update pls
I envy those who use steam.
I envy those who use steam.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Show posts Menu
I envy those who use steam.
Quote from: nccvoyager on August 17, 2017, 07:00:57 AM
@DodgingRain, My posts are regarding Mufflamingo's post regarding Mufflamingo's brother selling his computer to Mufflamingo, which had a copy of RimWorld already installed.
I suppose it is a little confusing since I never expressly stated which post I was replying to.
@Bozobub, The OP admitted to "pirating" the game. The OP's question has been answered.
I personally have no issue with what Mufflamingo describes as Mufflamingo's use of RimWorld, and it appears you have no issue with it either.
Forgive my response. It's 4AM, and I'm sitting outside a closed coffee shop to use the free WiFi because I can't even get broadband where I live.
Considering the number of cases pursued by companies on a yearly basis worldwide regarding EULA violations, copyright infringement, and software piracy...
Well, it seems somewhat obvious that someone "gives a crap," as it were.
Though, I was under the impression we were discussing a specific set of circumstances, and whether or not a person in such a set of circumstances would be considered a software pirate in such a set of circumstances...
I didn't intend to imply that you had said anything regarding digital purchases not being subject to the law, and I apologize if it seemed that way.
I intended to redirect the conversation towards digital-only distribution, since RimWorld is only distributed digitally.
Therefore, it seemed to me that the use of a disc-based medium as an example was a little oversimplified in lieu of the current state of distribution.
(That is to say that digital distribution has limitations on ownership and the transfer of ownership that physical mediums do not.)
Indeed, cases regarding the violation of an EULA are civil cases.
That being said, it is still a legally binding document, which can be enforced at the will of the software developer or publisher in a civil case, regardless of the country the user resides in.
These types of civil cases are settled often.
(Though admittedly, usually only extremely large corporate entities will attempt to bring these cases, and usually only for high-value software.)
I apologize that I was not more clear in my post.
Indeed, copyright law and EULAs are separate groups.
That being said, RimWorld is protected by copyright law, and further by the EULA at Ludeon's discretion.
(Whether or not Ludeon would enforce a minor violation of the EULA is not part of the discussion; just that they could attempt to do so by bringing a court case.)
Steam is allowed to distribute the game, as per the EULA, with express permission given to them from Ludeon.
"The one key rule is that you can't distribute anything we've made unless we agree to it."
Note that part at the end there: "..Unless we agree to it."
Mufflamingo and Mufflamingo's brother were acting under "good faith" regarding the sale of the computer.
Mufflamingo's brother was not attempting to act in an unfair or deceitful manner towards Mufflamingo.
That said, again, Mufflamingo would not be considered to be acting in "good faith" regarding the EULA, or the copy of RimWorld installed on the computer, since Mufflamingo did not acquire a license for RimWorld before using the software.
Indeed, I should have noted the portion regarding the recording of audio or video for personal use as being legal.
Though, as per any other reproduction, it is still illegal to share those recordings for profit, and illegal to share those recordings without profit in the US and UK, though it is legal to share the recordings with others so long as you are with the recording being shown, in Australia.
Whether or not EULAs and copyright law are enforced doesn't change the fact that they exist.
All I was doing was answering the question of what was considered piracy in this case.
Definition of software piracy (act): "The illegal copying, distribution, or use of software."
Will a case, be brought against someone for the violation of copyright or the EULA?
Realistically, it's extremely unlikely unless they are in North Korea.
Now, actually, I was specifically attempting to avoid mentioning the difference between civil law and criminal law when it comes to software piracy, mainly because it is truly dependent upon the region in question.
That said, whether software piracy falls under civil law or criminal law had no bearing on the original discussion, which was a general question of whether or not the case in question was considered software piracy, and who in that case would be considered a pirate.
I was attempting to keep it a short answer, and had to generalize the definition of software piracy as a result.
(Not something I like to do, but it was necessary for a short answer. Which we kind of royally messed up, yeah?)
The real issue isn't really with what is illegal.
The real issue is that many things that are not expressly legal are portrayed as illegal, and very little concrete answers are being given regarding what is or isn't legal.
I'm not trying to argue or be offensive, and I apologize if it seemed that way.
The short answer is that copyright law and what is considered software piracy are dependent on the jurisdiction, and have no simple definition on any count, and may or may not be enforced depending on the legal status of software piracy, copyright infringement, and whether or not a company lawyer wants to make an example out of someone.
Under the general definition of software piracy, is the distribution and use Mufflamingo and Mufflamingo's brother did considered software piracy?
Technically, yes.
Would anyone ever enforce any laws, civil or criminal, regarding that specific use?
Maybe if it was EA-published software.
Otherwise, probably not.
On a side note, I would like to reiterate that it is not my place to comment on whether the sharing of software or digital media, software or digital piracy, or the use as described by Mufflamingo is right or wrong.
I am simply attempting to give an objective answer to a question that is, unequivocally, a subjective question.
(Both on a level personal to the respondent, and regarding local jurisdictional laws.)
Now, I'm going to try to take a nap for a few hours until the coffee shop opens.
Then, I'm going to buy espresso.