Legality of cracking a game you already have

[Curious Pineapple]

I was having a rather boring afternoon at work and the thought came across, if you have already bought or have access to a game via a subscription service and you download a cracked copy, is that piracy? You don't actually own the game but rather a license to use it. I get that a subscription service gives a license to play as long as you keep paying for it, but a bought version should be a lifetime license to use the game regardless of the platform.

 

If I've bought a single player (and completetely offline) game through the Microsoft store and there's mods for it for the Steam version, is downloading a cracked Steam copy to use the mods legally piracy? Obviously it's not possible to mod Store games on Windows, but as I still have a license to use the game, does the exact executable I launch matter?

[Kanna]

Just now, huilun02 said:

Does adding the windows store game's executable to Steam work?

Yes that works as long as it's an exe or shortcut it works

[Kanna]

4 minutes ago, Curious Pineapple said:

I was having a rather boring afternoon at work and the thought came across, if you have already bought or have access to a game via a subscription service and you download a cracked copy, is that piracy? You don't actually own the game but rather a license to use it. I get that a subscription service gives a license to play as long as you keep paying for it, but a bought version should be a lifetime license to use the game regardless of the platform.

 

If I've bought a single player (and completetely offline) game through the Microsoft store and there's mods for it for the Steam version, is downloading a cracked Steam copy to use the mods legally piracy? Obviously it's not possible to mod Store games on Windows, but as I still have a license to use the game, does the exact executable I launch matter?

Why isn't it possible to mod store games they still have game files Minecraft *only game I tried modding* works fine

[boggy77]

since you own the licence to play the game, downloading some modified files of the same game wouldn't be illegal. however, the method of downloading might be. if you use a torrent, that counts as file sharing, since you're also uploading while downloading. so you're distributing a pirated copy of a game.

[straight_stewie]

13 minutes ago, Curious Pineapple said:

if you have already bought or have access to a game via a subscription service and you download a cracked copy, is that piracy? You don't actually own the game but rather a license to use it. I get that a subscription service gives a license to play as long as you keep paying for it, but a bought version should be a lifetime license to use the game regardless of the platform.

 

That's a tough one. The legality of it hinges upon the laws of the place in which you live in and possibly (at least in the US) the judge you get and quality of lawyers.

 

The morality of it though is a different story:

If the cracked version offers "cheating" features, then you're cheating at the game.

 

If you only have access to the game by a subscription service, then the agreement is essentially "I will pay you x moneys after every y time has passed to have access to the game", and using a cracked version undermines their ability to enforce that contract.

 

If you have to sign a EULA when you first play the canonical distribution of the game, you would have to read the EULA to see if you've made any explicit agreements not to use a cracked version, so there is that aspect as well, for some games atleast.

 

If you've bought the game outright, then I suppose using a cracked version isn't that immoral in-and-of itself, except of course the exception above, but there might be an argument to be made about supporting the crackers, because certainly not everyone who downloads a cracked game first buys a legitimate license to it.

 

2 minutes ago, boggy77 said:

if you use a torrent, that counts as file sharing, since you're also uploading while downloading.

You can turn that off in most clients that I know of. 

[Boomwebsearch]

9 minutes ago, Curious Pineapple said:

I was having a rather boring afternoon at work and the thought came across, if you have already bought or have access to a game via a subscription service and you download a cracked copy, is that piracy? You don't actually own the game but rather a license to use it. I get that a subscription service gives a license to play as long as you keep paying for it, but a bought version should be a lifetime license to use the game regardless of the platform.

 

If I've bought a single player (and completetely offline) game through the Microsoft store and there's mods for it for the Steam version, is downloading a cracked Steam copy to use the mods legally piracy? Obviously it's not possible to mod Store games on Windows, but as I still have a license to use the game, does the exact executable I launch matter?

 

When you purchase a software/program/game, you receive a licence to use it under the developer's terms/conditions of use. Making unauthorized modifications to the program may be prohibited by the terms/conditions of your licence/subscription to the software, I would ask the developer of the software/game/program if it would be okay with them if you were to do this.

[boggy77]

if what you're doing is against the law, it's obviously illegal and called piracy. that depends on your country's law. if you just break the licence agreement without breaking the law, that's not illegal. the developer can still sue you and ask for damages, though, but in a civil court.

[AndreiArgeanu]

Quote

People may now circumvent the copy protection of PC and video games for investigative reasons.

Technically the DMCA does allow to circumvent the copy protection of pc and video games for investigative reasons, but I'm not sure what "investigative reasons" is supposed to mean. Also you've got to check the licensing agreements the game or the publisher has because you probably have agreed to them.

[NZKshatriya]

Well, if you bought a game on one platform, but want it on another..so you pirate it, yes that would be illegal.

You bought a a specific license, which is tied to that platform.

 

If you want to use a different platform you need to buy it for said platform.

[Tristerin]

It used to be legal to own a person not so long ago.  Worry more about your morality to the subject, legality is fickle.

 

My morality to the subject - crack away.  Hard in the paint.

[Curious Pineapple]

I just browsed the Windows store, found a random game I've never clicked on before, looked through the page, and started to download it. Not once was I presented with an EULA or any form of agreement. Even a google search for "windows store games eula" brought nothing related to the license attached to Store games, or GamePass games

 

Reverse engineering and modding games is legal, may violate terms of use (certainly does for online games), but it is a legal thing to do. No DMCA bullshit to deal with here, no court action over insigificant things either as we have a half decent civil legal system. Loose in court and you pay ALL costs for both parties

 

I'm still going to get a copy and try out the mod I found, game seems more fun in a multiplayer creative mode than playing through the story properly.

[Delicieuxz]

If you bought the game, rather than paid for a subscription service, then you legally own the game. And as of 2018, the US' Library of Congress has ruled that people may circumvent DRM that is preventing a person from accessing their property. The EU courts have also opined that there are situations where cracking DRM may be valid.

 

The Library of Congress's New DRM Rules Are a Victory For Digital Freedom

Library of Congress just made it easier to play older video games and fix consoles

 

Here is a thread explaining everything about software ownership:

 

Understanding software licenses and EULAs: You own the software that you purchase

 

EULAs are not laws or legal contracts, BTW. After you've purchased something, the seller of that thing has no legal authority to dictate to you how you may use it. The right to exercise decision-making authority over a thing transfers to the purchaser upon the point of sale. So, unless you hand-signed a contract with a retailer for a limited-duration deal that set-forth responsibilities for both you and the supplier, you aren't bound by anything the publisher might say regarding your usage of the software you purchased and own.

 

Using a publisher's own servers, however, such as to play a game online, is a different matter. The usage of a 3rd-party's own servers can be subject to their Terms of Service. Their providing of access to their servers is a service and is a distinct function than the software you purchase.

[Delicieuxz]

2 hours ago, Boomwebsearch said:

When you purchase a software/program/game, you receive a licence to use it under the developer's terms/conditions of use. Making unauthorized modifications to the program may be prohibited by the terms/conditions of your licence/subscription to the software, I would ask the developer of the software/game/program if it would be okay with them if you were to do this.

 

1 hour ago, SnowWolf370 said:

You do not OWN any games you purchase over Steam or any other service, you are however renting them.

 

What you are suggesting is reverse engineering and that is in violation of the terms of service and use you agreed to when you bought the games, and its illegal.

That is not true. You DO own the games you purchase on Steam, GoG, Uplay, Origin, EGS, Microsoft Store. This has been ruled on by top courts around the world. You are NOT renting them.

 

Software does not come with terms of service, but services do. Software is a good and not a service, though software can be accessed through a service.

 

Software can come with an End User License Agreement, but an EULA is not a legal contract and is really nothing more than a publisher's wet dream. EULAs are used by publishers as tools of psychological manipulation and corporate propaganda to ward-off potential challenges and issues. But anything that an EULA claims which is beyond the meaning of a © symbol on a piece of product packaging generally carries no weight and can be ignored.

 

Despite any claims in an EULA, you are lawfully entitled to reverse-engineer any software you own because the software you own is your personal property and another person cannot tell you what you may or may not do with your own property. Your purchased software is a non-reproduceable instance of a software IP. And so, you can use your software in any way you like so long as you don't breach the identity of that software as a non-reproduceable instance. It is no different with physical goods.

 

EU Top Court: When You Buy Software You Own It

EU Court Says, Yes, You Can Resell Your Software, Even If The Software Company Says You Can't

The High Court of Australia rules against Valve and says the games they sell are goods and transfer ownership to their purchasers

In a verdict about copyrighted goods, the US Supreme Court asserts that the first-sale doctrine applies to software

Federal Court of Canada rules that ownership of software licenses transfers to the purchaser

 

 

The EU Court of Justice has specifically ruled, "the copyright holder transfers the right of ownership of the copy of the computer program to his customer".

[Delicieuxz]

55 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

That depends on the terms used in the contract between you and the publisher, and also the laws of your location.   It's better to ask a copyright lawyer as that's more their thing.

A copyright lawyer is not necessarily who to go to to gain understanding of ownership rights. A lawyer is an advocate for hire, and a copyright lawyer makes their living by advocating for copyright holders. Examples of copyright holders include big publishers and developers. Many of them would prefer that you didn't own your software. However, not all of them. GoG, for example, are staunch believers that everyone owns the games they purchase from their store (as courts around the world have ruled is the case):

 

 

 

A lawyer is an advocate for hire, with their job being not to represent the law as it is intended or good to be, but to navigate and shape interpretation of the law to secure the most benefits and dismiss the most negatives for their employer. And in the course of their advocacy for their employer's interests, lawyers are also often liars for hire.

 

A copyright lawyer will probably simply tell you what is in their employer's interests for you to think. After all, they make their money and reputation that way. Large gaming publishers can afford the 'best' lawyers, and their definition of a 'best' lawyer is likely going to be the one that argues whatever it takes to accomplish whatever the publisher wants accomplished.

 

To understand your rights as an owner of software which you've purchased, you'd be better off talking to a consumer rights lawyer. They're on the opposite side of the debate as copyright lawyers.

[Guest willies leg]

I'd make my own EULA and email it to them, then you're covered.

Start by saying "By opening, storing, transmitting or deleting this EULA you are accepting all terms set forth below:"

 

I've been putting them in my google docs and apple/icloud docs for years.

Figure someday I'll have to sue them.

[Delicieuxz]

24 minutes ago, willies leg said:

I'd make my own EULA and email it to them, then you're covered.

Start by saying "By opening, storing, transmitting or deleting this EULA you are accepting all terms set forth below:"

 

I've been putting them in my google docs and apple/icloud docs for years.

Figure someday I'll have to sue them.

That sums up the significance of an EULA rather well.

 

If people think that a publisher-written EULA can set the terms for their personal usage of their own property (that is, their purchased software), then they must also think that by writing "by reading this post you agree that you will not ban or punish me for its content" will legally prevent them from getting banned or punished on someone else's forums when they violate its rules. And they must expect that if they say out-loud to people in public, "if you look at me while I say this, you must pay me $500", that whoever looked at them will legally be required to pay them $500.

[Curious Pineapple]

I should have expected this. The game mod recognises the Windows Store game but doesn't work as it patches in memory, and it detects the cracked version, plays you are a pirate, then stops responding leaving the audio playing.

 

Than was an hour I'll never get back.

[LogicalDrm]

Legality depends on where you live. Morality-wise i would be fine with that solution. Though I would rather take GOG route as then you get compatibility attached.

 

18 hours ago, willies leg said:

I'd make my own EULA and email it to them, then you're covered.

Start by saying "By opening, storing, transmitting or deleting this EULA you are accepting all terms set forth below:"

 

I've been putting them in my google docs and apple/icloud docs for years.

Figure someday I'll have to sue them.

 

I don't think that would be legally binding. As you are making one-sided agreement. The other party doesn't have chance to agree or disagree before contract is made. Your lawyer wouldn't have fun with that case. (I also doubt you find place where its legal to make agreement where there's no chance to disagree).

[Sauron]

It depends on your local laws but in the US and much of the EU (for example) the act of breaking DRM is illegal all on its own - it doesn't matter if you own the game or if you share it.

[Delicieuxz]

23 minutes ago, LogicalDrm said:

I don't think that would be legally binding. As you are making one-sided agreement. The other party doesn't have chance to agree or disagree before contract is made. Your lawyer wouldn't have fun with that case. (I also doubt you find place where its legal to make agreement where there's no chance to disagree).

That's exactly their point. They're illustrating the silliness and legal-irrelevance of the concept of an EULA for software, where the EULA is presented after the purchase of the software is completed and therefore the transfer of ownership has already taken place and therefore there seller of the software no longer has any say regarding how the buyer uses the software

 

There's also no reasonable argument for conflating a person clicking through an EULA with their agreement to it, and the publisher claiming that clicking through an EULA constitutes an agreement to it is a unilateral and one-sided declaration without consent or confirmation from the person who clicked through the EULA.

 

It's even literally impossible for people to read all the digital agreements they encounter, and so the concept of an EULA as being binding does not pass the reasonable person or the man on the Clapham omnibus legal tests.

 

So, the point is that EULAs are not capable of being binding or legal agreements.

 

19 minutes ago, Sauron said:

It depends on your local laws but in the US and much of the EU (for example) the act of breaking DRM is illegal all on its own - it doesn't matter if you own the game or if you share it.

In the US, it's legal bypass DRM if you purchased the software. It's also legal to reverse-engineer server software to continue playing games for which the online service has ended.

 

Court: breaking DRM for a “fair use” is legal

The Library of Congress's New DRM Rules Are a Victory For Digital Freedom

Library of Congress just made it easier to play older video games and fix consoles

 

And the EU's highest court, the Court of Justice, has said that circumventing DRM might be lawful depending on the circumstance - such as, if it is to fix broken functionality.

 

Europe's Highest Court Says DRM Circumvention May Be Lawful In Certain Circumstances

[LogicalDrm]

11 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

That's exactly their point. They're illustrating the silliness and legal-irrelevance of the concept of an EULA for software, where the EULA is presented after the purchase of the software is completed and therefore the transfer of ownership has already taken place and therefore there seller of the software no longer has any say regarding how the buyer uses the software

You agree on EULA when installing. If you don't agree with EULA, you don't install and have chance to return software. Thats within my country's consumer laws. You have option to not agree, and thats the point. Don't try to twist things. The quoted EULA doesn't have that if the wording is "opening -- deleting", that does not give option to not agree as you need to agree to even see the wording.

 

Whether EULA, if agreed on, is legally bounding or not is another question.

[Delicieuxz]

24 minutes ago, LogicalDrm said:

You agree on EULA when installing. If you don't agree with EULA, you don't install and have chance to return software. Thats within my country's consumer laws. You have option to not agree, and thats the point. Don't try to twist things. The quoted EULA doesn't have that if the wording is "opening -- deleting", that does not give option to not agree as you need to agree to even see the wording.

 

Whether EULA, if agreed on, is legally bounding or not is another question.

I genuinely didn't twist anything, everything is as I said it is.

 

And with Steam, game EULAs appear only after the game is already installed and you're launching it for the first time. I haven't verified with other platforms, but I suspect it's the same. With retail boxed copies of games, I think the EULA also typically appears when launching the game.

 

But whether it appears when installing or while launching the game, it doesn't really matter: If you're installing the game, then you've already purchased it - after which point it's entirely irrelevant what a publisher might say in an EULA. After you've purchased the game, it's no longer the publisher's to decide whether there are conditions attached to making use of it because it's yours and you hold the decision-making rights over that piece of software.

 

The seller of a product lost their right to dictate the usage of the product they sold in the moment they sold it to somebody else, which is when the decision-making authority over that product transferred to the purchaser. At no time after the point of sale could terms proposed by the product seller have any legal relevance whatsoever to whoever purchased it.

 

 

24 minutes ago, LogicalDrm said:

The quoted EULA doesn't have that if the wording is "opening -- deleting", that does not give option to not agree as you need to agree to even see the wording.

I have never seen an EULA that claims it is agreed to in order to see the EULA. And if you ever encountered an EULA like that, it would be precisely the situation that @willies leg mentioned and which you said yourself would have no validity, right here:

 

56 minutes ago, LogicalDrm said:

I don't think that would be legally binding. As you are making one-sided agreement. The other party doesn't have chance to agree or disagree before contract is made. Your lawyer wouldn't have fun with that case. (I also doubt you find place where its legal to make agreement where there's no chance to disagree).

 

Right there, you just dismissed the idea that an agreement which a person has no chance to agree or disagree with cannot be valid. Well, when you say than an EULA must be agreed to before its wording can even be seen (which is not true, but that's an aside), then you're saying that people don't have an actual chance to agree or disagree with the wording of the EULA because they don't even know what it is before click 'accept' or whatever the button it.

 

But clicking 'I agree' on an EULA popup to get it out of your way is not equivalent to an act of agreeing with an EULA, and it isn't a binding action like hand-singing a contract is. There's a legal reason why Valve require hand signatures on their Distribution Agreement and not simply a checkbox that a person clicks to signify their agreement. Steam's Distribution Agreement is an actual legal and binding contract, whereas game EULAs are not.

[LogicalDrm]

1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

I genuinely didn't twist anything, everything is as I said it is. -snip-

Clicking "I agree" would be legally bounding in here as its same with verbal agreement. To extend ofc. Like one party can't change terms without other agreeing to them. Clicking "I agree" has statement that you have read and understood the document.

 

By legally bounding I here mean that EULA gives service rights to terminate accounts and such. Not that they could use it as base for actual legal action. That would need to have otherwise legal base. (as in written laws of country)

[Delicieuxz]

22 minutes ago, LogicalDrm said:

Clicking "I agree" would be legally bounding in here as its same with verbal agreement. To extend ofc. Like one party can't change terms without other agreeing to them. Clicking "I agree" has statement that you have read and understood the document.

 

By legally bounding I here mean that EULA gives service rights to terminate accounts and such. Not that they could use it as base for actual legal action. That would need to have otherwise legal base. (as in written laws of country)

But you're now completely disagreeing with what you said here:

1 hour ago, LogicalDrm said:

I don't think that would be legally binding. As you are making one-sided agreement. The other party doesn't have chance to agree or disagree before contract is made. Your lawyer wouldn't have fun with that case. (I also doubt you find place where its legal to make agreement where there's no chance to disagree).

 

And you're now arguing in favour of what willies leg mocked here:

20 hours ago, willies leg said:

I'd make my own EULA and email it to them, then you're covered.

Start by saying "By opening, storing, transmitting or deleting this EULA you are accepting all terms set forth below:"

 

I've been putting them in my google docs and apple/icloud docs for years.

Figure someday I'll have to sue them.

 

And in favour of what I also mocked here:

19 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

That sums up the significance of an EULA rather well.

 

If people think that a publisher-written EULA can set the terms for their personal usage of their own property (that is, their purchased software), then they must also think that by writing "by reading this post you agree that you will not ban or punish me for its content" will legally prevent them from getting banned or punished on someone else's forums when they violate its rules. And they must expect that if they say out-loud to people in public, "if you look at me while I say this, you must pay me $500", that whoever looked at them will legally be required to pay them $500.

 

But the fact is that clicking "I agree" on an EULA just to get it out of the way is not legally binding any more than saying "if you look at me while I say this, you must pay me $500" is legally binding. Clicking "I agree" on an EULA is done to get rid of the obstruction and not to agree. There's literally no authority the product seller has to demand an agreement to anything after they've already sold the product because that authority transferred to the purchaser upon the point of sale. That authority is the right of ownership, and transfer of ownership is what selling and buying something does.

 

Also, when you sign an agreement by hand, there is acknowledgement between yourself and the other parties involved that your signature is not coerced and that it represents your agreement to the contract. That doesn't exist with clicked-through EULA. The publisher can't dictate the reason for a person's clicking on it, and the fact that it can't be closed without agreeing to it before accessing the product you've already purchased and own means the clicking on it is coerced and forced and not done by free will. Again, there is a reason why Valve require a signature on their Distribution Agreement, which is an actual legal agreement, and not simply clicking on a form.

 

A person has a legal right to use a product they've purchased. An EULA popup interferes with that right and is invalid in the face of that legal right to access and use one's property. And by the time you're installing software, the publisher is to you just some other irrelevant entity like the store or person who sold you a musical instrument, maybe off Craigslist or eBay. They don't factor anymore into your usage of your purchased property.

 

An EULA does not and cannot grant any rights to the publisher to terminate ownership of the game they sold to someone else. Never. Not any more than a car dealership can leave a voicemail message on your phone saying that if you listen to it or even just activated it without listening to all of it that your car ownership can now be terminated by the dealership. Deciding such a thing over your own property isn't a legal power the dealership has, just as a software publisher doesn't have any legal power to terminate your ownership over the software you've bought. And to actually take it away would be theft just like someone breaking into your house and stealing your TV would be, and it would open the publisher up to being sued by you.

[Kisai]

23 hours ago, Curious Pineapple said:

I was having a rather boring afternoon at work and the thought came across, if you have already bought or have access to a game via a subscription service and you download a cracked copy, is that piracy? You don't actually own the game but rather a license to use it. I get that a subscription service gives a license to play as long as you keep paying for it, but a bought version should be a lifetime license to use the game regardless of the platform.

 

If I've bought a single player (and completetely offline) game through the Microsoft store and there's mods for it for the Steam version, is downloading a cracked Steam copy to use the mods legally piracy? Obviously it's not possible to mod Store games on Windows, but as I still have a license to use the game, does the exact executable I launch matter?

This is where the concept of modding and the concept of illegality meet.

 

Minecraft, is one of those games.

 

Modding a game without the developer's consent, falls under copyright infringement, IF, you redistribute it. Likewise, cracking the copy protection on a game you own, fine if it's on your own machine, but piracy if you redistribute it.

 

And thus the problem with even going down that rabbit hole. Historically, at least until CD-ROM came along, there was a necessity to need to make backup copies of floppy disks and magnetic media (eg tapes.) So there were lots of programs out there that just straight up stripped the copy protection from disk-based games, and the developers could do absolutely nothing about it, as once the software was sold, it fell under first sale doctrine. Someone could absolutely buy a game, strip the copy protection and resell it. Even if the software licence said otherwise, which is why you are required to destroy any backups or installations of said software if you sell/give-away/donate the software so you no longer have the physical disc.

 

That of course changed with CD-ROM and later digital downloads. With CD-ROM software, the protection mechanism was typically "disc must be in the drive at all times" which seems reasonable, but the protection mechanisms were often flakey (eg The original Diablo game, a copy of the disc would work on Win95, but not Win98, leading people to believe the problem was the game, not that the pirates were pretending they bought the game and upgraded to Win98.) Another example of this are games that had DRM tied to protection mechanisms that only work on Win9x and not Windows 2000/XP. So the necessity to crack a game that isn't played online comes up a lot, legitimately since now a lot of computers don't even come with any optical drive.

 

So what do you do when the game you want to play was a licensed game (such as the Scott Pilgrim vs the World game) and never existed in any physical form and the console is no longer available? Well the legal option is to keep looking for Xbox 360's or PS3's that have it on eBay, but the more practical answer is wait for an emulator for the PS3/Xbox 360 that would allow you to plug in the PS3/Xbox 360 hard drive. 

 

So coming back to the OP question, can you/should you? Probably not, but if it's in the realm of preservation yes. 

 

But in general, if you have to break the protection on a game to install mods, you better not be playing it online. It's one thing to play and wreck your own game, but it's another to wreck it for others. Which is why mods for MMO game clients always do more damage than good.

 

If you cancel your subscription to a game service, you are no longer entitled to play the game. Period.