Were you one of the million banned from Xbox Live?

sbtim said:
you are so fucking wrong and i wish you would stop posting the same stupid shit in every thread about the issue.

go spew your anti-piracy-hardon-bullshit somewhere else, or get a fucking life.

the fact that no one has ever been charged with theft for pirating anything tells me that I'm right and you're a moron
Click to expand...

ladies and gentlemen we have a winner

what happened to that lady in MN who had lost her case to the RIAA? she stole the music and had to pay for each song........

Stealing is stealing no matter what the medium is

connecting to a server that has a cracked copy of a game is the same thing as going into the store and stealing the media in both cases you are denying the publisher their right to their money for their product.


Didn't the pirate bay guys just get busted for copywright infringement? yeah they did and how did they infringe on the copyright? by by hosting a website fill of STOLEN SOFTWARE.
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
ladies and gentlemen we have a winner

what happened to that lady in MN who had lost her case to the RIAA? she stole the music and had to pay for each song........

Stealing is stealing no matter what the medium is

connecting to a server that has a cracked copy of a game is the same thing as going into the store and stealing the media in both cases you are denying the publisher their right to their money for their product.


Didn't the pirate bay guys just get busted for copywright infringement? yeah they did and how did they infringe on the copyright? by by hosting a website fill of STOLEN SOFTWARE.
Click to expand...

Do you even read the thread or do you just keep talking?

I'll say it again in case you missed it : you're an idiot.
 
Guys please can we all get along and have a mature conversion here? Its an interesting thread but its starting to get polluted with a lot of kids arguing back and forth.
 
He's right. Stealing is stealing no matter how you look at it.

And for the record, I used to pirate games and software all the time. How many of us used illegal copies of Windows for years without paying for them? Yep, that was me. It wasn't until I got older that I realized the value of actually purchasing my own stuff. It also wasn't until I worked for a software company that I realized as a business how much money we lost out on because individuals didn't understand the concept of what theft is *cough*.

You guys also have to understand that a lot of this is largely semantics. The act of theft implies you're stealing something of property, except the play on language comes with the fact that you can't steal land, but you can take it! Armies and nations do so all the time. Don't "steal" and "take" mean the same thing? Well yes, but this is the English language here. It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

Copyright infringement is simply a term we've created to bypass the technical definition of "theft". And while there are some differences, that I am not arguing, it largely means the same thing.

Do you even read the thread or do you just keep talking?

I'll say it again in case you missed it : you're an idiot.
Click to expand...

Listen, if you don't stop publicly insulting people and calling other posters names, you're going to get your ass banned. I'm not a moderator, but those are the rules, and they do enforce them. This also isn't the WoW forums, so take your childish antics elsewhere.
 
Just because it's copyright infringement and not theft does not make it any better to do or any less despicable than theft.
For some reason society has decided that for some reason it's okay to pirate software and games while it's evil to steal it. A large part of it is parents are uninformed about it. You can bet your ass I'll be blocking whatever medium of piracy happens to be best when I have children.

Anyways, back on topic. While they are legally different, they're largely the same idea and the same thing.
 
I'm not saying it's not unethical - for the 50th fucking time if you guys would read the thread.

And they're legally different because THEY ARE DIFFERENT. Holy shit, this must be a hard concept to grasp for a lot of people.

and yes, stealing the game off a shelf in a store is worse than piracy, because the money that went into producing a physical box, cd, etc, and the cost of stocking it in the store is lost.

With piracy, no money has been spent on producing THAT "copy" of the game. I don't mean the game in general. I mean that exact "copy" of the game that you are acquiring.
 
Legal differences. The definitions of these words arise from their usage in the court of law. You can't accuse someone of "theft" if the definition of the word remains in question. For instance, you can't technically "steal" land, since "stealing" as a definition requires something to be moved. Since land is immovable (except with artillery, haha), you can't technically steal it. And that's why you never hear the term "Germany stole France during WW2", because it sounds silly.

It's also a product of the ever changing meaning of words and how we use them. To steal means to take something which isn't rightfully yours, but saying something like, "The actor stole the hearts and minds of the crowd during his performance," by no means carries a negative connotation. I'm not going to press charges against my girlfriend because she "stole my heart". However, when we say that the gunman stole the lives of the people inside the classroom, we all know exactly what that means.

Unlike, say, French, the English language does not purge its vocabulary of superfluous words, but instead keeps adding on to its dictionary. We have many words that mean the same thing, and while many of those words mean the same thing, they carry different positive and negative connotations along side them, which change constantly. To call someone a "liberal" 40 years ago meant something totally different than what it means today. That's also part of the reason English is such a hard language to master, because the meanings of words change all the time.

But now we're getting into the blurring of mixed definitions and what they mean. When you install pirated software on your computer, you're engaging in both theft and copyright infringement of said software. Both have their technical definitions, but because of the ever changing usage of the English language, both definitions apply.

And that makes us all right, and we can all be happy and agree on something.
 
"Console modders attempt to bypass Xbox Live ban"

O dear. Looks like they find away to unban your console. However, the catch is you need a unbanned 360 to do it
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
ladies and gentlemen we have a winner

what happened to that lady in MN who had lost her case to the RIAA? she stole the music and had to pay for each song........

Stealing is stealing no matter what the medium is

connecting to a server that has a cracked copy of a game is the same thing as going into the store and stealing the media in both cases you are denying the publisher their right to their money for their product.


Didn't the pirate bay guys just get busted for copywright infringement? yeah they did and how did they infringe on the copyright? by by hosting a website fill of STOLEN SOFTWARE.
Click to expand...

The pirate bay was not a website FULL not fill of stolen software. They just allowed user access to files via torrents hosted on other peoples pc's. Do some research before you post, it makes you look silly.
 
I have to wonder. If your argument of "hey how is it different if I let someone borrow the copy of the game" is so great than why has it not been a deciding factor in any of the court cases regarding piracy? Obviously people who are lawyers in this field have more education than half of the people on this board.
 
roaf85 said:
I have to wonder. If your argument of "hey how is it different if I let someone borrow the copy of the game" is so great than why has it not been a deciding factor in any of the court cases regarding piracy? Obviously people who are lawyers in this field have more education than half of the people on this board.
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between what is right or wrong and what is legal or illegal. Unfortunately with software, you cannot apply the same standards and definitions of stealing and theft. The bottom line is, anyone with half a brain should realize that if a company intends to charge for something and you acquire it without paying a cent thats probably not right. If you don't want to pay it, then don't, but you don't get to use the product. Who cares whether its legal, or illegal but you won't get caught? Since when is the law more important than simple right and wrong?
 
Spaceman_Spiff said:
There's a big difference between what is right or wrong and what is legal or illegal. Unfortunately with software, you cannot apply the same standards and definitions of stealing and theft. The bottom line is, anyone with half a brain should realize that if a company intends to charge for something and you acquire it without paying a cent thats probably not right. If you don't want to pay it, then don't, but you don't get to use the product. Who cares whether its legal, or illegal but you won't get caught? Since when is the law more important than simple right and wrong?
Click to expand...

Ahhh the bottom line..

There is just something about good old fashion Honesty and Integrity.

Thanks Spaceman_Spiff, i needed that today..
 
This entire debate is why we need new copyright laws. The current system we have was not setup to handle or understand the digital world. It is largely based on a system where physical products were the only wait to obtain copyrighted IP. Instead of debating theft vs copyright infringement, we really should be thinking about the larger picture.

Copyright laws are unfair and abused to horrible extent. Copyright is not a right, it is a priverledge. We as society permit content creators to enfore fake restrictions on what they make. We do this in the hope that because thay have control over what they make, and can earn a living from it, they will create more. As a society we have decided content is good to have, therefore we protect it.

But the current system is going too far. Copyright owners are given too much power over the consumer, and the abuses are rampant. What we need is copyright reform. We need a modern fair use policy. We need to get some rights back as customers. It is insane that I am not allowed to copy a DVD as a backup. And I mean that literally, not as a euphimism for piracy. Anyone who has had a 3 year old knows how quickly a DVD or game can be destroyed.

On one hand you have copright owners stating you are paying for the right to use, view, or listen to something, and not the physical media. On the other hand, if the physical media is destroyed, you lose that right. Why is that? You still gave them money to the right to use it. You should have the right to make a copy for yourself. It's abuses like these which really promote piracy.

Another example is fan made videos. Taking AMVs for example. People like mixing a favorite song with a video set to a movie/game/etc. Technically, this is illegal too. But in the modern digital age, this is part of culture and should be allowed under fair use. If there is no profit, and if the work is modifed for creative purposes, it should be permitted.

Recently a British woman (Sandra Burk) was issued a cease and desist order by the PRS (British RIAA) for singing her favorite songs to herself while she worked. They called this a public performance and therefore she needed to pay royalties or stop singing to herself.

These are just a few examples. But the abuse of copyright is absurd at this point. Copyright is a priverledge granted by the people, and it is being abused. It is no longer serving its purpose to foster creation, but it is being used to control actions and social experiences which do not hurt the ability of creators to make or live off their work.
 
Spaceman_Spiff said:
There's a big difference between what is right or wrong and what is legal or illegal. Unfortunately with software, you cannot apply the same standards and definitions of stealing and theft. The bottom line is, anyone with half a brain should realize that if a company intends to charge for something and you acquire it without paying a cent thats probably not right. If you don't want to pay it, then don't, but you don't get to use the product. Who cares whether its legal, or illegal but you won't get caught? Since when is the law more important than simple right and wrong?
Click to expand...

Right/Wrong is a big difference than what is illegal. Sure laws can change but you are always going to find someone out there that thinks different and legal than you.

For example I think prostitution is ok in my state I reside, but it is illegal so it not an argument. Just like pirating software it is illegal so the moral issue of "hey I let my friend borrow the game" is a bullshit argument that will not stand up in court.

You have to provide arguments within the frame of what is defined in law, otherwise this might as well turn into a thread about piracy laws being changed, which they won't.
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
ladies and gentlemen we have a winner

what happened to that lady in MN who had lost her case to the RIAA? she stole the music and had to pay for each song........

Stealing is stealing no matter what the medium is

connecting to a server that has a cracked copy of a game is the same thing as going into the store and stealing the media in both cases you are denying the publisher their right to their money for their product.


Didn't the pirate bay guys just get busted for copywright infringement? yeah they did and how did they infringe on the copyright? by by hosting a website fill of STOLEN SOFTWARE.
Click to expand...

So by that logic would you say loaning out a DVD to a friend is also stealing? Because you are denying the publisher their right to their money because that friend did not have to buy a copy :rolleyes: What about buying a movie and having a bunch of friends over to watch it? I guess all the people over are also denying the publisher their money and stealing... Where do you draw the line?
 
jonneymendoza said:
"Console modders attempt to bypass Xbox Live ban"

O dear. Looks like they find away to unban your console. However, the catch is you need a unbanned 360 to do it
Click to expand...

Yeah, and also...

Xoxide from Xbox-Scene Forums said:
1) Did you update to Summer 09 (84xx)?
2) Is it newer than a Xenon?
3) Do you have an unbanned xbox that meets the requirements of 1 & 2?
4) Do you have soldering skills, an understanding of how the filesystem works, and how to boot XeLL?
5) Do you know what a CPU key is?

If you answered yes to 1, and you don't already have your CPU key (which you probably don't), you are fucked.
If you answered yes to 2, you are fucked.
If you answered no to 3, you are fucked.
If you answered no to 4 or 5, you are definitely fucked.
Click to expand...


Heh, yeah, I'm looking to profit from these bannings somehow. :D
 
dwk said:
So by that logic would you say loaning out a DVD to a friend is also stealing? Because you are denying the publisher their right to their money because that friend did not have to buy a copy :rolleyes: What about buying a movie and having a bunch of friends over to watch it? I guess all the people over are also denying the publisher their money and stealing... Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

For that matter, how about renting it? How does Blockbuster get away with buying one copy of the game and then renting it to 100 people, making a huge profit that should go to the publisher? Can I legally loan my copy to my friend? Can I rent it to him? Can I rent it to some guy I met through Craigslist? Where/how is the line drawn?
 
dwk said:
So by that logic would you say loaning out a DVD to a friend is also stealing? Because you are denying the publisher their right to their money because that friend did not have to buy a copy :rolleyes: What about buying a movie and having a bunch of friends over to watch it? I guess all the people over are also denying the publisher their money and stealing... Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

If I lend my DVD to my friend, HE HAS IT AND I CANNOT USE IT. In order for me to use it, I have to get it back so therefore no theft went on. It would be theft if I made a copy of the movie on the DVD and gave it to him without him having paid to aqurie the DVD.

You are allowed to have private viewing of your DVD in your house with all of your friends present (it even states at the beginning that this is for private exhibition only) but if you start handing out copies, it is theft as they did not pay for it.

I cannot believe that some of you are so stupid and do not understand such simple concepts.........scratch that yes i can because it is all about what makes me feel good and fuck the other guy in society today....
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
If I lend my DVD to my friend, HE HAS IT AND I CANNOT USE IT. In order for me to use it, I have to get it back so therefore no theft went on. It would be theft if I made a copy of the movie on the DVD and gave it to him without him having paid to aqurie the DVD.

You are allowed to have private viewing of your DVD in your house with all of your friends present (it even states at the beginning that this is for private exhibition only) but if you start handing out copies, it is theft as they did not pay for it.

I cannot believe that some of you are so stupid and do not understand such simple concepts.........scratch that yes i can because it is all about what makes me feel good and fuck the other guy in society today....
Click to expand...

Ok, if copyright is so simple. Say I buy an MP3 from amazon (which has no drm, so there is no issue with cracking it and the DMCA). Can I send that to my friend so he can listen to it as long as I delete the file after?

Physical media is an outdated concept. When you buy something, you aren't paying for the disk, you are paying for the right to use the content. Our copyright laws worked in the 50s, they fail now. I'm sorry but its not as black and white and "simple" as you put it.
 
roaf85 said:
Right/Wrong is a big difference than what is illegal. Sure laws can change but you are always going to find someone out there that thinks different and legal than you.

For example I think prostitution is ok in my state I reside, but it is illegal so it not an argument. Just like pirating software it is illegal so the moral issue of "hey I let my friend borrow the game" is a bullshit argument that will not stand up in court.

You have to provide arguments within the frame of what is defined in law, otherwise this might as well turn into a thread about piracy laws being changed, which they won't.
Click to expand...

Exactly. My point is that these discussions often focus on legality, the possibility of getting caught, or what is acceptable punishment (if any). But honestly, does anyone truly believe that it is morally right to download something for free that a group of people put thousands of hours into developing, all along intending for people to have to pay for it? The law has a tendency to make things more complicated than they really are...
 
demingo said:
Ok, if copyright is so simple. Say I buy an MP3 from amazon (which has no drm, so there is no issue with cracking it and the DMCA). Can I send that to my friend so he can listen to it as long as I delete the file after?

Physical media is an outdated concept. When you buy something, you aren't paying for the disk, you are paying for the right to use the content. Our copyright laws worked in the 50s, they fail now. I'm sorry but its not as black and white and "simple" as you put it.
Click to expand...

yes you are paying for the disk whe you buy it. when I go into the store and buy a DVD/Blu-Ray I am paying for the media and the content on said media.

Physical media is better than digital download simpley becuase it is portable to any player that can play it and it is not tied to any one player

our laws fail because people have no concept of right and wrong. laws depend upon having a clear concept of right and wrong.

taking something without proper compensation to the person who developed/designed/created/built/sold/etc it is wrong. it does not matter if it is a digital down load or a physical media
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
If I lend my DVD to my friend, HE HAS IT AND I CANNOT USE IT. In order for me to use it, I have to get it back so therefore no theft went on. It would be theft if I made a copy of the movie on the DVD and gave it to him without him having paid to aqurie the DVD.

You are allowed to have private viewing of your DVD in your house with all of your friends present (it even states at the beginning that this is for private exhibition only) but if you start handing out copies, it is theft as they did not pay for it.

I cannot believe that some of you are so stupid and do not understand such simple concepts.........scratch that yes i can because it is all about what makes me feel good and fuck the other guy in society today....
Click to expand...

what if i am the type that watches movies only once (which i am typically), so i buy it, watch it once and then GIVE my DVD to someone else? they didnt pay for it, i did, but i will never use it again

does this change if i SELL it to him? then i get all the money from the transaction, preventing the company from getting anything, am i now stealing profits from the movie company?

is this ANY different than someone downloading a copy of a movie electronically? i mean, is it really? if i watch it once, then allow a friend to download it for free or for money, and i destroy the original media/file, is it any different? one would say yes! because the friend would turn around and distribute it to many other friends who would not pay!! is this any different than if i bought a DVD disc, gave it to a friend who gave it to a friend over and over?

in the end the result is the same
 
nobody_here said:
what if i am the type that watches movies only once (which i am typically), so i buy it, watch it once and then GIVE my DVD to someone else? they didnt pay for it, i did, but i will never use it again

does this change if i SELL it to him? then i get all the money from the transaction, preventing the company from getting anything, am i now stealing profits from the movie company?

is this ANY different than someone downloading a copy of a movie electronically? i mean, is it really? if i watch it once, then allow a friend to download it for free or for money, and i destroy the original media/file, is it any different? one would say yes! because the friend would turn around and distribute it to many other friends who would not pay!! is this any different than if i bought a DVD disc, gave it to a friend who gave it to a friend over and over?

in the end the result is the same
Click to expand...

Answer Spaceman Spiffs question.
 
dwk said:
So by that logic would you say loaning out a DVD to a friend is also stealing? Because you are denying the publisher their right to their money because that friend did not have to buy a copy :rolleyes: What about buying a movie and having a bunch of friends over to watch it? I guess all the people over are also denying the publisher their money and stealing... Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

You draw the line in between ONE copy existing and being used in accordance with the law, and multiple copies existing NOT being used in accordance with the law. Pretty effing simple.
 
Its kind of funny how consumers are "allowed" to have a different definition of "copy" than corporations, when it suits them. For instance, in order to legally knock out the Glider bot, Blizzard actually set a precedent that the copy on your hard drive installed is DIFFERENT than when the game is loaded into RAM to execute. Lunacy! When it suits the industry, its "Well, we sold you a disc" at times, and other times its "Its not the disc! We sold you a license on the disc for the content" and all other sorts of nitpicks so these companies get what they want.

I don't think anyone objects to the notion that "taking someone from someone else without compensation is wrong", but the issues at hand are "Exactly what is being taken, and under what circumstances", amongst others such as punishment severity.
 
Frankie said:
Answer Spaceman Spiffs question.
Click to expand...

i am not questioning the morality of the action

i am questioning the idea that somehow it is stealing from the movie companies if you download a copy of a movie vs. if a friend gave or sold you their copy of the movie in person and then he gave it to another person, who gave it to another person,.............. if the person never intended to buy in the first place does it matter how they came in possesion? and would it affect the money received by the movie makers at all? i think not

is the end result not the same? barring the mass distribution of course which is clearly in breach
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
yes you are paying for the disk whe you buy it. when I go into the store and buy a DVD/Blu-Ray I am paying for the media and the content on said media.

Physical media is better than digital download simpley becuase it is portable to any player that can play it and it is not tied to any one player

our laws fail because people have no concept of right and wrong. laws depend upon having a clear concept of right and wrong.

taking something without proper compensation to the person who developed/designed/created/built/sold/etc it is wrong. it does not matter if it is a digital down load or a physical media
Click to expand...

Please read up on copyright. The physical media is meaningless. Completely. You are purchasing a license. The physical media is only how it is delivered to you. And in the case of software, that license can also be revoked no matter if you have the physical media or not.

However it has become apparent from your posts you have absolutely no clue about how copyright works. The majority of software sold doesn't come on physical media anymore. The majority of software is sold is copied at will. All that is paid for is a license, the right to use it. And incase you didn't know, the software sold in stores to individuals is a joke. It makes up a laughable percentage of the software market. The majority of software sales are direct to coprorations. The software is sent digitally, the company makes as many copies of it as they like, and they put it on as many distribution servers as they like. Then every they simply pay up for the number of licenses they need.

Hell, my copy of Windows 7 is on a thumb drive. I downloaded the .iso direct from Microsoft and extracted the files to the usb stick, and used a license key I paid for. They didn't even give me physical media.

You also avoided my question of sharing a file you downloaded with a friend. If you delete the file you paid for as soon as you sent it to him, is that legal? You no longer have the item, he does, no physical media involved.

Another example, is it right to let a friend use you Steam account to play the games you paid for on his pc?
 
One final comment to those who say copyright infringement is theft or stealing.

The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

—Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207, pp. 217–218
Click to expand...

Paul Dowling made bootleg copies of unreleased Elvis recordings. He sold these to people mailing them via the postal service. He was arrested and charged in the matter.

Dowling was convicted of one count of conspiracy to transport stolen property in interstate commerce, eight counts of interstate transportation of stolen property, nine counts of copyright infringement, and three counts of mail fraud. The opinion above is what the Supreme Court Issued as a ruling in the case. All charges except copyright infringement were dropped by the Supreme Court. The court ruled that the theft charges did not apply.

So legally copyright Infringement is not theft. This is not my opinion, but a matter of law as per the Supreme Court of the United States.
 
demingo said:
You also avoided my question of sharing a file you downloaded with a friend. If you delete the file you paid for as soon as you sent it to him, is that legal? You no longer have the item, he does, no physical media involved.

Another example, is it right to let a friend use you Steam account to play the games you paid for on his pc?
Click to expand...

I would say the answer is yes if you legally download a movie/mp3 or whatever and give it as a gift to a friend provided you do not keep a copy. You would have to read the TOS when you buy the item though to understand what you can and can't do with said item though.

The Steam account thing is kind of a gray area in my opinion. Steam allows you to install the games across multiple systems but Steam only allows you to be logged in once. So you can't play with your friend at the same time using the same Steam account. So to me it's more like letting a friend borrow a game for a few hours. Whether Valve agrees I don't know. Again you need to go read the EULA/TOS for Steam.

nobody_here said:
does this change if i SELL it to him? then i get all the money from the transaction, preventing the company from getting anything, am i now stealing profits from the movie company?
Click to expand...

Technically no what you're doing is not wrong because it is still a single copy of the movie and the company got paid for that single copy. You're not paying for number of views or number of people allowed to view it.

The resale market is what companies are trying to put an end to thus why we see things like activation limits on games now. Limiting activations are the only way they can stop the resale practice. They would rather you both buy a copy of the movie but there is technically nothing wrong with giving/selling an item to a friend.
 
demingo said:
Please read up on copyright. The physical media is meaningless. Completely. You are purchasing a license. The physical media is only how it is delivered to you. And in the case of software, that license can also be revoked no matter if you have the physical media or not.

However it has become apparent from your posts you have absolutely no clue about how copyright works. The majority of software sold doesn't come on physical media anymore. The majority of software is sold is copied at will. All that is paid for is a license, the right to use it. And incase you didn't know, the software sold in stores to individuals is a joke. It makes up a laughable percentage of the software market. The majority of software sales are direct to coprorations. The software is sent digitally, the company makes as many copies of it as they like, and they put it on as many distribution servers as they like. Then every they simply pay up for the number of licenses they need.

Hell, my copy of Windows 7 is on a thumb drive. I downloaded the .iso direct from Microsoft and extracted the files to the usb stick, and used a license key I paid for. They didn't even give me physical media.

You also avoided my question of sharing a file you downloaded with a friend. If you delete the file you paid for as soon as you sent it to him, is that legal? You no longer have the item, he does, no physical media involved.

Another example, is it right to let a friend use you Steam account to play the games you paid for on his pc?
Click to expand...

lol u are nuts man

if your friend has no valid key, the win 7 iso is useless MS knows that so they really don't care if you have the files or not cause they are going to make you pay for the key to activate and use it. You can go into any mom and pops computer store and get the ISO as long as you have a valid lisence for $10. The $10 covers the cost of getting the file onto the medium so you can take it home.

i answer that question already if you gave the file to your friend and you no longer have it, yes that is legal cause there is still the one copy. if you make a copy and keep the original then it would not be legal.

you cannot be logged in to steam multiple times so........you figure it out.......
 
Vermillion said:
Technically no what you're doing is not wrong because it is still a single copy of the movie and the company got paid for that single copy. You're not paying for number of views or number of people allowed to view it.
Click to expand...

ok, so what if i invite 20 friends over to see my movies every night, none of them purchased the movie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top