[spicyjpeg]

> But if you own the game, does it matter how you got the ROM?

It does from a legal standpoint. In many countries, making your own backup copies of your games for personal use is legal (although anti-circumvention laws like the DMCA blur the lines here) but obtaining a backup copy from someone else, regardless of whether or not it is a copy of a game you already own, is not; at best it is a legal gray area.

[prmoustache]

I'd be curious which one you are talking about?

Most countries allow downloads. They usually specifically target torrent users because a typical torrent user is making the file available to others while downloading. It doesn't apply if you download with a protocol (like http/https/ftp) that doesn't make you share the file.

[bzzzt]

Lots of countries don't. In the Netherlands, it was allowed but later changed to prohibit 'downloading from clearly illegal sources'.

[prmoustache]

So you can pretend it is not clear and you don't know it is illegal then?

I promise I thought that website was legit and was offering free licences for Super Mario![1]

[1] Apparently it works with software, you can purchase licence keys of Microsoft products (OS, Office) at roughly 5% of the original price through "reputable vendors".

[bzzzt]

Dutch courts don't accept the excuse that you don't know, you're supposed to know the law and do a bit of research in what the normal price and suppliers of goods are.

It's comparable to buying a bicycle worth 800 euro for 20 from a drug addict. Even if you don't know it's stolen, you're guilty of fencing.

[gnopgnip]

Does it matter from a legal standpoint?

You aren't reproducing, distributing, performing, publicly displaying, or making a derivative work. *The uploader is the one reproducing the work, see Disney v. VidAngel

And under fair use 3 of the four points would be in your favor, but that isn't determinative

[staticman2]

A finding that VidAngel violated copyright doesn't mean their customers didn't also violate copyright. Their customers weren't the ones being sued, that doesn't mean the customers were in the clear.

I don't see where you are getting the uploader is the one reproducing the work rather than both parties were? Also that appears to have been a streaming case so not really relevant?

[deaddodo]

VidAngel clarified what "distribution" meant in the context of "digital piracy". Receipt is not a qualifying symptom to make you an offender, you need to actively make available for others.

As far as I am aware, in US law, there is no subject code specifically for and simply for possessing/receiving pirated material (unless it's legislated in some other manner: CP, private govt documents, etc). Despite many court attempts to argue that "downloading" is equivalent to "making a copy".

This is why, during the MPAA/RIAA war against p2p, they specifically targeted the fact that all users were mesh sharing files. It's why one user was charged millions for "sharing a file a multitude of times" and another was let off completely free for sharing a minuscule percentage of many downloaded files.

[staticman2]

"As far as I am aware, in US law, there is no subject code specifically for and simply for possessing/receiving pirated material"

You have to look at the case law.

This article on contributory infringement seems relevant and states:

"One who knowingly induces, causes or materially contributes to copyright infringement, by another but who has not committed or participated in the infringing acts themselves, may be held liable as a contributory infringer if they had knowledge, or reason to know, of the infringement. See, e.g., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005); Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contributory_infringement#:~....

"This is why, during the MPAA/RIAA war against p2p, they specifically targeted the fact that all users were mesh sharing files."

They probably did that because they wanted to make an example of someone, so they went with whoever would be easiest to win a large judgement against. If someone merely downloaded a copy, the judgment against them would be smaller.

I certainly don't see how someone downloading pirated content isn't a contributory infringer at the very least.

[gnopgnip]

VidAngel covers the requirements for copyright infringement and cites all relevant previous cases

It is true that doesn't mean customers were in the clear. But it's impossible to prove a negative. There are zero copyright cases for streaming customers or downloading without also uploading via p2p.

Are you aware of any case law that finds otherwise?

[staticman2]

"VidAngel covers the requirements for copyright infringement and cites all relevant previous cases "

It's a streaming case against a single plaintiff, a lot of previous cases are not going to be relevant.

"Are you aware of any case law that finds otherwise?"

I'm aware how courts tend to view these sorts of things in general. For example I'm aware of the concept of contributory infringement, here's one you may want to read that covers copyright contributory infringement: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contributory_infringement#:~....