>>723472657
>"they're not authorized to distribute it"
That's a they problem, not a you problem. You aren't liable for a product you receive from an unlicensed distributor. They're liable for distributing it.
This is one of the main reasons enforcement of anti-piracy laws have always been so toothless. They're forced to chase after distribution centers hiding away on disposable servers outside of their legal jurisdiction instead of just making examples of random white people in america like the music industry tried to do in the 2000s.
>you're not allowed to make a copy
You are in fact allowed to make a copy, and encryption can't prevent you from making a copy. DMCA explicitly guarantees your right to make a private-use copy digital copy of any media stored on your harddrive which you have purchased ownership of. Services like Netflix use various tricks and sleight of hand to keep their data on your harddrive for as little time as possible in the hopes the average user doesn't realize what's going on.
>EULA
EULA's are not legally binding and have never, ever been successfully used in court as a binding contractual agreement. This is where a lot of copyright and piracy enforcement collapses, because technically legitimate copies are distributed with consent but without legally binding agreements limiting their use. Even bans issued on the basis of violating ToS have been successfully overturned in court in the past--though the economics of doing so is questionable. You don't sign any of your consumer rights away by clicking a checkbox labelled "I Accept" when activating a steam key.
>mods
Copyright laws have nothing to say about mods. Some mods can straddle a grey area or cross an explicit line when their download distributes assets that the mod creators do not own, but simply editing game files or introducing new, original assets to a game is not covered under any actionable copyright law.
This post is not legal advice.
