Legal Question about computer games

[aimeeandbeatles]

Heres a question: I have a few game discs. These ones are pretty scratched up and they dont agree with my speedy CD drive. Usually I have to go over to moms computer and put it in the slower drive there and install it over the network. However last time I did that I copied it to my hard drive so I didnt have to keep running to the living room. Is this ok?

 

[cardgame]

I think creating a backup falls under fair use, so yes.

 

[lovexylitol]

I found this thread and was curious so I actually looked up the Civ4 BTS EULA.
What I found was quite different from what the people posted above. (Or I think so)

Just for the people looking for the EULA, it's in the Readme.htm file located in the Civ4\BTS folder.

According to clause (b) of the License terms,
(And you agree to the License terms when you are Installing the 'Program', well I vaguely remember that!)

(b) Distribute, lease, license, sell, rent or otherwise transfer or assign this Software, or any copies of this Software, without the express prior written consent of LICENSOR;

Also according to the definition of a 'License'

LICENSE. Subject to this Agreement and its terms and conditions, LICENSOR hereby grants you the non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited right and license to use one copy of the Software for your personal use on a single home or portable computer. The Software is being licensed to you and you hereby acknowledge that no title or ownership in the Software is being transferred or assigned and this Agreement should not be construed as a sale of any rights in the Software. All rights not specifically granted under this Agreement are reserved by LICENSOR and, as applicable, its licensors.

(This is the part where my interpretation comes, so if I am wrong, PLEASE correct me!)

Therefore, the license is only for your personal use. And also cannot be sold [under any conditions], except for the case you get a written consent from the LICENSOR(= TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.).

I find this quite surprising. You are not allowed to sell your games? I never sold mine(thats also surprising as to recall ), but remember buying some second handed.

EDIT// I hope they will actually give consent if actually asked (I wonder if anyone has attempted to send them a certified mail saying "I want to sell Civ4 to my friend Bill")'

EDIT2// Wait, I found this at the end.

TERMINATION: This Agreement will terminate automatically if you fail to comply with its terms and conditions. In such event, you must destroy all copies of the Software and all of its component parts. You can also end this Agreement by destroying the Software and all copies and reproductions of the Software and deleting and permanently purging the Software from any client server or computer on which it has been installed.

So maybe everyone is right after all. But "you must destroy all copies of the Software and all of its component parts" might include the original. In general thinking of course it does not, but maybe if somebody really want to make the argument in court, that somebody might interpret that to include originals. Now I do not think this is right(ethically), but that somebody's argument could be, "The end user has agreed not to make any copies already, therefore copies actually designates the package itself(and is very clear to me jury!)."

Also, the wording "component parts" is rather ambiguous. It could mean anything. Savefiles, configuration or other files, or maybe also CD, Manual?

 

[Carl Von Uber]

So if were not allowed to sell games then why can i sell my games at*Insert Game Store Here* allowed? I mean by what that says the Store and I are commiting something illegal. When I recieve cash instead of a trade.

 

[tokala]

What is written in the EULA is one thing, what the LAW says is usually quite another thing. Obviously depends on the country you are living in, but AFAIK in every case the "you can sell this licence only with consent of the copyrightholder" part was brought to court, it was ruled illegal
That's one of the reasons DRM measures got so anal the last few years. Under the guise of "fighting piracy" publishers implement technical hurdles to reselling your licence, and circumventing that "copy protection" IS illegal in most western countries. By this technical measures the consumer gets cheated of their "fair use/first sales doctrine" rights.

 

[illram]

In the US you can sell software regardless of what the license says under the first sale doctrine and recent federal court cases ruling that the doctrine applies to software. License restrictions saying otherwise are invalid.

Renting is different though. Under a rental the loaner still retains ownership of what he or she loans.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

The problem is if you have to circumvent DRM to apply First Sale, then you are in the wrong nonetheless.

 

[cardgame]

Nah, DRM is in the wrong

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Nope, as far as it has been ruled so far, DRM is perfectly fine. You are of course entitled to your Fair Use, but under the DMCA you cannot break DRM to make your backups. This has been overturned in several countries, most notably Brazil which ruled that you are allowed to bypass DRM to make backups of your media.

 

[deanej]

That's because the publishers are using the ignorance and fear of the lawmakers and consumers to manipulate the legal system. If the courts had acted like they are today in the 80s, VHS tapes, tivo, DVRs, etc. would all be illegal. If they had acted that way in the 20s, we wouldn't even have player pianos.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

And I agree with you. Im just stating the current fact with no comment on how I think it should be.

I too don't like most DRM (most, not all) and would love to see a more open software market, but I also realize that breaking DRM willy-nilly is going to achieve nothing, and may in fact set bad precedents for the future.

 

[illram]

Making copies is different than just selling the one copy you own though. If the DRM is that stringent, e.g. it limits a piece of software to one install, I'd say this recent ruling sets a strong foundation for any DRM circumvention done solely for first sale rights. (Basically, court says DMCA cannot be used to expand copyright protection and prevent users from utilizing media in a manner otherwise legal under current copyright laws.)

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I think there was a thread about that ruling. I couldnt find it though. It was posted in OT if anybody wants to search.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Making copies is different than just selling the one copy you own though. If the DRM is that stringent, e.g. it limits a piece of software to one install, I'd say this recent ruling sets a strong foundation for any DRM circumvention done solely for first sale rights. (Basically, court says DMCA cannot be used to expand copyright protection and prevent users from utilizing media in a manner otherwise legal under current copyright laws.)

The one problem I see with this as pertaining to games is cracks specifically. A crack is technically a modified copy of the original binary, one the person who cracked it does not have the right to redistribute.

Cracks are left in a very grey area, even though they may be used to circumvent DRM that is preventing fair use. So if you have a patch that modifies the binary then that would be fine, but actually sending out a copy of the modified binary -- that Im really not sure on.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Wouldnt modifying the binary be decompiling it?

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Not necessarily.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

Technically you must uninstall the game before he can install it. Then when he's done, he'll need to uninstall it before you reinstall it.

Sounds silly. All he had to do is give him the game, let his friend install the game, run it with the disk and play it. And when his friend is done with it, he can choose to either uninstall it, or keep the files in the computer, and give it back. They both don't need to keep uninstalling and installing it.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Sounds silly. All he had to do is give him the game, let his friend install the game, run it with the disk and play it. And when his friend is done with it, he can choose to either uninstall it, or keep the files in the computer, and give it back. They both don't need to keep uninstalling and installing it.

You missed the point of the thread and what Turner was saying.

To be within the bounds of the law, you *must* uninstall when transferring ownership of software. Keeping a copy is the same as making an illegal copy. When you sell a piece of software, you have to destroy any backup copies you made as well. Silly or not, its the law.

 

[cardgame]

Precisely, this thread is about YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG staying legal.