I pirated the game and now i want to buy it, will my saves be deleted?

[Bozobub]

That's a rather large assumption; you seem quite sure the brother in question is incapable of buying 2 copies.  Hysteria and hyperbole is a large part of why this topic is a perennial mistake on this forum ^^' .

[SpaceDorf]

So you see, my brother bought and installed Rimworld in his computer which now belongs to me. Should I pay my brother for this game? Am I a pirate?

If he is playing it on another computer, and you are still playing it on the computer you bought from him, then yes you are a pirate.

I would say your brother is the pirate, because he sold you the computer including the copy of rimworld, ( like you normally include the copy of the OS in the sale of a computer )
So if he keeps playing a copy of a game on a new computer he is the pirate 

[nccvoyager]

In terms of Mufflamingo's post....

If the version in question is the Steam version, and Mufflamingo is using it via an offline Steam installation, or by logging into his brother's Steam account, then his brother is in violation of the Steam EULA regarding account sharing, and Mufflamingo as well as Mufflamingo's brother are in violation of the RimWorld EULA regarding access to the software.
Mufflamingo would be in violation of the EULA for using the software without a valid license, while Mufflamingo's brother would be in violation both for allowing someone other than themselves access to the software, and for allowing someone other than themselves access to their Steam account.

If the version in question is the DRM-free version, then it is a little more complicated.
First, if they are both using the DRM-free version, only the person who has access to the SendOwl page is legally allowed to download and use it.
Regardless of the fact that it was already installed on the computer before the computer changed ownership, the copy of RimWorld on Mufflamingo's computer is still considered the property of the original user.
Or, more accurately, the software is property of Ludeon, Studios, but only Mufflamingo's brother is still allowed to legally access it.
According to the EULA, both Mufflamingo and their brother are in breach.
Mufflamingo for using the program without a valid license to use it, and Mufflamingo's brother for allowing anybody other than himself to access the software.

If Mufflamingo is using the DRM-free version, and Mufflamingo's brother is using the Steam version, then they are both in violation of the RimWorld EULA.
Mufflamingo is in violation for using the program without a valid license to do so, while Mufflamingo's brother in in violation for allowing access to the software to someone other than himself.

If Mufflamingo is the only one using a copy of the software, they are still both in breach of the EULA since Mufflamingo's brother is the only one legally allowed to access the software.
If Mufflamingo's brother no longer wishes to use RimWorld, but Mufflamingo does, then Mufflamingo's brother may be able to transfer the license to Mufflamingo via official channels by contacting Ludeon support and having the copy transferred to an email address that only Mufflamingo has access to.

Note that Mufflamingo and his brother are, by definition, currently both considered guilty of software piracy in this case, since Mufflamingo's brother distributed the software in an unauthorized manner, and Mufflamingo is guilty of unauthorized use of the software.
(Unauthorized use, copying, and distribution are all considered software piracy.)

Additionally, in response to bozobub's post, it legally doesn't matter if Mufflamingo's brother buys one copy, two copies, or a hundred copies.
Regardless, Mufflamingo's brother would still be the only one legally allowed to use those copies unless he gifted one of them to Mufflamingo via official channels.

[Bozobub]

Once again, you are making the assumption the brother didn't simply buy another copy of the game.  Lecturing people over what you *imagine* may have happened isn't particularly appropriate in any milieu.

Is it likely the brother violated the Terms of Use?  Sure.  Is it certain?  Absolutely not, and I'd bet Mufflamingo doesn't know, either (or particularly care, most likely ^^').  The only person violating any laws or implicit contracts (at least in the US, UK, and EU) would be the brother who sold/gave away the computer, IF he still has the game installed, until/unless the recipient of the system is officially notified their software is in violation in some way.  It's called "operating in good faith", in law.  Similarly, if you buy a PC from an unscrupulous vendor who pirates Windows, a pretty common occurrence, you cannot be held legally responsible if you didn't provably know; you were operating in good faith.

Nor are any "official channels" necessary to gift someone anything at all, that doesn't require registration with the government (cars, land, and such) or have a stated alternative process that's legally binding (such as with transfers of a registered copy of Windows); yes, you can hand an install DVD for a game to someone, as long as you remove it from your own system (if the game's ToS requires you to; a surprising number actually don't o.O) without any "official" nonsense. In fact, if the brother buys 2 copies and gives his brother one, that literally is all that's required, by both the law and common sense, as long as he doesn't also try to use the same copies in some other way, himself, at the same time.

Furthermore, quibbling over what was initially a sale is astronomically shortsighted.  No, sharing a paid copy of RimWorld with your brother isn't mass piracy, not even close.  If only more pirates did the same!

[Mufflamingo]

I'm gonna kill my brother. Best be a murder than a pirate. Pirates are the enemies of mankind! Read that on a law book somewhere.

Also, he gave me his computer (including the copy of rimworld which is installed) so he doesn't really play anymore. But he is the one updating it for he dont want to give me his email! Errr.

[Bozobub]

So he's using one copy of RimWorld, in that case.  Not a problem.

[nccvoyager]

First, while there are copies of the EULA distributed with every download of RimWorld, there is also at least one copy you can read before downloading, or buying, the software.
https://ludeon.com/rimworld/EULA.txt

Now, I actually addressed the fact that regardless of whether or not Mufflamingo's brother bought one copy, two copies, or a multitude of copies, Mufflamingo's brother would still be in violation of the EULA provided by Ludeon by allowing someone other than themselves access to the software.
(Not terms of service or terms of use, which are completely separate things altogether, and unlike an EULA, usually do not carry legal significance outside of the software or service provided, and are instead based upon protecting the users of the software or service from anyone malicious, allowing the developers, owners, moderators, and publishers of the service or software in question to prohibit the use of the software at their own discretion.)

I made no assumption; I made a statement backed by the EULA provided by Ludeon, which is a legally binding document, and various international copyright laws in the US, UK, Canada, and the EU.
The EULA is a legally binding document that you agree to when you purchase the software, install the software, or use the software.
Whether or not you read it, you still agree to abide by it by using the software.
The EULA is applicable regardless of the country or region in which a person resides in, with the provision that any section of the EULA which would restrict the legally provided rights of a person in a country other than the US is excepted for such a person.
(Everything regarding the use, reproduction, and distribution of RimWorld within the RimWorld EULA is upheld in the US, Canada, UK, and EU, among other countries.)

The EULA for RimWorld requires that, while five copies of the software can be installed at one time, only the person that bought it is allowed to access it.
This means that regardless of whether or not Mufflamingo's brother still has a copy installed, Mufflamingo's brother is in violation of the EULA by allowing Mufflamingo to access the software.
Mufflamingo would also be in violation of the EULA, since the use of the software is provisional to the acceptance of the EULA, which prohibits the use of the software by a person that has not bought it.

While it is true that Mufflamingo is not guilty of a crime related to the sharing of the software, the use of the software is still provisional to the acceptance of the EULA, which in turn still makes Mufflamingo guilty of a piracy-related crime.
This is true in the US, UK, Canada, EU, Australia, Germany, Spain, and so on, and so forth...

"Good faith" as you portrayed it is the abstract belief of "good faith" and not the legal contract law version of good faith.
In legal terms, "good faith" only applies to a contract between two groups, and specifically relates to a general presumption that each party will deal with the other in a fair and honest manner.
This means that Mufflamingo was only considered to be operating in "good faith" until such a time as Mufflamingo used the software, at which time Mufflamingo was considered to have accepted the terms of the EULA, which expressly prohibits the use of the software by a non-buyer.
Having the software on the computer was completely fine, for both Mufflamingo and Mufflamingo's brother, until such a point as Mufflamingo used the software.

Indeed, it is true that a program's ToS may not require you to uninstall all copies of the software before transferring it to another, but that is because the ToS is a contract regarding the rights of the developer or publisher and the end user, while the EULA is a contract regarding the acceptable use of the software.
The EULA is the legally binding document that may or may not ask you to remove all copies of a piece of software from your devices before transferring ownership to another, who is then subject to the EULA themselves upon installation, download, or use.
This is true in all countries that adhere to copyright law.

Software that is provided only via digital distribution can only be transferred from one person to another by the publisher.
Contrary to your post, "digital ownership" is indeed enforced in many regions and countries, including the US, Canada, UK, and EU.
(Notably though, the UK and EU have a more middle-of-the-road approach regarding the rights of the user than the US does, while Canada actually has some even harsher laws than the US in some areas, and nearly non-existent laws in other areas.)

While I personally agree that quibbling over what can be considered a sale is indeed "astronomically short-sighted" as you put it, I was under the impression that what was asked for was a definitive answer of whether or not this case is considered digital piracy in a legal capacity.
As such, according to international laws in many countries including the US, Canada, UK, and EU, since an EULA is a legally binding document, and Mufflamingo's brother is the one that bought it, Mufflamingo is in violation of stated EULA for not having bought a copy of the software, yet still using it, and Mufflamingo's brother is in violation for both distributing a copy of it, and for allowing another to access it.
By definition, digital piracy is "the unauthorized copying, distribution, or use of software."
As such, since the EULA prohibits the distribution or copying of the software, and the EULA also prohibits the use of the software by a non-buyer, both Mufflamingo and Mufflamingo's brother are considered pirates, by definition.

Of course, this is just an answer relating to whether or not is is considered digital piracy in a legal fashion.
Of course this isn't mass digital piracy, but the laws regarding digital piracy do not make that distinction.
The laws regard you as either a pirate, or not.
There is no grey area.

Contrary to what appears (to me) to be your belief from your posts, I am not attempting to state whether this use of the software in this manner is right or wrong in moral terms.
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it, though it is not my place, nor is it your place, to say whether it is right or wrong.
It is at the discretion of Ludeon Studios, and Tynan, to decide whether this is an acceptable use of the software.

I am not a representative of Ludeon Studios, Valve, or Tynan, and therefore I cannot provide a definitive answer in this capacity.
Since only Mufflamingo is using a copy of the software, I would personally imagine that Ludeon Studios (as represented by Tynan) would likely be totally fine with this use of the software.
That being said, as stated in the EULA, only Ludeon Studios can provide permission for this use.

Again, I am not a representative of Ludeon Studios, Tynan, or Valve.
Again, I am not trying to say what is morally right or wrong, as that is not my place.
I am only attempting to answer the originally proposed question of whether or not this use of the software in this manner is considered software piracy.
The short answer is that both Mufflamingo and Mufflamingo's brother are, by law, considered guilty of software piracy by way of applicable local copyright laws, and in breach of the RimWorld EULA.
The slightly longer answer is that it depends on whether or not Ludeon Studios considers this acceptable use.


Fun facts regarding software piracy:
-While unauthorized digital distribution of material under copyright is illegal in most countries, it is legal to watch movies under copyright or listen to audio under copyright via streaming services that do not leave a permanent copy of the file on your device if you are a citizen of the European Union.
-Copying and distributing files or software under copyright from one person to another via a HDD, SSD, USB mass storage device, optical disc, magnetic tape, or magnetic disk, is also considered software piracy in all countries that adhere to copyright law. (Includes the US, UK, EU countries, Canada, Germany, North Korea, South Korea, and so forth.)
-Recording songs from the radio, or recording movies or TV shows from public broadcasting stations are also considered piracy in many countries. (Includes the US, Canada, UK, and EU countries. Notably, in the Netherlands, these sorts of copies are allowed, provisional to the copies being used for non-commercial private viewing only.)

[Headshotkill]

^^^^

Anyone actually read the post above this one?
Just curious...

[Bozobub]

Fun fact:  No one gives a crap, including the law itself.  Nor did I say anything about electronic purchases not being subject to the law; that's all you.

If the brother bought a copy, gave it to his brother, and doesn't use it himself, that's fine, and yes, the law DOES agree in just about every nation, argue otherwise how you like.  For example, yes, you CAN sell a computer with the OS and all programs installed.  Now, the law in the US and UK also requires the seller to include any boxes/documentation/etc., but how much of that did you notice for RimWorld, hmm?

Yes, you're working on more than one false assumption.  Hint:  EULAs are not law, not even close, and in fact are often partially or fully unenforceable.  Ludeon Studios' EULA, for example, doesn't allow gift purchases on Steam if you follow the letter of it, as an easy example, or even another person to play the game on your PC; oops!  Sorry, but that's not enforceable in any court you'll be able to think of.

Good luck with that silliness but no, no crime can be inferred with the information given.  EULAs do not automatically become law, any more than any other contract does.  Easy example:  I can write a contract that requires you to kill yourself and even if you sign it, it's still not enforceable under the law.

Regarding "Good faith", do you honestly think you can describe the EULA as a contract (which it is meant to be; otherwise, it literally has no binding merit) and then insist "good faith" does not apply to all parties in the same breath?  Try again!

Additionally, no, simply recording broadcast media for "time-shifting" is NOT piracy in the US, since 1984 (1988 for the UK).  What, you thought all those VHS and Beta recorders were illegal in the past..?!  Rather, it is illegal to copy and distribute/display said media over certain set limits.  Yes, the UK is much harsher, but still maintains this distinction (with much stronger limits on what a "private" or "public performance is).

Your stance is based on a lot of authoritarian FUD, which is exactly what bothers me most.  As someone who first played on someone else's PC and then received RimWorld as a gift purchase on Steam, I also have a direct interest in the discussion =) .  Please feel free to inform Steam about their breaking of Ludeon's EULA; that ought to be amusing, although Ludeon Studios probably won't appreciate the forced refunds; it may very well put them out of business...

[Mufflamingo]

I'm gonna call these people EULA geeks. I dont really read EULA's when installing any game.

[Dodging Rain]

What is with the debate when the guy only wanted to ask if his save game will be retained?

[Bozobub]

He admitted that he pirated the game; that's a big trigger here.

Yes, piracy isn't OK, although in the US it's an IP violation, not a crime, unless it's done for monetary or other material gain (where it becomes direct counterfeiting and fraud, a felony).  It's civil (tort) law, not criminal law.  So don't try to finely parse the law, if you can't understand even that fundamental point; it immediately gives away the fact that yer blowing smoke rings out yer heinie ^^'.

That said, castigating the reformed is just about the dumbest thing you can do in any community.  "The Prodigal Son" has an excellent lesson about this, even if (like me) you aren't Christian.  If one person is playing exactly one paid-for copy of the game, I'm not going to accept dire pronouncements about the letter of IP law or morality, and I damn well bet the dev doesn't rue the sale.

[nccvoyager]

@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.

[Mufflamingo]

@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.

Gonna buy you a double expresso. Just dont tell Tynan about this.

[TheMeInTeam]

You can download saves from people on the internet, and assuming you don't get TROJAN HORSED you can load them just fine.

A similar move will work for installing a proper version of the game.  Just copy your saves into whatever save folder is around for your legit version and you'll be good to go.  Mods work fine too.