sold 'as is' on an individual basis, you can't sell someone a specific copy that doesn't work and then refuse to replace it if the problem is the software itself.


Edit - To clarify, you are not buying the product 'as is' with the possibility of faulty operation being at your own risk, in fact you are not even buying the product at all. You are buying a /license/ to use the product and thus the way the product gets to you is completely irrelevant.

[Akura]

Hey kids, don't copy that floppy!

Wow, wait, did someone seriously claim 'It'd be like going into the store and taking another box!!'?

It's more like 'going back to the store and returning your copy for a functioning replacement one', which any store is going to honor because they like not having people sue their asses off for selling faulty nonfunctioning products and refusing to replace it.


Software sales are not sold 'as is' on an individual basis, you can't sell someone a specific copy that doesn't work and then refuse to replace it if the problem is the software itself.

I'm pretty sure I've seen GameStop do just that. Granted, they have refunded me for something that didn't work(L4D, turned out I didn't have Steam, or an internet conenction).

[Frumple]

Except... can't they, in certain circumstances? If you buy a Mac version and then take it home to your windows comp, you can't really blame the store or the software itself for the software not functioning.

Most places will let you replace whatever you bought with the correct OS software, but I don't think they're legally required to. They could say the software's functioning as intended, there's nothing wrong with it, and that they're not obligated to correct the mistake that happened on the purchaser's end. It'd be a dick move, as they say, but as I understand it a legit one. Not moral, not wise (you'd definitely lose customers over that sort of hardline position), but legit, yes.

[Vel]

Buying a Mac version of a product when you have a Windows operating system would not be a failure of the product, but purchasing a copy where the CDs are scratched and inoperable where you would otherwise be able to play would be. How is this different from purchasing a game where you meet all the requirements to operate the software but the delivery service for that software is inoperable?