Is it okay to pirate stuff you already own?

[eljawa]

Legally...maybe not. I know it is as far as fanedits and such with movies, but other than that i dont know. Morally, its fine

 

[Canid117]

If it's music the RIAA will still sue you for $300 million because they think "What do you mean they aren't going to sell it on the internet?"

 

[Nouw]

Yes, because you already bought it so the product has been paid it's price. Depends on what you're going to do with it though; pirating it so you can get a lost song,game or movie is fine as you already paid for it.

 

[Necromancer1991]

TO help simplify this look at steam, you can access it from any computer, and in turn access all the games you've bought over steam regardless of what computer you're on and where you are, so if my distant cousin in Alaska has internet I can get it there, or a friend in japan I can get it there, why hell if I could get internet on the moon I could get it there too. But unfortunately all PC games pre-steam lack this sort of functionality so pirating (Woops I mean torrens) it is the only way to go.

 

[SaintMorose]

Legally you can back up your media files I don't see any difference here

Morally its a little tougher as by torrent 'ing' you help aid and give numbers to piracy which in turn works against the industry. DRM would not be around if there were no pirates.
-that said I still do torrents to back-up my ds games and like to back-up my single player pc games on my sisters computer so she can try them.

 

[Johkmil]

Right, meaning legal?

No.

17 U.S.C. § 117 Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. ? Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

Right, meaning legal?

Yes.

You misunderstand that law, my friend.

It is oddly worded but it completely covers the right of acquiring "adaptation of that computer program" if it is an "essential step in the utilization of the computer program" that can be "used in no other manner".

If you own a copy of data and the original source of data is damaged beyond use, it's legal to have another copy of that exact data even if you did not make the back up yourself, provided of course it didn't have in-placed some form of time limit that "continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful" such as the pay-to-play variety.

I also noticed that you have skirted posting anything with substance. If you are going to tell someone they are wrong, you do need to elaborate on why; otherwise it can be seen as childish.

I was simply informing you that you do not understand that law. If you don't want to believe me, so be it. I really don't mind.

And for the second time you manage to post a reply completely without a constructive contribution to the debate.
The entire post is made up by a statement, without any supporting arguments of any sort. If you believe someone to be mistaken about a subject, please explain to what extent, and in which areas, the poster is mistaken. In this case, the subject of controversy is the nature of a law, a matter of absolute right or wrong; it should not be too difficult a task to locate and point out where the opposite person's judgment of the law has faltered.
The second and third sentences are not only unnecessary, but also a matter of bad debating. They seem to imply that even the notion of having a view in opposition to yours is laughable, and that debating further is below your dignity. Which makes actually posting a reply quite self-contradictory.

 

[yusukethehedgehog]

In the U.S. it's technically illegal.

Right, meaning legal?

No.

17 U.S.C. § 117 Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. ? Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

Right, meaning legal?

Yes.

While it is legal to have a copy of a game you already own through legal means, you must make the copy yourself for it to be legal (not counting services like steam of course).

With that being said, I don't see anything morally wrong with it EXCEPT in one case where I find it debatable. That is the loss of a cd key, since you've technically lost your license, you've technically lost your right to the data, so it's kind of a gray area.

 

[Orekoya]

In the U.S. it's technically illegal.

Right, meaning legal?

No.

17 U.S.C. § 117 Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. ? Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

Right, meaning legal?

Yes.

While it is legal to have a copy of a game you already own through legal means, you must make the copy yourself for it to be legal (not counting services like steam of course).

With that being said, I don't see anything morally wrong with it EXCEPT in one case where I find it debatable. That is the loss of a cd key, since you've technically lost your license, you've technically lost your right to the data, so it's kind of a gray area.

That right there is the true legal gray area of all this because even if you get the game copy by pirating then owning that copy by such a method is not illegal when they cannot prove you HOW you obtained the copy. IE, if they can't link you owning that copy you have to pirating and you own the copy, it'll get thrown out as just owning a backup. Now if you are caught during the process of actually downloading it through illegal means then you get to enjoy the us gray area of legal fuck-ups, such as: in Florida where it is illegal to own prescribed dosage of a month of some painkillers despite that's how the doctors can legally prescribe them, or teens becoming registered sex offenders for taking pictures of themselves remotely nude on their own cellphone since that constitutes possessing child pornography.

Also yea that part with the cd key falls under section (2) of the whole "in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful". If you lose your cd key then it just sucks to be you; should have been more careful.