6 minutes ago, deltaKshatriya said:

I think he's arguing about why this shouldn't be illegal. OP does seem to get that this is illegal but thinks that it's wrong that it's illegal. Though maybe I'm wrong.

Possibly.

The law is the law though (and for good reason). He can argue against it all he likes. It won't change the outcome.

@Stragen  Do you live in Uganda? How is the weather? What is your definition of trolling?

I know that there is no law about giving games to your brother, friends, high school bullies and other people to play. I am sure that nothing can be done once everyone else is giving it to someone else.

Just to make things more complex,

Other topics that you will also need to look into before making a final decision on 'copyright infringement' and if you can get caught out...

Trademark laws - different by country but can be similar to copyright issues, trademarks are commercially protected and if you use one in breach of an already issued trademark you can find yourself on the wrong end of a cease and desist.

Patent laws - typically software (computer games being a type of software) isnt patented but we have seen a number of situations in the not too distant past where these have been issued and 'processes' and concepts can be protected.

@sprotz - nope dont live in uganda, but i'm not the one making flippant remarks about what applies or not applies in other countries, i'm simply informing you.

Something you may not be aware of is a good majority of countries that have any form of trade with the US will have copyright laws that have a lot of things in common. The DMCA is not uncommon to see slipped into a free-trade agreement, and a number of countries have signed up to it, so when people say there's some real risk to the use of protected images, names, etc, you may not even really understand the full extent of that risk.

9 minutes ago, deltaKshatriya said:

Again, you are looking at the wrong aspect of this: reputation and brand damage are absolutely a problem with tangible consequences. Don't believe me? Look at Pepe the Frog. The creator of Pepe the Frog absolutely hates what's happened to it. So yes, this can result in monetary and non-monetary damage to the IP in question. It absolutely matters.

The creator of the frog wasn't making big meme money before the alt-right used it.  In no way did their using the image cause him monetary damages or negatively effect him in any way. In a way there really wasn't a precedent for meme usage and they still use it anyway.  All the creator did was publish an "official" book killing the character.  If he didn't make that frog cartoon racists would still exist, and killing it off in his official canon did nothing to stem it.  He could have just faded into obscurity like his meme eventually would.  The character originated on an anonymous image board, it's not like anyone there knows or needs to know who the creator of a particular piece of content birthed there is and kind of goes against the whole spirit of the thing, his moral character and beliefs wouldn't be associated with that character if he didn't announce he made it and jump on the copyright.  Maybe the character being used in this way was detrimental, like being the Joe Camel of fascism, but if it wasn't this something else would fill that propaganda void, it is a symptom of a social issue/movement, not the cause.  To think the world is how it is now because a cartoon frog was used without the creator's consent is ridiculous.  It's literally just a mashup of "dat boi" and "the feels guy" anyway, no one knows or cares where those memes came from, and I'm pretty sure one of them is actually from a copyrighted work that sold for profit before it was a meme, some kind of guidance counselor book if I remember correctly.  The creator did state that his beliefs were opposed to what his creation was being used for then managed to publish a few books using the IP to make a profit off a character that had netted him $0 prior to it being used as a symbol of the mountain dew master race.  If anything others using this character without his "permission" is made it popular to begin with.  Also, the context they were using it in wasn't in an attempt to make money most of the time and there is no way to stop people from posting it on internet forums, especially anonymous ones.  There is also the legal matters of parody and protest, which become issues and technically are allowed when the neo-nazis that continue to use Pepe claim they are doing so out of protest and/or parody of the beliefs the creator has publicly endorsed or the whole issue surrounding the property, just so long as they aren't profiting off it or change it enough from the original work. I think of all the cases to try and prove the need and effectiveness of copyright laws, this is the murkiest and has the least consequential outcome. 

1 hour ago, sprotz said:

Not in Uganda. I assume 'Using' means doing everything under the book with it, playing with it, using it as reference. This form of use is unstoppable.

Copyright law only applies to distributing.

If you for example if you were given a 3D model from a game, study it too see how many polygons it has then make your own model with a similar poly count; that is legal; as long as you never shared the copyrighted content. This would be Personal use and is legal in most countries.

Copyright infringement is when you directly use something made by someone else. For example if I draw Mario it is copyright infringement because Mario's design is the IP of Nintendo.

If I just sampled Mario's red and blue color, then made a dragon using the same contrast but with green and yellow, thus using Mario's color as reference, this is legal (unless nintendo decided to make the color contrast also part of the IP). This falls under Personal use.

Copyright law is complex and the penalty for breaking it can be as low as the original owner asking you to change the content or as bad as five years jail time. Then again even a week of jail time could destroy a person's life.

Other penalties will make it impossible to sell games on stores again and you won't even be allowed to receive any outstanding revenue from games that are affected.

If you are outside of the Allied nations, a Third World country, you could even lose trait rights. You will notice that stores like Google Play and Steam have different terms and tax forms for Third World countries; some Third World countries can't even publish on these stores directly.

It isn't worth the risk. There is also a huge benefit in making your own content.

@jbadams  Are you talking to @Stragen? He/she has mentioned that he/she is not from Uganda, and neither am I.