Otherwise, Gamesharking (which considering modern consoles... is rather difficult, discrediting the Wii of course) "DLC" into action cause it's already there. Is this illegal? (Note: Gamesharking hardly is. Otherwise, Game Shark/Action Replay/Game Genie/Etc. would never have been sold. I'm not bringing up something trivial like getting banned from XBL (because of course, you cheat, you get banned from XBL, common sense))
--
http://i42.tinypic.com/2nm2jdg.jpg No it's THIS good. - shadowgamer_x
It's not illegal if you do it for yourself and you don't distribute the hacks. But it is against the EULA of pretty much everything so they can ban you.
VF1MS Metal Siren posted... It's probably a violation of the DMCA. Pretty sure the whole point of it was to make the circumvention of content protection procedures illegal.
How it would be enforced, if at all, is another question.
It's enforced by the game license. You don't own the game, or any of the content on the disc. You have permission to play the game, but you do not have permission to play the DLC, so it would be treated the same as pirating.
-- Joyrock Fresh from my first justified ban. Ever!
you know it would be a lot easier if you guys just stopped buying from awful companies that do things like on disc DLC, 90% of the time their games are terrible to begin with(hi capcom)
TRE Public Account posted... You're accessing material you don't own and don't have permission to access. It's no more legal than if the DLC was off disc and you pirated it.,
If that was illegal, you wouldn't be able to make a backup of your game since that would require copying the DLC data as well.
And that would be illegal. Not something anyone would prosecute for, but still illegal.
-- Joyrock Fresh from my first justified ban. Ever!
Liquid Wind posted... you know it would be a lot easier if you guys just stopped buying from awful companies that do things like on disc DLC, 90% of the time their games are terrible to begin with(hi capcom)
There's actually nothing wrong with on disc DLC, and Capcom's games aren't all bad.
-- Joyrock Fresh from my first justified ban. Ever!
OctilIery posted... VF1MS Metal Siren posted... It's probably a violation of the DMCA. Pretty sure the whole point of it was to make the circumvention of content protection procedures illegal.
How it would be enforced, if at all, is another question.
It's enforced by the game license. You don't own the game, or any of the content on the disc. You have permission to play the game, but you do not have permission to play the DLC, so it would be treated the same as pirating.
I was talking more about by what process they would enforce it. Unless you're going online with it, it's not like they're going to find out. I suppose they could use it as an excuse to make some kind of modern Gameshark-like device illegal if anybody really cared.
You're not renting it from them. You went to the store and bought it. Therefore the game disc is your property. Don't get ownership of the disc confused with ownership of the intellectual property.
--
"THIS is how you make Nintendo win another generation. Good job, Sony and Microsoft, you're idiots." - Vlado
VF1MS Metal Siren posted... OctilIery posted... VF1MS Metal Siren posted... It's probably a violation of the DMCA. Pretty sure the whole point of it was to make the circumvention of content protection procedures illegal.
How it would be enforced, if at all, is another question.
It's enforced by the game license. You don't own the game, or any of the content on the disc. You have permission to play the game, but you do not have permission to play the DLC, so it would be treated the same as pirating.
I was talking more about by what process they would enforce it. Unless you're going online with it, it's not like they're going to find out. I suppose they could use it as an excuse to make some kind of modern Gameshark-like device illegal if anybody really cared.
Oh. Well in that case, probably wouldn't be. Barring doing something stupid, they'd have no way to know.
-- Joyrock Fresh from my first justified ban. Ever!
You're not renting it from them. You went to the store and bought it. Therefore the game disc is your property. Don't get ownership of the disc confused with ownership of the intellectual property.
You own the permission to play the game. You don't own any of the data on the disc. It's a pretty well documented and common clause in game licenses.
okami was the last time they made me think otherwise
SF4 and MVC3 were both excellent, as were their various editions.
-- Joyrock Fresh from my first justified ban. Ever!
From: OctilIery | #007 It's enforced by the game license. You don't own the game, or any of the content on the disc. You have permission to play the game, but you do not have permission to play the DLC, so it would be treated the same as pirating.
It would not be treated like pirating. Possession is still 9/10ths of the law. Even if it's illegal, it's not stealing if you don't steal anything. It's breach of contract, at best. Now if you were to somehow steal the actual unlock key itself, that would be pirating.
--
"One toot on this whistle will take you to a far away land." -Toad, SMB3
it really isn't, increasingly we're moving towards a model where no one really owns anything as individuals, you don't have full rights to almost anything you buy these days
OctilIery posted... You own the permission to play the game. You don't own any of the data on the disc. It's a pretty well documented and common clause in game licenses.
This is intellectual property. Obviously I don't own the rights to use Mario for my gain by buying the disc, but the copy of the game belongs to me.
--
"THIS is how you make Nintendo win another generation. Good job, Sony and Microsoft, you're idiots." - Vlado
From: Liquid Wind | #019 it really isn't, increasingly we're moving towards a model where no one really owns anything as individuals, you don't have full rights to almost anything you buy these days
Not exactly. Possession is not the same thing as ownership. Possession changes everything, even when all it changes is turning something from one crime to another.
--
"One toot on this whistle will take you to a far away land." -Toad, SMB3
OctilIery posted... No. The right to play the game belongs to you. At any time Capcom could say "We don't want you playing anymore" and that's that.
What exactly would such a sentiment lead to? Them sending representatives to each person's house that bought the game and repossess it? This would be stealing on their part.
--
"THIS is how you make Nintendo win another generation. Good job, Sony and Microsoft, you're idiots." - Vlado
No. The right to play the game belongs to you. At any time Capcom could say "We don't want you playing anymore" and that's that.
I don't think they can do that. You paid for a licence to use the software. The game company can't just revoke that licence just because they feel like it. Of course there are tricks around this like tying the game to an online activation server that they can block access to. However, for games that are strictly offline, I don't think they can do anything.
--
SuperNiceDog was not so nice to my bracket. Congrats to SuperNiceDog for winning the Rivalry Rumble Guru Contest!
No. The right to play the game belongs to you. At any time Capcom could say "We don't want you playing anymore" and that's that.
What exactly would such a sentiment lead to? Them sending representatives to each person's house that bought the game and repossess it? This would be stealing on their part.
More likely it would end up something equally rediculous, but that's getting away from the point. Obviously they wouldn't do such, but the fact of the matter is, very plainly, that they CAN do it - it's a pretty standard part of any game license.
-- Joyrock Fresh from my first justified ban. Ever!
TRE Public Account posted... No. The right to play the game belongs to you. At any time Capcom could say "We don't want you playing anymore" and that's that.
I don't think they can do that. You paid for a licence to use the software. The game company can't just revoke that licence just because they feel like it. Of course there are tricks around this like tying the game to an online activation server that they can block access to. However, for games that are strictly offline, I don't think they can do anything.
It's part of the licence - they can end it for any reason.
-- Joyrock Fresh from my first justified ban. Ever!
From: OctilIery | #027 More likely it would end up something equally rediculous, but that's getting away from the point. Obviously they wouldn't do such, but the fact of the matter is, very plainly, that they CAN do it - it's a pretty standard part of any game license.
Technically they can't do what you are saying. TRE is essentially correct. No one can repossess property you purchased, even if you don't own the rights to it. But there is no obligation to continue a service you don't own to use that property (ie - access to an online server).
And even if they did have that right, they would still have no right to go on your property to repossess it. You would literally have to be arrested and convicted of theft before they could do that. And since this still isn't theft, they'd have no means in which to exercise this right.
From: OctilIery | #028 It's part of the licence - they can end it for any reason.
Pray tell how they end the use of local code without online access? They can't modify the game/system remotely in any way to stop the use of it. That would be very much illegal.
--
"One toot on this whistle will take you to a far away land." -Toad, SMB3
OmarsComin posted... the "you own a license, not a game" argument is one about whether you're allowed to resell the code, or give it away for free
it's not a good argument for this circumstance
No, it isn't. It's literally about having permission to play the game. And it's the same with almost any kind of electronics, gaming or not - you don't own the product, you own the right to use it.
-- Joyrock Fresh from my first justified ban. Ever!