I suppose ( well, no, I'm sure) that what matters are the EULA. meaning that each game might be a different legal puzzle of its own.

For NeverWinterNights, for instance , " If the Software is configured for loading onto a hard drive, you may load the Software only onto the hard drive of a single machine and run the Software from only that hard drive", which means clearly that you can only install the software on a single machine, but that whoever has righful access to that computer can play with it.

For the Witcher 2, "you agree to accept from CDProjekt, and CDProjekt grant to you, a personal, limited, non-exclusive license to install and use the Software for your non-commercial use" and the EULA later specifies "on a single computer".

Now, in practice, if you want to apply strictly all and every EULA you face in your life, then youy're really creating your own nighmare. Especially if other people having access to the games are members of your household.

How is that even possible?!

If you and your son aren't going to play any given game at the same time on separate computers then I fail to see the problem. If I have a GOG game installed on my 2 PC's and a family member is the only one playing it does it matter which of the computers he/she is using?

I don't have the "blue" quote handy, but they have, in fact, said before that one can install any game and play it simultaneously on every computer in your home. Your family and your friends can play on your computers, just don't let them take the installer home with them...

The game is yours to use as you see fit...

Late night typing. I meant license.

I think you're a bit mistaken how clear your rights re books and even more important stuff actually are. :)

I also am puzzled, if it is not about simultaneous use what is the relevant ambiguity? There were explicit posts about borrowing the installer and having others use it as long as you refrain from using it while it's lent. The correct legal assumption is that if something is not explicitly given/licensed, you don't have it. No specific mention of multiple use on licenses does not make it ambiguous, it makes it illegal.

Of course there might be exceptions, because it ultimately comes down to what the rights' owners permit - not what GOG permits. And legal interpretation can change the principles involved in ownership in several ways. But those are jurisdiction specific.

I mean. If you're that concerned with the legalese ambiguities you should know that licenses for so called public use are very different from personal use. I recall arguments about showing a video you rent to a group of friends at home being illegal. You also can't (legally) borrow even books to too many people, that's what library licenses are for, and guess what, they are expensive.

Bottom line, there is no real ambiguity, other than the dissonance between the power you have and what is legal to do with it. Your conscience can guide you how to behave in such "ambiguous" circumstances...

Also you do own a license, but a limited license, not an absolute one. Whether you own the software or not is a matter of semantics. For a real wacky example, what do you own when you marry someone? You don't own the other person, but you do get all sorts of license (no, not that you pervs...), which can include deciding whether they live or die during hospitalization.

It's life mate. In the sense you are using it all law is inherently ambiguous. That's because the map is not the territory and all language is inherently ambiguous, all communication with another person is subject to translation issues. If you want a more black and white reality, go with the principle I just gave you. Did the owner give you explicit approval? No? Then don't call it ambiguous. Just accept you don't have such right.

Not if it's a digital book. That's the problems with buying digital stuff in general, it's not very clear what you're allowed to do with it. It's usually defined in the EULA as "personal, non-commercial use", and my understanding is that legally that tends to simply mean "non-commercial use". Still, I agree that it would really be nice to know the legality.

Personally I ignore the issue and assume that my kids can play what I buy. They mostly play Steam/XBox/Android games though, and these services do specifically cater for sharing. I see no reason to assume that GOG would want to limit me more.

Fortunately in England laws are often ruled by the intention of the Law rather than its exact legal definition.
Take media shifting. Until one and a half years ago copying a CD to Tape to play in your car, or ripping to an mp3 player was illegal. As far as I am aware no one was ever taken to court over this, but a vast amount of the population where breaking the law.

That was then fixed, and then broken again as the law was over turned. I know my Server full of our ripped DVDs is illegal, but its doubtful that it will ever be an issue.

Your scenarios with lending of the book and friends watching a rented video comes down to defining Public and Private. I can't get my books together and set up a library on my front lawn lending to anyone I choose, because that's public lending. But I can lend to as many friends and family as I wish, because that's Private. There is no clear boundary between private and public. Lending to a work mate for example could be public lending. Renting a video and watching it with your mates is private, doing so at your kids party starts to stray into public.

However with computer games, it is vague whether actions that are permitted within copyright for private usages are allowed. It is absolutely with in the law to let my daughter read my copy of Harry Potter, but there is no clarity whether she can play my copy of Lego Harry Potter.

Exactly! So you see, it's not really (IMO) fair to say GOG Terms and Conditions are ambiguous. The ambiguity is inherent in very subjective readings of what the meaning of private / public actually is. The fact British common law aligns with your moral sense of private use, is well, not surprising... it's your culture after all...

Basically, you have a conception of private use that is not shared by (many) rights holders of digital stuff. I personally find it a tad disingenuous to kind of sweep that difference of opinion under the rug, as if the rights holders were just stupid and not sure what they want to allow their customers to do.

I think it's more honest to admit they don't want you to share - that much is obvious and not ambiguous at all. The differences between physical goods and digital in ease of distribution are precisely why digital sharing is treated differently by them.

And then let your conscience guide your actions. You might be doing something illegal, and have to choose to accept the risk (however small) that someone will prosecute you.

Definitely not. They game is yours to play. You still can't fuck around with it, rip textures / code to use in another game, resell it or the account containing it, etc.

As for the OP's question:

* You can install and play as many instances of the game as you want in your household. Note that some games require unique keys for multiplayer, in which case GOG won't provide extra keys for all the copies you might want to run -- you'll have to create several accounts and buy several copies of the game.

* Some blues said lending to another household is okay-ish with them as long as only one copy is being played -- this is in fact against the TOS, they're just saying go ahead because who gives a fuck at this point.

* Commercial and/or public use is not allowed. An office or a gaming club is not a household.

* Reselling game installers, GOG keys, or accounts is not allowed.

Not Really. Imagine a scale from 1 to 10. 1 is absolute private use, and 10 being public or commercial use.

Letting your wife or children read a book you own is about 2, using the characters and narrative of that book to make a multi-million dollar film is 10. The Private/Public ambiguity is in the 4-6 range.

I'm not asking for clarification of something that sits in the ambiguous area, but clearly in the private use.

Its funny you say its a cultural thing, it there a culture where a family would intentionally pop down to Waterstones to buy a second or third copy of a unused book that is sitting on a bookshelf. The ease at which something can be abused should not dictate its usage rights in that way. A DVD can be copied and distributed with no effort. Should that mean I rebuy Lord of the rings so Daughter can watch it, just because its possible for it to be ripped?

Digital Right holders are not stupid, they are clever and they are greedy. They found a loop hole in the contractual nature of licensing that let them alter the market in their favour, its nothing more than that. ILicensing was originally stop stop unlawful distribution, but then moved to stop the second hand market and now to the point it is bound to an individual and contractually unusable to anyone else. I do, however a group like VALVe wouldn't prosecute, they'd just remove access to their service. It would be up to you to then take them to court to prove you where not acting outside the law and their agreement contradicts local law.

I think you are becoming a bit defensive... but I'll bite.

Yes really.

Can you have privacy from your wife? Yes you can. Hence private use might exclude even her. The fact that you consider your household, somehow defined (blood relation? sharing a house?) as included in private use does not make it so universally, objectively, legally...

So your scale of 1 to 10 is subjective. For you private use starts from 5 and higher, but for others it's only from 9 higher or something. Which is true? Both are. It's subjective and the ambiguity is inherent in that personal opinion / interpretation. Your assumption of private use is that, an assumption.

I'd say it's mostly a valid assumption, particularly in anglo-saxon derived law, but I think for typical software licenses it is clearly invalid. And if we go into the TOS and find the word individual anywhere - very, very common term applied to software use licenses - individual, not transmissible, etc... etc... even more so it would be not ambiguous at all what the rights holder intends.

As for examples of having separate copies of something. Of course they exist. Like toothbrushes? I'll keep mine private to myself even within my household thank you very much. And I can tell you sometimes I get peeved with someone for eating the yogurt I bought and was looking forward to in the future. The other should have gone to the store and got their own. :P

Digital books likely experience a lot of the same issues you have with digital games. I'm glad Amazon for example facilitates some forms of sharing. But I see that as a benefit, not something I'm entitled to And I'm not blind to the fact it's Amazon's size, like with Valve that allows them to stretch the service delivery envelope in such ways. Smaller providers might not be so profitable to afford that level of service.

As for physical books ones who knows. Let's see... I can imagine examples involving signed copies, annotations on the margins, books with a significant emotional value, etc... etc...

Are those enough scenarios for 1 minute of thought? Will you please stop with the comparison to physical goods, since precisely that is begging the question? Digital is digital and physical is physical. The assumption that property rights should be identical for both types of property is just that - an assumption. You can't just stipulate that I should agree to it, and much less for the creator / rights owner of whatever object you desire to simply agree to your terms of use.

IP is much older than digital stuff. It was applied for example to music concerts and stuff like that even back in the 19th century. Maybe even 18th. Nice way to reveal your moral / ethical assumptions there though. Greedy indeed. I suspected the anti capitalist mindset already, but that's fine. I actually like it when someone actually is open enough to show their ethical assumptions.

Digital Right Holders recognized the differences between digital distribution and physical distribution and stretched the existing law in the direction of protecting their privilege to benefit from their creation. You seem intent on using established law / practices in the direction of protecting your privileges around family sharing. Which of you should win the legal argument? Which of you is being greedy? Opinions will vary, it would be great if neither you nor them actually thought they had an inherent right to force the other to behave in a certain way.

But hej, that's just my laissez faire tolerant approach. And to your credit, you seem very unwilling to abuse the position / power you have in your interest. You want it to be legitimized socially. Kudos to you for that restraint. And this is not ironic at all. I wich everyone had the similar kind of respect.

Now, I wonder if this is an actual question? :) As in, do you want my ethical argumentation on what you should do in such circumstance? I'll give it to you anyway. :P

You should respect whatever conditions the creator / seller stipulated. Your choice is to not buy the product - be it physical or digital - if those conditions are disagreeable to you. Feel free also to buy the stuff and then complain about something. But if I were you I'd not expect such feedback to matter much.

To me the ethical matter is independent of the ease of doing the "wrong" thing. That does not come into it at all.

So despite my having tried to indicate to you that you should just do what you feel is correct and moral - just stop trying to convince the rest of us your morals are the best morals. My personal opinion is actually very simple. Don't share with your family unless you are sure you have that right. Go ahead and buy other copies. Don't like that? Don't buy.

Black and white enough?

9. WHAT YOU CAN'T DO WITH GOG SERVICES

GOG service and content are here for your personal enjoyment and please use them for this purpose only. For example, don't interfere with or hack GOG services.. Don't do or say things which are offensive or illegal. Be nice!
9.1 Please follow these rules regarding the GOG services and GOG content:
(a) Only use GOG services or GOG content for your personal enjoyment (for example, don't use them to make money).


How ambiguous. (sarc)

I wonder what personal means here... I'm sure it includes my family though. Because why should it refer to an individual person... (sarc sarc)

I mean, I find it nice that GOG focuses on the enjoyment aspect, with the parenthetical focusing on the non commercial use. But still... does anyone want to argue that this might, in some conception of semantics, mean any one of us is free to share their games?

Really?

And if you think GOG content or GOG services is not defined clearly enough. Check point 1 in the policies.


Drops mic... walks away...

then how can i purchase multiple occurences/version of one same game on my account ?

i mean once i already got the game, if i try to purchase it again, it says i can only gift it...

why do i ask, you may wonder ? well, simultaneous uses, mostly.

typical scenario:
at home i have a desktop and a laptop;i have many gog games that are installed on both (because sometimes, i'd rather play in my bed with laptop, or on 1st floor while doing other stuff)

imagine i am having fun with some lan capable old game (an fps like ut2004 for exemple)
a friend visits me while i was playing when waiting for his arrival
he says "how god, ut2004, such nostalgia... can we play it a bit together ?"
i say "do you have a steam or gog account with the game ?", if "no", you'll have to make one and purchase the game before we can have lan play together... or you go back home and bring back your comp/ or play online with me instead or you watch me play then we take turn and i lend you the keyboard and mouse for a while, rince, repeat...

tbh, i consider myself a fair customer and gog user... i never give out my gog games installers to friends or to P2P either, i am usually the only one using the game here, but hey, seriously ! under my roof, i wont ever requires my guest to purchase a game or brings his comp or xhatever just for an afternoon/evening of offline fun, mind me

so i may sounds like an horrible thief of some sort, but in case of above typical scenario, sorry but the outcome will be "grab a sit, do you mind playing on the laptop or you prefer sitting at the desk... then lets play"... Now sue me to hell !

of course if the game multiplayer requires a unique key, then it is all different

as we only buy "use licence of games" i already am pissed off enough that those games count as separate licence of use regarding the platform AND there is very rare or nonexistant console/pc crossplay. i cannot count anymore the number of games i have both as physical old retail disc and/or on my x360 through XBLA purchase or again retail disc AND also on gog AND/Or steam

gee there are some games i do have as 4 distinct licence of use ! now it's not even platformwise like just "ok i got this game on pc AND xbox"... noooo, it's sometime more like "i have the licence for use as pc-with-a-disc, pc through gog, pc through steam, xbox as a disc, xbox as logged with my xbl account". damnit ! i now just dont care about all this eula/legal BS at such point. if i own several licences of same game, especially several licence on same platform, i'll just don't bother checking.

lets take again previous typical scenario: "can we play it together ?" sure dude, i got the game on my steam account and on gog... "but, well, the steam version wont multiplay with the drm free version" or "oh damn, look, your internet connexion is out of order because of the weather outside"... guess what ? i'll use the gog version on two computers "simultaneously" even despite (oh the horror !) i only owe ONE gog licence only for this game. Come whip me with a shovel while insulting me in german, i dont give a damne, the horrible thief rascal i am.

sorry, now my arterial pressure just had risen by 5 points and i have to afk for raging/ranting alone about all that

Not really. Some software is sold on a named user basis, but most software isn't.

I think that the burden of the proof is on you to show that there's somewhere an interpretation that doesn't allow a wife to read her husband's books, or that there's off-the-shelf software where it's specifically stated that if someone else is using the same PC they aren't allowed to use it (and that the software, for example, doesn't allow installing for all users on the PC, which is what typically happens).
Far as I understand it (and I'm no lawyer) it legally means "non-commercial".