Faux pas at The Wargamer?

[Jarhead0331]

{snip}
Thus far in the thread, people commenting on what does or what doesn't legally constitute "theft" are immediately considered to be on a "high horse" and rambling about "moral standards".

I understand that people don't want to be called a thief, but what people think is completely irrelevant when it comes to how something is written down in the law. Moral relativism is the mortal enemy of any legal system.

Does downloading a game put you in the same moral position as someone who steals someone's car? Depends on who you ask, but not really I'd say. Are both thing legally considered to be theft? Most certainly. Stealing a pencil from a store is also theft just like stealing a computer from a store is. You're thinking in terms of value, which is why you shrug at stealing a pencil being called theft, but it's still legally theft.{snip}

To be fair.  Downloading of abandonware is not theft, nor is it a crime (at least in the US).

Copyright infringement (on the level of downloading abandonware) is a civil offense.

Also, Ubercat's point is a good one.  Downloading a game you own in an unusable format (say on 3.5" disks) to be able to continue to play it is (I would argue) a pretty clear example of fair use, negating any claim of  infringement.

Copyright infringement is still "against the law", but it's not a crime.   And it's certainly not "theft" under any legal definition. 

--Philistine

Nice first post, but its almost completely erroneous. Will downloading a single file for personal use land you in jail? Of course not, nobody has suggested that. However, that being said, the DCMA and sections of the USC have extremely stiff criminal penalties for violating copy right laws, including where digital media is concerned, particularly where willful intent to distribute or make personal financial gain can be established.  Here, a violator can be subject to years of jail time and hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions in penalties and fines.

By the way, Ubercat's example, if anything, is not an example of fair use. Rather, it is an example of an exception to the anti-circumvention provisions of the DCMA.

[bayonetbrant]

Copyright infringement is still "against the law", but it's not a crime.

I'm not sure how something can be against the law and not be a crime

[Jarhead0331]

Copyright infringement is still "against the law", but it's not a crime.

I'm not sure how something can be against the law and not be a crime

I think he is trying, unsuccessfully, to draw a distinction between civil liability and criminal prosecution.

[BanzaiCat]

Looks like I missed a lively debate last night.  8)

I'll admit, I've done this before, albeit not directly. Back in the 90s I worked at a computer company and one of the marketing guys had all the 'connections.' I never solicited him, but we had a conversation one day about the new X-Wing game (new at the time, of course) and I remember telling him it would be a cold day in hell before I played it as I never had the cash for that kind of thing. A few days later he visited my office and brought me a stack of 3.5" floppies. I happily accepted! Does that make it wrong? Of course it does. I accepted something I didn't pay for. And he did this a few other times over the years I worked there...he brought me Warcraft, other X-Wing titles, and so on. Not all the time, just once in a blue moon. And I accepted each one. For a 20-something in his first real office job but still making bupkis and struggling to start a family, the benefits at the time far, far outweighed the possible consequences.

Later that decade I remember I'd find copies of the games in bargain bins. I would buy them. Did this make up for what I did? No, of course not. It was still breaking the law. And the store that sold them when they first come out didn't get the $50 or $60 or however much it was from me (not that they would have as I didn't have that kind of scratch). I felt a little better about it, at any rate. I wasn't beating myself up or anything - don't get me wrong - and I could sleep fine at night. It was, however, something that nagged at my edges for some time.

I know plenty of people who have used Demonoid and Pirate Bay and the like, and I'll admit I've looked through those sites, and it's AMAZING what is out there. Basically, if it's in electronic format - music, books, games, TV shows, movies, you name it - you can find it out there. But I've never partaken in a download of them. And why not? For many reasons. Viruses, for one; I've heard that's a ripe environment for them. For another, it seems that a lot of these guys go through a lot of hoops to get these games to work. I mean, patches, cracks, manipulations of files, moving things around - it's so much bloody work that it's just not worth it in my mind.

Being older and somewhat wiser now, I'd much rather wait, save my money, then buy the damn thing and at least have a legitimate copy with legitimate support and simple use instead of pulling through a dozen chicanes to hope that maybe possibly a game will work. I don't understand why people do that, as it seems it's more work to get it for free than to just pay for the blasted thing.

On the point involving buying a game in 1993...that's an interesting one. I've thought about that. I'm glad I had the foresight to keep some of my MicroProse classics (Covert Action, Sword of the Samurai), as I had a feeling as technology increased the old games would disappear. But if I bought Sword of the Samurai back in the day (back before I was married and had my own money, LOL), and lost it, does that give me the right to go download it?

Same argument with CDs - if I have a CD but I can't find it, but I KNOW I bought it and have it somewhere, does that mean I can go download it somewhere?

I'd say no on both counts. It's still illegal. I know there's gotta be people out there who think it's okay to do that as they've already shelled money out for them, but to be honest, if you lose it and you're too lazy to look for it or too sloppy to properly organize your life so that you lose stuff, then that's on you, not on the publishers or producers. If you buy something then break it and it's your fault, you have to buy another one.

[Bison]

Actually the whole argument about downloading in specific Civil Wars Generals 2, because it isn't available is actually not true.  You can get it from Amazon and Ebay.  Actual copies of the game, but I suspect the price isn't what many want to pay so it's easier to just take something.  I don't care if it hurts someone's feelings or not.  Big boys making big boy decisions and then trying to talk themselves and others into believing their actions are closer the white side of the black and white line of the law.

http://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Generals-Grant-Sherman-Pc/dp/B001ALI794/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1389276759&sr=8-2&keywords=civil+war+generals+2

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Civil-War-2-Generals-Grant-Lee-Sherman-Sierra-PC-Game-/400637547549?pt=Video_Games_Games&hash=item5d47dbd41d

It's like trying to claim being only a little bit pregnant. 

[SgtRock]

If you can't buy it, you can't steal it, used copies on Ebay or copies sold by third parties don't count! That's my view of software that's no longer sold or supported!  Copy rights are some what like patents, use it or lose it, if the owner can't or doesn't enforce it, they can lose the right to do so.

[Jarhead0331]

If you can't buy it, you can't steal it...

Wrong.

You can't be serious.

[solops]

I bought the game years ago. I still have the manual and original disks. Is it wrong for me to download it?

[Jarhead0331]

I bought the game years ago. I still have the manual and original disks. Is it wrong for me to download it?

Possibly. As noted earlier in this thread, recent amendments to the DCMA may permit this activity under an exception to the circumvention rules.

[Anguille]

I bought the game years ago. I still have the manual and original disks. Is it wrong for me to download it?

I did it too and do not feel guilty...i couldn't run the original game on cd. Did the same with birth of the federation (i have bought at least 5 legit copies back then). Two of my all time favorite games...was very sad when i couldn't run them anymore and would be extremely upset if i couldn't run them again.

Now, i don't think the link should have been posted in the review. Jean is a huge fan of the game and probably suggested the review...for those who remember, he even launched a kickstarter campaign for a civil war generals II without success.

I am strongly against piracy but see this as an exception. If GOG or else would sell these games, i'd buy legit editions again.

If we wanted to pay those who created the game, we should give some money to Tilted Mill and Firefly as they used to be Impressions Games.

[Swatter]

I think the simply answer would be to say that IP laws need to be updated. If a piece of software is so old that the hardware needed to run it doesn't reasonably exist, the IP ownership is uncertain, and no perceptible harm could result- allow the IP to migrate to a less restrictive category that allows personal use (no financial gain). This status could be revoked by request of IP owner.

I think the IP laws that govern more durable intellectual goods don't apply as well to software. When does a piece of software become public domain? With the convoluted ownership chain, is it even possible to know in many cases? And by the time the software flows into the public domain, it is so obsolete as to be completely useless. I would say software IP should be more connected to commercial usefulness.

[bayonetbrant]

Speed limits could be updated in a lot of places.

That doesn't mean that speeding isn't still illegal where it hasn't been yet.

[Philistine]

Nice first post, but its almost completely erroneous. Will downloading a single file for personal use land you in jail? Of course not, nobody has suggested that. However, that being said, the DCMA and sections of the USC have extremely stiff criminal penalties for violating copy right laws, including where digital media is concerned, particularly where willful intent to distribute or make personal financial gain can be established.

????

AIUI, under both general copyright in the USC (i.e. 17 USC. Sec. 506(a)(1)), and the DMCA (i.e. 17 USC Sec. 1204), it's not that criminal penalties apply "particularly" where there is willful intent to distribut or make personal financial gain--but only where the infringement is for commercial advantage or private financial gain.

I don't think a non-frivolous argument can be made that a singe person's downloading of abandonware games for personal use could constitute being done for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.

As I, said, that doesn't mean it's not a violation of copyright. but it's not a crime. 

By the way, Ubercat's example, if anything, is not an example of fair use. Rather, it is an example of an exception to the anti-circumvention provisions of the DCMA.

FWIU, format shifting in the case of ripping mp3's from cds to be used in portable players has been held to be fair use.  That's what I liken this to, though I'd be surprised if it's ever actually come up.

--Philistine

[Philistine]

I'm not sure how something can be against the law and not be a crime

The law requires a lot of things.  But it is fairly small subset of the things that the law requires result in criminal penalties for violations.

For instance, generally, a state law requires official stop signs to be a certain size and shape and design.  A stop sign that is too small, that is put up will not result in criminal liability to the person who set it up, or the city/town/government that set it up.  OTOH, it could result in civil liability to the extent the non-conformance with law could be shown to have caused an injury (e.g. someone got in an accident because they didn't see it).

--Philistine

[Michael Dorosh]

unless the game is over 75 years old, someone owns the copyright
even then, it could've been renewed

+1

Just because someone wants the game and can no longer purchase it doesn't give them the right to steal it.

There is no legal status called "abandonware." It's called "theft."

Unless the original copyright owner says "here you go." This actually happened with, for example, Combat Mission: Campaigns. I suppose "open source" may be a better term?

Otherwise, I agree with those who assert that intellectual property rights reside with the original creator (or the publisher, etc.) by default.