# Off-Topic Discussion > The Lounge > Tech Talk >  >  Is it legal to download games I own?

## Loaf

My brother and I bought a game in like, '06 or '07. It was one of my favorite games. I just plugged in my old hard drive from a broken laptop I used to play the game back then using a SATA / IDE to USB 2.0 cable but sadly I must have uninstalled it as it wasn't there. 

My brother since moved and lives at the other end of the country, to my knowledge the disc became scratched or broken since then and is useless, as I asked him to send it and he told me he couldn't for such reasons.

Since we did pay for the game, can I legally download an ISO copy of it to play the game since I don't believe its sold anymore (it was an old Starwars game) and even so I'd be kind of pissed to have to purchase it again. I think I might have purchase proof somewhere (if not for the date stamp of the game having been uninstalled on my old hard drive). 

I know its legal to create backups, but from memory I think I read that was only if you directly copy the disc while its in good condition... not using someone else's copy long after yours was rendered useless. I would have backed up but at the time didn't have the know-how or the tools to do it (copy protection derp).

HALPPP.

EDIT: I actually just found a retailer online in my country that can send it new, but would still like to know the answer to this question.

----------


## Marvo

You will never be arrested for piracy. All that matters is the ethical stand point. Is it morally wrong to download a new copy of a piece of software you have already paid for?

----------


## Supernova

It's not legal, but I think the real question here is, is it ethical?  You could argue either way, but IMO it is since you already bought it - even though you would have to buy a new copy to replace the broken one (especially since you'd probably buy a used copy online anyway).

----------


## Klikko

Depends where you download the software from. If you download it from an authorised retailer or from the producer, I believe it is okay. However not all sites are permitted to share the software, and those sites cannot say wether or not you have the right to download it. In the future however most game producers will register you, allowing future downloads, so you never have to miss a CD again.
However, if it is not produced anymore, and not sold anywhere, I cannot see why it should be wrong to download an ISO of it.

----------


## Original Poster

Yeah it's completely ethical, I don't even think that should be considered. When you purchase a game, a movie or a song, you're purchasing the right to use and copy it, and even share it with friends. You do not purchase the right to sell it for your own profit, but other than that, it's up to you. This is not like buying a car. I remember those comercials showing you how if you're not unethical enough to steal a car you shouldn't pirate. This is nonsense, a car is an object, you're purchasing something material. With something copyrighted, you're not purchasing anything but the right to access that. You're not purchasing the CD the game came in, you're purchasing the game.

It's a two way street and as long as people can be prosecuted on the grounds of stealing something that doesn't exist, people also have the right to reclaim it if they already purchased the consumer rights to it.

----------


## Supernova

Just because you can't hold it in your hands doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

----------


## OldNutter

> Just because you can't hold it in your hands doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.



Exactly, religion has been proving that for countless years now.

That being said, if I remember right, it is illegal, but like everyone else said, from an ethical stand point, screw that. Especially when everything is going digital. Soon there won't be any DVD'd and if I pay for something that cost them NOTHING to ship or make(besides coding, I meant like physical storage) then fuck that, I'll pay once, and download it elsewhere after.

----------


## Loaf

Thanks for the response. Ethically, I find it okay. But I did more research and I found that:

- In some countries its legal to create a backup, not all
- You must backup the original disc you own, you can not burn a copy or use someone else's
- If you sell the game you must destroy the backup copy or give it to the new owner
- You pay for the specific copy of the game, if you break it its your problem
- Most movies / games do not permit public use or performance, i.e, giving the game to friends

I went ahead and purchased it new from a retailer anyhow.

*Here is an ethical challenge though:* 
You buy a television. That is your unit to use. You break it due to lack of care. You aren't entitled to a free one, why should you be, it was your responsibility and your fault it got damaged.  

You buy a CD / DVD with the game on. That is your copy to use. You break it due to lack of care. You aren't entitiled to a free one, why should you be, it was your responsibility and your fault it got damaged. 


What makes software different from a physical item? You buy the right to use that disc and play the game, not a license to have the game forever... don't you?

----------


## Puffin

Digital versions of things are still considered "copies"; you bought one copy of a game but that doesn't give you the right to another one without paying for it. There seems to be some resistance to the fact that just because something isn't physical, it doesn't make it right to use if you're supposed to pay for it. Physical and digital versions should not be deemed one or the other - they are both copies. I wouldn't download anything; besides, it's not legal.

----------


## Original Poster

> Thanks for the response. Ethically, I find it okay. But I did more research and I found that:
> 
> - In some countries its legal to create a backup, not all
> - You must backup the original disc you own, you can not burn a copy or use someone else's
> - If you sell the game you must destroy the backup copy or give it to the new owner
> - You pay for the specific copy of the game, if you break it its your problem
> - Most movies / games do not permit public use or performance, i.e, giving the game to friends
> 
> I went ahead and purchased it new from a retailer anyhow.
> ...



If you can get in trouble for using something you do not own the rights to, you should be able to reclaim things you have purchased the rights to.

The digital market is all about rights because the actual object becomes irrelevant when it's nothing more than replicable code.

All I'm saying is cut out the hypocrisy, why can man be punished for obtaining what he owns as well as obtaining what he doesn't?

----------


## Loaf

Not exactly what is hypocritical about any of this, but okay.

----------


## Marvo

> - If you sell the game you must destroy the backup copy or give it to the new owner



Reselling software is a large issue in the software industry, epsecially games. The problem is that a used game is, for the most part, no worse than a new game, so each time a game is resold, the original maker loses money.





> I went ahead and purchased it new from a retailer anyhow.



Why? This is literally retarded. You are wasting natural resources and money, only because you want to follow a law that was written 40 years ago by people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
Rule one about laws related to computers and information technology is that they are all idiotic, outdated and generally make no fucking sense.





> *Here is an ethical challenge though:* 
> You buy a television. That is your unit to use. You break it due to lack of care. You aren't entitled to a free one, why should you be, it was your responsibility and your fault it got damaged.  
> 
> You buy a CD / DVD with the game on. That is your copy to use. You break it due to lack of care. You aren't entitiled to a free one, why should you be, it was your responsibility and your fault it got damaged.



This analogy does not work. In one case you're talking about a piece of intricate hardware, produced from materials that cost money to obtain, with machines that cost a LOT of money to build. In the other case, you're talking about a piece of software that is no more expensive to stamp onto a disc, than a picture is. The only actual cost is the disc, which costs less than 5 cents.






> What makes software different from a physical item? You buy the right to use that disc and play the game, not a license to have the game forever... don't you?



Again, as I said in my first post, when dealing with piracy, all you have to worry about is the moral stand point. You will never, ever be arrested or receive a fine for piracy, unless you're some big shot that uploads hundreds of gigabytes of warez each day. With that in mind, there's literally no valid reason why downloading a piece of software, that you already own the rights to use, should be wrong. You are not ruining anybody's profits (since you already bought one copy), you are not stealing a copy from a shop (piracy is not the same as stealing) and you are actually helping the world by saving resources.





> Digital versions of things are still considered "copies"; you bought one copy of a game but that doesn't give you the right to another one without paying for it. There seems to be some resistance to the fact that just because something isn't physical, it doesn't make it right to use if you're supposed to pay for it.



But you already paid for it, that's the point.





> Physical and digital versions should not be deemed one or the other



But they are different. One is nearly infinitely replicable at nearly no cost, while the other takes time to build, requires materials and so on.





> I wouldn't download anything; besides, it's not legal.



Not all laws are right. This is especially true in information technology. Nearly all such legislation in countries like the US and Australia is extremely outdated or just completely wrong. And again, you will never be caught for piracy, so the concern over the legality is pointless.

----------


## Loaf

> Reselling software is a large issue in the software industry, epsecially games. The problem is that a used game is, for the most part, no worse than a new game, so each time a game is resold, the original maker loses money.



Mmm, very true. I've never considered the idea of people reselling a game, because indeed, the money does not go to the developer. But if you are anything like me, buying a 2nd hand scratched disc is far from ideal haha.





> Why? This is literally retarded. You are wasting natural resources and money, only because you want to follow a law that was written 40 years ago by people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.



Its a copyright law and it still exists. I respect the developer enough, and appreciate the software enough, to wish to purchase a new copy rather than go through the hassle of illegally finding a torrent and downloading the game; an official version is more sturdy and nicer to own regardless. Regardless of what you think of the law, or the likelihood that exists of being caught, its still there. I wouldn't say the law was made by people who have "no idea what they're talking about" as if I sold a commercial product, it'd only make sense that I would not want it circulating on piracy websites where more people than not would abuse the file rather than use it for backups.

Re: natural resources. Its an old game that probably isn't in huge demand, since its already on DVD its not going to imbalance anything as I doubt the demand is there for the DVD I purchase to be restocked any time soon. Even so, I ain't pro-environment to the point I'm walking on eggshells when it comes to obtaining software in an 'eco friendly' way.

----------


## Marvo

> Mmm, very true. I've never considered the idea of people reselling a game, because indeed, the money does not go to the developer. But if you are anything like me, buying a 2nd hand scratched disc is far from ideal haha.
> 
> 
> 
> Its a copyright law and it still exists. I respect the developer enough, and appreciate the software enough, to wish to purchase a new copy rather than go through the hassle of illegally finding a torrent and downloading the game; an official version is more sturdy and nicer to own regardless. Regardless of what you think of the law, or the likelihood that exists of being caught, its still there. I wouldn't say the law was made by people who have "no idea what they're talking about" as if I sold a commercial product, it'd only make sense that I would not want it circulating on piracy websites where more people than not would abuse the file rather than use it for backups.
> 
> Re: natural resources. Its an old game that probably isn't in huge demand, since its already on DVD its not going to imbalance anything as I doubt the demand is there for the DVD I purchase to be restocked any time soon. Even so, I ain't pro-environment to the point I'm walking on eggshells when it comes to obtaining software in an 'eco friendly' way.



While you are it, don't vote either. One vote never makes a difference anyway.

----------


## Loaf

> While you are it, don't vote either. One vote never makes a difference anyway.



If it means voting for the hippie green party, it certainly will be just as effective as moot environmental acts, yes.

I've had my question answered so please, take your eco-rubbish to a suitable topic.

----------


## khh

If you can't get convicted for downloading a copy of software you already own (assuming you don't upload anything in the process), doesn't that make it legal by definition?

----------


## Supernova

> If you can get in trouble for using something you do not own the rights to, you should be able to reclaim things you have purchased the rights to.
> 
> The digital market is all about rights because the actual object becomes irrelevant when it's nothing more than replicable code.
> 
> All I'm saying is cut out the hypocrisy, why can man be punished for obtaining what he owns as well as obtaining what he doesn't?



The wording of the first sentence makes that sound very logical, however, you're.not purchasing the rights to the game, you're purchasing a single physical copy and the right to use that.

If you buy the new iPhone, you don't have the right to reverse engineer it, then build a new one and do what you please with it.

----------


## Marvo

> The wording of the first sentence makes that sound very logical, however, you're.not purchasing the rights to the game, you're purchasing a single physical copy and the right to use that.
> 
> If you buy the new iPhone, you don't have the right to reverse engineer it, then build a new one and do what you please with it.



You are allowed to do anything with any piece of software or hardware you own. You just can't spread it. Or at least, that's how I understand these matters. Reverse engineering an iPhone for personal use will, in no way, decrease Apple's profits.

----------


## tommo

> The wording of the first sentence makes that sound very logical, however, you're.not purchasing the rights to the game, you're purchasing a single physical copy and the right to use that.
> 
> If you buy the new iPhone, you don't have the right to reverse engineer it, then build a new one and do what you please with it.



Your first sentence appears logical.  However, your second sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

----------


## Original Poster

They own the patent on the iphone meaning you couldn't reverse engineer it and sell the exact same design.

But Sony tried to sue a guy for hacking his own playstation because he posted the how-to on the internet.

Monsanto sues people because their patented crops end up infecting other people's farms.

And yet microsoft is able to reverse engineer netscape and change the tiniest thing and avoid trouble.

You can get in trouble for downloading a game, but after you buy a game you can also get in trouble for downloading it. The law of copy-right protects the owner but it doesn't protect the consumer. This system is broken. The Law is a terrible excuse to defend the way our copyright system works. In my opinion, you SHOULD ONLY download music off the internet and boycott record companies so we can starve their resources and they can't keep suing people.

----------


## Loaf

> You are allowed to do anything with any piece of software or hardware you own. You just can't spread it.



Technically that isn't true, on the subject of Apple being touchy with its iPhones, its technically also illegal to install Mac OSX on a non-Macintosh machine, regardless if you own the computers and have purchased a legal copy of retail OSX. People still openly create hackintosh's and I don't think anyone has or ever will get in trouble for doing so, but it still stands. When you buy the program, you also take on board whatever licenses the author slapped on it.

----------


## khh

> Technically that isn't true, on the subject of Apple being touchy with its iPhones, its technically also illegal to install Mac OSX on a non-Macintosh machine, regardless if you own the computers and have purchased a legal copy of retail OSX. People still openly create hackintosh's and I don't think anyone has or ever will get in trouble for doing so, but it still stands. When you buy the program, you also take on board whatever licenses the author slapped on it.



No, actually you don't. If the license is in conflict with the law, that part of the license is void. A lot of the time it is, here at least.

----------


## Loaf

> No, actually you don't. If the license is in conflict with the law



Which it isn't, be that a good thing or a bad thing. I'm sure people who write licenses do their homework, you don't deal with legality if you know nothing about it.

----------


## Marvo

> Which it isn't, be that a good thing or a bad thing. I'm sure people who write licenses do their homework, you don't deal with legality if you know nothing about it.



Most end user license agreements are written to reflect legislation in the US. Nobody has ever, to my knowledge, been taken to court in Denmark for breaking a EULA on a point, that would otherwise be legal.

----------


## Loaf

> Most end user license agreements are written to reflect legislation in the US. Nobody has never, to my knowledge, been taken to court in Denmark for breaking the EULA on a point, that would otherwise be legal.



Ahhh, interesting.

----------

