Is it Piracy, or Preseving a Legacy?

[Hawkzombie]

As the poll above states, is it piracy or is it preservation when the games are no longer available in the original media?

I'm not looking for any anti or pro piracy arguments, or to find those amongst us who DO pirate...merely what people's opinions on the matter are. Imagine for a minute there are no such thing as remakes or Virtual Console, etc...is it wrong (ethically, not technically) to 'pirate' these games in the spirit of preserving them as they originally were for future generations?

Discuss -that-...Not the technical, but the ethical and moral aspects (if any)...personally, I think it walks a major gray line, but if it's for a system/game that is no longer available through normal means, Piracy is less about stealing from the pockets of the developers and the publishers and more and preserving the game to be enjoyed.

EDIT: May as well talk about my vote :p...I went with Yes, because while one could argue the moral and ethical 'wrong' of doing the deed, I'm more about preserving the game. If at all possible, I purchase my games. But if we purchase used, IMO, it's affecting the developer/publishers in the same way piracy does: They get 0% of the sale. So if a game is out of print and I DL it instead of heading to eBay to spend twice what it's worth to someone not associated with the game other than being lucky enough to buy it legally when it was available I don't think that makes me a bad person, persay...

Hell, Download services like Steam have been making my choices far easier. If I can purchase a game through those means, I usually do whenever possible. Not only is it easier than pirating the game, it's still directly helping the developers, even if only a fraction. There are games I've pirated in the past, that I now OWN on Steam. It's a great service and that's how much I believe in it.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

If it's no longer available through legitimate channels (publisher, distributors) and I download a copy of it, I can't see how I'm hurting anyone.

[frederec]

I always thought this was one of the biggest dangers of video games. A book (that isn't printed on acidic paper) can last hundred of years. Video games are much more dependent on fragile hardware that may not even last five years (I just lost my second PS3 over the weekend).

I think it's important to try to preserve the legacy of games for history as much as the ability to keep playing them.

[LongStepMantis]

There are always gray areas, but I have to agree that I see nothing wrong with downloading titles that simply cannot be purchased anymore. Especially so in cases with really old titles, like abandonware DOS games, that I know are simply going to fade out of existence. Some of them get new life, but I'd wager 99% of the the games that fall into that group are effectively dead and buried.

[Spockrocket]

I have to agree with you there. If a game is no longer in production/being sold, who is being hurt? Maybe I just want to re-live a great game from my childhood, or pass it on to my future children to introduce them to the wonderful world of gaming. If the only ways to get that game are a). Pirating it or b). Buying it from some guy on eBay at an insane price, I'd go with pirating it. Buying it from the guy on eBay isn't helping the original developers after all. It's already been paid for at that point.

[Hawkzombie]

I have to agree with you there. If a game is no longer in production/being sold, who is being hurt? Maybe I just want to re-live a great game from my childhood, or pass it on to my future children to introduce them to the wonderful world of gaming. If the only ways to get that game are a). Pirating it or b). Buying it from some guy on eBay at an insane price, I'd go with pirating it. Buying it from the guy on eBay isn't helping the original developers after all. It's already been paid for at that point.

This is pretty much how I feel. Almost all the stuff I've got (Yes, I admit it :p) is 100% for my son to play and enjoy. Even though it's a terrible example (Due to Virtual Console) the Original SMB. My son, who's three, LOVES that game. So much so, he'd rather play that at my computer, than watch me Play Super Mario Galaxy. It's adorable, and he even got past world 1-1 by himself (World 1-2 scares him a little because 'it's so dark') ...that to me is reason enough, honestly.

[DoctorFinger]

Whether or not the game is available in the 'original medium' is irrelevant. If you can get it readily in some form - digital or physical - then pirating it is wrong. If you just cannot give your money to someone for a new copy (and that prospect it not on the horizon) then I think it's somewhat okay.

[Panthera]

My favorite anecdote on this subject is about the 1922 classic Nosferatu. All copies were to be destroyed by court order. If it wasn't for illegal copying, the film wouldn't exist anymore.

[Ink Asylum]

One of my favorite sites, before it stopped updating, was Home of the Underdogs, which had the goal of preserving what it called "Abandonware." It offered downloadable PC games that, for the most part, were no longer being sold. Often the company that had made the game didn't even exist anymore, and the rights were unclear or lost.

The site tried to be as honest as possible. It didn't post games from companies that belonged to some digital rights protection group (I forget the name), which included Sierra and LucasArts. When possible, it would favor links to places where you could buy a legit copy of the game.

Legally they were definitely on shaky ground, but I believe they would remove downloads if the controlling company made a request. Of course, it's perfectly legal for someone right now to start an archive if they just buy a copy of every game released and store it away. It's much harder when you want to share that collection with the world.

If someone wanted to create a game library to rival Alexandria, where games were stored but not offered for download, there are ways to go about it that are both ethical and legal:


If the game is available for sale, either new, used, or digitally, buy a legitimate copy.
If a game is not available in physical or digital form, but the company that made it still exists and has the game files, see if the company is willing to contribute a copy.
If the company doesn't exist and you can't find someone willing to sell you an official disc/cartridge/etc, then, and only then, would I support acquiring a pirated copy.

I would love for some enterprising souls to start such a project. It could be a combination museum/library. One room would have systems set up to allow visitors to play a copy of the game, with the original preserved to protect it from wear. Only one copy could exist at any time, and had to be returned before leaving. You could have save files set up for the best or most cinematic parts of a game to give people with little time a good experience without having to churn through tutorial levels.

[frederec]

If a game is not available in physical or digital form, but the company that made it still exists and has the game files, see if the company is willing to contribute a copy.


This is the one that burns me in music all the time. Some albums exist, but I can't find them through any legit means. Sometimes I can't even get them through illegitimate means.

[JRR006]

If the developer has been and gone and the only way to get a physical copy is from hoarders who are selling it for like $150 on Ebay/Amazon Marketplace*, then I think that downloading it is acceptable. Ethically speaking, of course, not legally speaking. Bonus if your motives are really and truly to help build a sort of library of gaming history. Personally I just like to look through abandonware sites for fun titles. :o

*Yeah, this would be an available legitimate copy, but only one person is going to win the Ebay auction and the other dozen people are going to be out of luck. And the license to use the content on said physical media has probably been used up and then abused many, many times, to hear current rhetoric on the matter, so the nonexistent rights-holders probably don't truly recognize the legitimacy of such a sale anyway?

[digitalErich]

Ethically, if the IP owners are not attempting to make money from it somehow, I wouldn't feel bad about downloading it.

[Wilkz07]

if its not available then by all means go for it. i started to download freedom force and then saw it on steam - bought it for $5 on steam. And there were a couple of the Jedi Knight games I wanted and now see them on steam. Hopefully steam will continue to put out the classic games, but if you can't find it through digital services or that old cd in a box somewhere then go ahead ya dirty pirate, argh.

[Dukefrukem]

I never thought about this before. gonna think about it on my ride home from work.

[Karmakin]

Is it piracy? Undoubtedly yes.

Is it ethical? Well..it depends on if you believe that corporations can drop cultural content down the memory hole to force you into the latest and greatest, or if you think that preserving cultural content trumps copyright protection. And the thing about cultural content, to truly preserve it as culture, it has to be reasonably accessible.

Personally, I think that copyright laws need to be rewritten to drastically shorten the length of copyright, and introduce a non-distribution clause where if you stop distributing the cultural content, it goes into the public domain.

[Ink Asylum]

Considering that copyright laws have been routinely rewritten in the opposite direction to lengthen them in order to protect companies like Disney I would say that if the choice is between the loss of a piece of culture because a company refuses to archive it and the piracy of such in order to preserve it, the latter takes ethical precedence in my mind, even if it ends up being illegal. But such cases are rare.

[Chris_D]

I feel this is a grey area but personally, if it's a game that I'm desperate for and the only way it's available is via eBay at a big markup then I would just download that shit. So, there's no way I would buy Radiant Silvergun on eBay for $200+, I'd just hit up a torrent site. Luckily, it's pretty much never come up. The only case I can think of was Suikoden 1, where for ages I wanted to get that game to accompany my Suikoden II (which is the better game anyway, but still). eBay prices were always $100+ and I refuse to pay that much for a PS1 game. So eventually I finally got the game off PSN just recently. Guess I wasn't desperate enough to download it in this case, but I wouldn't have felt all that bad about it.

[Karak]

I guess for me it just goes this way.
If it is no longer possible to get by purchase in any way, then its not piracy. I guess I think of piracy as technically getting something for nothing that you could have paid someone for. But if it does not exist on ebay, amazon, and other places, and/or the website for the company itself is gone and defuct. Piracy doesn't seem to equal what's occurring.

[nixpayn]

the abandonware scene has always been around, and im glad it is. theres some stuff out there that should never die and it should be preserved.

I REALLY dont see how me getting a copy of Master of Magic, an amazing DOS game, is gonna hurt any one. i dont even think the company that made it is around anymore.

BRAX TEH DWARF FOR PRESIDENT!!!

[Hawkzombie]

One of my favorite sites, before it stopped updating, was Home of the Underdogs, which had the goal of preserving what it called "Abandonware." It offered downloadable PC games that, for the most part, were no longer being sold. Often the company that had made the game didn't even exist anymore, and the rights were unclear or lost.

The site tried to be as honest as possible. It didn't post games from companies that belonged to some digital rights protection group (I forget the name), which included Sierra and LucasArts. When possible, it would favor links to places where you could buy a legit copy of the game.

Legally they were definitely on shaky ground, but I believe they would remove downloads if the controlling company made a request. Of course, it's perfectly legal for someone right now to start an archive if they just buy a copy of every game released and store it away. It's much harder when you want to share that collection with the world.

If someone wanted to create a game library to rival Alexandria, where games were stored but not offered for download, there are ways to go about it that are both ethical and legal:


If the game is available for sale, either new, used, or digitally, buy a legitimate copy.
If a game is not available in physical or digital form, but the company that made it still exists and has the game files, see if the company is willing to contribute a copy.
If the company doesn't exist and you can't find someone willing to sell you an official disc/cartridge/etc, then, and only then, would I support acquiring a pirated copy.

I would love for some enterprising souls to start such a project. It could be a combination museum/library. One room would have systems set up to allow visitors to play a copy of the game, with the original preserved to protect it from wear. Only one copy could exist at any time, and had to be returned before leaving. You could have save files set up for the best or most cinematic parts of a game to give people with little time a good experience without having to churn through tutorial levels.

That is a brilliant idea. Have my children.

[Mike Kelehan]

Expand "original media" to "in any form," and I'll back you up. If a game's on GOG and not on disc, I feel like you should get it there.

[Lekon]

My son, who's three, LOVES that game. So much so, he'd rather play that at my computer, than watch me Play Super Mario Galaxy. It's adorable, and he even got past world 1-1 by himself (World 1-2 scares him a little because 'it's so dark') ...that to me is reason enough, honestly.

I almost hate to threadjack, but I have to say, that's the cutest thing I've read all day.

[alienmastermind]

As a former worker in the retail biz, specifically film, whenever Disney's brought up, I cringe. Try getting your hands on Song of the South today. You won't it existed in the old white clamshells back in the early 80s and then once people realized how offensive it was, they simply stopped producing it. Cultural sensitivity.

But the actual blackout on Snow White in the mid 90s was intriguing. When eBay first started there were hundreds of people offering bootlegs of Disney's Snow White because it couldn't be bought at ANY price. People were trying to buy it legit, but either the price was too dear for the tape used or they simply didn't have the means to rent/copy it.

Disney drove up demand shortly before the theatrical re-release, then finally released it to VHS (just before the DVD gained popularity in the mainstream) then got a second bite of the apple, releasing a 'deluxe' edition on DVD. Presales for that title were SICK.

This was all for cash, not for culture's sake. This was greed, pure and simple. Ask Walt Disney what he would have wanted, and I suppose he might have said 'Stealing is wrong, but I want kids to see these cartoons. Put them out there for the families to give to their children.'...but Eisner said 'Fuck that. Bill 'em. Then bill 'em again. And if they even paint Mickey Mouse on their kid's playhouse, send 'em a cease and desist, and sue 'em.'. He was a complete hole.

But there you go. Would you have provided someone with a bootleg of Snow White?

Good Old Games is also a good place for nearly abandonedware.

AM

[EternalGamer]

Not available to buy anywhere for years? Pirate the fucking tits out of it. It's all good.

[Narradisall]

In cases where there is no means to get the game anymore, either its no longer sold digitally or physically then I see no problem with it.

Some of the great old games no longer even have publishers or developers and the rights are either lost or forgotten. If it wasn't for pirarcy they probably wouldn't exist anymore, which is sad.

I do wish companies would hold onto classics and offer an online service for them.

[Ravenlock]

The film industry has been dealing with this same problem a lot longer than the games industry, and they've seen the consequences of not having distributed copies. The vast majority of the silent films that were produced in the early 1900's are simply gone forever.

Now, obviously those films weren't lost due to overzealous copyright protection - more frequently they were either forgotten about and literally lost in studio shuffles or physically destroyed by age or disaster (a 1937 fire burned [almost?] all the original prints of Fox films pre-1935). Equally obvious, there wasn't at the time a simple and extremely cheap means of making backups and distributing them for preservation, like there is now for games.

If a legal copyright holder wants to sell a game, I absolutely agree they have a valid complaint against anybody trying to distribute it without their permission. I also think they probably have an ethical obligation, if they aren't going to sell them, to either preserve those games in good condition or release them freely to those who will. In the cases where this has not been done, and games are literally abandoned with no current active copyright holder and no way to purchase them aside from private trade like eBay, I don't see any problem with copying and distributing them just to make sure they aren't lost. I suspect most of the game creators would agree with me. Once it's too late, it's gone forever.

For games in the state of limbo (where someone is still holding the copyright and defending it but is just sitting on it, with no plans to do anything) I think it's a little murkier, because then the game is more or less safely preserved already, people just can't play it. Personally I think I'm fine with people downloading a copy in these cases just to be able to experience the game they can't buy, but I can see the other side of the argument and obviously folks who download or distribute games in this category do so at their own risk.

[Ravenlock]

Personally, I think that copyright laws need to be rewritten to drastically shorten the length of copyright, and introduce a non-distribution clause where if you stop distributing the cultural content, it goes into the public domain.

Yes. As someone who very much would like to create content for a living, I definitely still agree with this. Copyright as it stands now is more or less completely broken, IMO.

[Wilkz07]

the film industry can suck my balls. especially disney. i was planning on renting Up but with no special features on the rental disc I'm not going to bother. I'll wait until my nephew gets the retail copy for christmas and watch it then (nobody spoil it - my money is on the balloons bursting and the house crashing with fire and explosions)

[BigJonno]

To be honest, I'm not sold on the ethical "wrongness" of piracy anyway, (short version: They try and make out that it's theft, however theft is wrong because it deprives the original owner of their property. If you copy media, you're not depriving anyone of anything. It might be a lost sale, but that still puts it in the same category as borrowing a game from a friend, or even playing a game at a friend's house, which is a far cry from theft,) so pirating media that isn't currently available isn't even a morally grey area, as far as I'm concerned. Legally it's a different matter, but I fail to see any harm in pirating unavailable games.

[Generation ABXY]

To be honest, I'm not sold on the ethical "wrongness" of piracy anyway, (short version: They try and make out that it's theft, however theft is wrong because it deprives the original owner of their property. If you copy media, you're not depriving anyone of anything. It might be a lost sale, but that still puts it in the same category as borrowing a game from a friend, or even playing a game at a friend's house, which is a far cry from theft,) so pirating media that isn't currently available isn't even a morally grey area, as far as I'm concerned. Legally it's a different matter, but I fail to see any harm in pirating unavailable games.

I think the difference is, when you let a friend borrow a game, you no longer have it - there is still only one copy, and it has just changed hands. When it comes to sharing music, you're creating an infinite number of copies and letting a potentially unlimited number of users "borrow" it, but without the concern of taking it away or ever losing your own.

[Ravenlock]

the film industry can suck my balls. especially disney. i was planning on renting Up but with no special features on the rental disc I'm not going to bother. I'll wait until my nephew gets the retail copy for christmas and watch it then (nobody spoil it - my money is on the balloons bursting and the house crashing with fire and explosions)

Not to threadjack, but for what it's worth, Up! is an excellent movie, one of Pixar's best, ranking up there with The Incredibles in terms of quality. It's absolutely worth seeing whether there are extras on the disc or not.

[Hotcod]

Personally, I think that copyright laws need to be rewritten to drastically shorten the length of copyright, and introduce a non-distribution clause where if you stop distributing the cultural content, it goes into the public domain.

This, so very much this, sadly the people with the money want it the other way so instead of what is best for society we are going to see copyright never laps on anything any more.

[Ravenlock]

This, so very much this, sadly the people with the money want it the other way so instead of what is best for society we are going to see copyright never laps on anything any more.

At a high level, yes, but that doesn't govern everything that happens. A lot of people are now releasing their work under Creative Commons licensing (Jonathon Coulton does this with his music (http://www.jonathancoulton.com/store/downloads/), as does Wil Wheaton with some of his writing and voice work), and the internet certainly makes it easier than ever for content creators to get their work to their audiences under terms that make both parties comfortable.

No, you won't see Transformers 3 released that way, but I wasn't going to see Transformers 3 anyhow. ;) [EDIT: This is not a statement that you shouldn't see Transformers 3. I mean, you shouldn't, but because it's crap, not for ethical reasons. :p] That people can make music, writing, games, etc, distribute them under non-draconian terms and still make money (see also: the World of Goo guys) is a good thing no matter what the greedier culture merchants are up to.

[Ink Asylum]

This, so very much this, sadly the people with the money want it the other way so instead of what is best for society we are going to see copyright never laps on anything any more.

Which is a great shame. Look at all the cool things that have been done with Sherlock Holmes, Alice in Wonderland, The Wizard of Oz and other classic stories and characters which are a large part of our culture.

The rise of corporate, as opposed to creator, ownership of characters and stories makes it likely that copyrights after 1923 will never expire, just keep getting extended. We'll be denied great twists on classic tales like American McGee's Alice.

[total]

no matter what the greedier culture merchants are up to.

I agree with everything you are saying and I think you are one of the more clued in people around here regarding copyright. I applaud you for knowing what's what. You seem to understand the purpose of copyright initially, and the extensions content DISTRIBUTORS (not to be confused with creators) have been fighting for for ages. I hope whatever you create sells in droves and then you release the copyright into the public domain.

[total]

Which is a great shame. Look at all the cool things that have been done with Sherlock Holmes, Alice in Wonderland, The Wizard of Oz and other classic stories and characters which are a large part of our culture.

The rise of corporate, as opposed to creator, ownership of characters and stories makes it likely that copyrights after 1923 will never expire, just keep getting extended. We'll be denied great twists on classic tales like American McGee's Alice.

I have a ton of great classic e-books on my G1. I paid 0 dollars for them. I have more than enough reading material to outlast my phone. All thanks to the public domain (and the original authors of course).

[Ravenlock]

I agree with everything you are saying and I think you are one of the more clued in people around here regarding copyright. I applaud you for knowing what's what. You seem to understand the purpose of copyright initially, and the extensions content DISTRIBUTORS (not to be confused with creators) have been fighting for for ages. I hope whatever you create sells in droves and then you release the copyright into the public domain.

:o Well, thank you. :) As of right now I'm not generating much beyond the podcast we do at Immortal Machines and my website (http://www.erraticgamer.com), but my writing there is all Creative Commons licensed and (assuming any future success with content creation, which is obviously not a safe assumption ;)) I certainly intend to see that anything I make is - while protected in its ability to make me a living - as open as possible for people to consume, share and enjoy. I mean, that's kind of the point.

[Ink Asylum]

An interesting side-note: Home of the Underdogs is back! (http://www.hotud.org/) With most of the old files uploaded!

[Hotcod]

A lot of people are now releasing their work under Creative Commons licensing (Jonathon Coulton does this with his music (http://www.jonathancoulton.com/store/downloads/), as does Wil Wheaton with some of his writing and voice work), and the internet certainly makes it easier than ever for content creators to get their work to their audiences under terms that make both parties comfortable.

Note the bit that said "with money" :P creative commons is an amazing thing but as you pointed out there is not going to be an uptake of it by the large business that, for better or worse, produce the vast majority of main stream media content. It will simply not gain traction since copyright holders who want to hold on to there copyright and have the money to do so can, easily.

[alienmastermind]

the film industry can suck my balls. especially disney. i was planning on renting Up but with no special features on the rental disc I'm not going to bother. I'll wait until my nephew gets the retail copy for christmas and watch it then (nobody spoil it - my money is on the balloons bursting and the house crashing with fire and explosions)

Up will make you cry like a bitch.

In the first ten minutes.

Or, you're a fucking robot.

[alienmastermind]

Oh yeah, one game that is out of print because the format was abandoned was the fully voiced version of Star Control 2....

Re-Released as the Ur-Quan Masters, it was DOPE!

Still is. And is still FREE AS BALLS!

You should download it.

[J Arcane]

I have a column, going up today about exactly this sort of thing, but in my mind, yes, it's fine by me. I'm a big supporter of the Abandonware movement, without it, a lot of shit would just up and goddamn die.

My first computer was a Tandy Color Computer 3. Finding legit software for this thing is ridiculously difficult. 99% of the original publishers or copyright holders or creators are long gone, in some cases not even fully known (Tandy published a lot of software without credit). Finding the stuff in hard copy gets harder and harder every year, and a lot of it simply isn't out there. You try finding a copy of a self-published wargame that was only advertised in a trade mag almost 30 years ago and maybe sold 50 copies, without the aid of the internet.

The CoCo scene as it stands today is small, and while there's a few folks still selling stuff for it, mostly, it wouldn't exist without the internet and people sharing old software. Yet thanks to that availability, I even find the occasional younger folk who've gotten in well after the thing has died, rediscovering a relic from a past they never lived.

And that's something I love seeing more than anything.

[zarathstra]

I'm going to throw in the with the "If its no longer being published, pirating is alright" camp. If the folks who made it aren't making any money off the deal, I feel no remorse for "stealing" it.

[Nura]

If the owner of the rights for the game doesn't want to sell it (either digitally or in the b'n'm shops) it seems to me like they don't want to be compensated, thus making it okay to obtain a copy by any means necessary.

[Doogie2K]

Ink mentioned creating a storehouse for old games, and I think there's a fellow at Stanford doing precisely that; Robert Ashley interviewed him on A Life Well Wasted a few months back. Lemme dig it up.

Here we are: Henry Lowood (http://alifewellwasted.com/2009/03/11/b-side-the-henry-lowood-interview/). One of the things he mentioned was that he'd run into some difficulties not only with salvaging games off 20-year-old floppies, but in what the hell to do with MMOs, which are ostensibly built around the people as much as the mechanics. Interesting interview, worth listening to.

[menage]

Voted yes. For the same reason as I pirate anime. If you won't take the effort to make it available to me I need to get the fix somehow.

I'm not pro pirating, but especially in Europe we get treated as second rate customers for way too long.

[DangerousDaze]

Voted yes. For the same reason as I pirate anime. If you won't take the effort to make it available to me I need to get the fix somehow.

This attitude really annoys me. It's selfish and betrays an utter disregard for morality.

Just because someone offers something for sale to a specific group of people does not give everyone outside of that group the right to take it for free. Period.

[menage]

This attitude really annoys me. It's selfish and betrays an utter disregard for morality.

Just because someone offers something for sale to a specific group of people does not give everyone outside of that group the right to take it for free. Period.

I really don't care. I buy the shit out of everything, I would buy stuff like that as well. I just can't, they wouildn't get my money even if I tried. i don't see how it's selfish. Nobody's losing money. Especially when most shit is aired for free in other regions. The anime market is pretty much dead or non existant over here.

I see your point, even agree with it, and all my arguments are oretty lousy I know, but I really can't feel sorry for company's who think my money isn't worth the effort, and I won't stop watching it either way. I don't like it, but not enough to stop.

In that regard having a satellite dish or importing games or movies is amoral as well in a way, seeing as no-one offered it to people in other regions.

Somebody needs to put up an online channel where I can download this stuff region free, pay per view style, Would be all over it. And businesses need to realize the worId has changed and is one big marketplace now. I mean, games have improved tremendously in that regard. one big thing MS actually forced upon the rest, they release more stuff globally at the same time), what's the problem with actually paying fansubbers some cash and putting their subs up for sale on a site? Woudl only make them more money imo.

[kyrieee]

Oh yeah, one game that is out of print because the format was abandoned was the fully voiced version of Star Control 2....

Re-Released as the Ur-Quan Masters, it was DOPE!

Still is. And is still FREE AS BALLS!

You should download it.

Overrated :mad:

[Chris_D]

I think you mean, incredibly awesome!

[BigJonno]

This attitude really annoys me. It's selfish and betrays an utter disregard for morality.

Just because someone offers something for sale to a specific group of people does not give everyone outside of that group the right to take it for free. Period.

What is morally wrong with obtaining a digital copy of media you cannot obtain in any other way?

[J Arcane]

This attitude really annoys me. It's selfish and betrays an utter disregard for morality.

Just because someone offers something for sale to a specific group of people does not give everyone outside of that group the right to take it for free. Period.
You know, I was actually sort of proud with how long this thread went on the subject before the heavyhanded moralizing began.

So much for that.

[menage]

What is morally wrong with obtaining a digital copy of media you cannot obtain in any other way?

My idea. Black and white is all well and good, doesn't mean there's no gray area. I try to do it the legal way as much as possible. But sometimes that's just not the case.

If anyone really thinks I'm going to watch reruns of Friends while I could watch shit I do enjoy they are mistaken, and some shit will never be available to certain groups. Because we are not profitable.

Yes, it's technicaly stealing, but who's missing what anyway if I wasn't able to buy it anyway.

[Vermillion]

Theft is theft. They still own the rights, it's up to them to decide if they want to make money by selling it. If they choose not to sell it, it's not FREE!

It's like if you invented something and patent it. You own that patent. If you choose to build something, that's your right. If you decide to license the patent out, that's your right. If you choose to just sit on it and do nothing, that's your right. It is NOT the right of some jackass to come in, decide they don't want to pay you for it, steal the patent and build it themselves and claim "well I wasn't going to pay you for it anyway, so what do you care".

I don't understand why people try to argue that they have a RIGHT to something when they legally do not. Just be a man, admit you are a petty theif, and live with it. No one here freaking cares, but stop trying to justify what you do under some false pretense.

[J Arcane]

And now it's time to unsubscribe the thread. Any productive discussion is gone now.

[Vermillion]

Because opinions contrary to yours means the thread has derailed... And by god, don't let morality or legality ever enter a discussion regarding morality and legality of what may or may not be theft. Humbug.

Internets being such serious business and all.

[Ink Asylum]

Theft is theft. They still own the rights, it's up to them to decide if they want to make money by selling it. If they choose not to sell it, it's not FREE!

It's like if you invented something and patent it. You own that patent. If you choose to build something, that's your right. If you decide to license the patent out, that's your right. If you choose to just sit on it and do nothing, that's your right. It is NOT the right of some jackass to come in, decide they don't want to pay you for it, steal the patent and build it themselves and claim "well I wasn't going to pay you for it anyway, so what do you care".

I don't understand why people try to argue that they have a RIGHT to something when they legally do not. Just be a man, admit you are a petty theif, and live with it. No one here freaking cares, but stop trying to justify what you do under some false pretense.

The posts you seem to be replying to aren't denying that what they're doing is legally wrong and therefore theft. They're arguing that they don't see it as morally wrong because they are more than willing to buy a copy of the product but it's not being made available to them.

You may disagree with that moral distinction, but that's just your opinion. No one that I've seen recently in this thread has been denying that legally it is copyright infringement.

[J Arcane]

Because opinions contrary to yours means the thread has derailed... And by god, don't let morality or legality ever enter a discussion regarding morality and legality of what may or may not be theft. Humbug.

Internets being such serious business and all.
See, this is why discussions of this topic and it's many related cousins are never, ever productive.

Do you seriously think you can just going around calling people "petty thieves" and not get anything but a hostile response?

I'm not complaining about contrary opinions, I'm simply pointing out that responses like yours never result in anything resembling a productive or intelligent discussion.

[Vermillion]

But isn't the description of "petty theft" stealing an object under a certain threshold value, which most games meet? How is it definitionally inaccurate or wrong to the discussion? Someone performing "petty theft" is a "petty theif", no?

The thing is, everyone knows that stealing is wrong. The point of this thread was to try to place some false veil over to it make people feel better about doing it. I don't care that you do it, hell, no one really cares if you are downloading copies of activision games and playing them on the PC. But not caring and being "right/wrong" are two different things. I just would like to see people own up and just say "I do it, I know it's wrong, I just don't care" instead of pretending. Me thinking that you are a "theif" should not morally outrage you or cause you to be upset. Like you said, it's just opinion, and the thread asked for opinions.

Also, threads like this are why I hate "off topic" threads in a gaming forum. It's always a train wreck in the end because people get all huffy too much. Chilax (not directed at you, just a general Fonzi moment).

[total]

But isn't the description of "petty theft" stealing an object under a certain threshold value, which most games meet? How is it definitionally inaccurate or wrong to the discussion? Someone performing "petty theft" is a "petty theif", no?

No. I've had this discussion up and down these forums. Theft is not copyright infringement nor is copyright infringement theft. Read here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Comparison_to_theft) for why.

[menage]

Well, I never said it wasn't stealing, or that is was right. Read back the thread, I said exactly that. But I'm not stopping till they give me other options, and till then I don't see whose really suffering here.

Now if they do release the stuff that I love over here in a manageable way. I will support it, simple. Till then my newsgroup is running.

And now it's time to unsubscribe the thread. Any productive discussion is gone now.

Sorry for the derail:P.

[J Arcane]

But isn't the description of "petty theft" stealing an object under a certain threshold value, which most games meet? How is it definitionally inaccurate or wrong to the discussion? Someone performing "petty theft" is a "petty theif", no?

Do you honestly possess the level of social pathology necessary to think this is a response to the point I made, or are you just being obtuse for obtuseness' sake?

[Ravenlock]

You should read what total just linked, because I think he's right - copyright infringement and theft are absolutely not the same thing. To take the example of someone who copies another person's book, you cannot "steal" words. It is literally impossible given the definition. You can arguably "steal" business away from someone by copying their words, but even that's a bit of a grey area and it's not like a physical object was taken from someone who had ownership of it.

Copyright - as originally intended - exists to protect the window of profit opportunity a content creator has in which to make a living off the unique thing s/he has created. That's all it's supposed to be for - to make sure that if I write a song and take it on the road, some other hack can't write the same song and put out a CD without my permission, or if I write and put up a play, the theatre across the street can't put up the same show and sell tickets for half price. The law protects my ability to make a profit from other profiteers who would try to get there faster and cheaper using my work. That's copyright. (It's also why there are all sorts of valid "exceptions" from copyright, such as excerpts, scholarly use, some noncommercial uses, etc. You'll notice there are no "exceptions" for theft - you can't steal just disc one of a DVD box on the shelf, for example, and call it an "excerpt".)

Now unfortunately, corporate lawyers (hi Disney!) have been very successful at expanding and permuting copyright to the point where you can now stand up in front of a judge and somehow get the argument accepted that if a thing you make is even somewhat similar to something made by a former employee of a company 80 years ago, that's still copyright infringement. That's ludicrous, and particularly hilarious in light of the fact that if copyright had previously been done that way, almost none of the material Disney made their fortune on would have been available to them.

Regardless, the question here is whether it's morally wrong to disregard copyright when the copyright holder seems to have no interest in using it for its intended purpose - they aren't using the work to make profit, so the copyright is protecting something they don't appear to want. (And in some cases we're discussing, the copyright holders are not even around to weigh in on the topic). All of that is a valid discussion, IMO, and I agree that coming in and blanket labeling the people having that discussion as "thieves" is unproductive.

[muddi900]

But isn't the description of "petty theft" stealing an object under a certain threshold value, which most games meet? How is it definitionally inaccurate or wrong to the discussion? Someone performing "petty theft" is a "petty theif", no?

Since you talk about morality, and you gave the example patent squatting, then you must know that it is completely unethical. There's a patent for training your cat with laser pointer, for god's sake. My points a)patent law is broken, around the world and b)Patents, copyrights and trademarks are completely different beasts, and models from one aren't applicable to the other. Patent squating is completely stupid. "Abandonware" is copyright infringement.

That being said, of all the moralistic preaching, nobody explained that how all those SCUMM games I wanted to play, but couldn't, and did anyway through SUCMMVM, is wrong? I did break the law, but who did I hurt in the process? What ethical or moral crime have I committed?

[Ink Asylum]

Now unfortunately, corporate lawyers (hi Disney!) have been very successful at expanding and permuting copyright to the point where you can now stand up in front of a judge and somehow get the argument accepted that if a thing you make is even somewhat similar to something made by a former employee of a company 80 years ago, that's still copyright infringement. That's ludicrous, and particularly hilarious in light of the fact that if copyright had previously been done that way, almost none of the material Disney made their fortune on would have been available to them.

Yeah. It's depressingly ironic once you realize that one of the companies most responsible for todays draconic and nigh-endless copyrights made vast amounts of money essentially taking old stories not protected by modern copyrights and animating them. Without that deep well of material Disney would have had to get by solely on original content, and we've seen how weak those stories can be.

[menage]

That being said, of all the moralistic preaching, nobody explained that how all those SCUMM games I wanted to play, but couldn't, and did anyway through SUCMMVM, is wrong? I did break the law, but who did I hurt in the process? What ethical or moral crime have I committed?

The real crime is letting them rot in a basement somewhere. Play that shit, and buy a remake or port when it hits.

[muddi900]

The real crime is letting them rot in a basement somewhere. Play that shit, and buy a remake or port when it hits.

I certainly did that. I hope they port or remake Curse of Monkey Island soon.

[J Arcane]

Since you talk about morality, and you gave the example patent squatting, then you must know that it is completely unethical. There's a patent for training your cat with laser pointer, for god's sake. My points a)patent law is broken, around the world and b)Patents, copyrights and trademarks are completely different beasts, and models from one aren't applicable to the other. Patent squating is completely stupid. "Abandonware" is copyright infringement.

There was a big lawsuit announced just the other day against Sony, Ubisoft, Microsoft, and some others I think, from some no name company who somehow got a patent for putting speech recognition software on a CD.

God, that one pissed me off. Isn't there supposed to be a restriction against obvious applications like that?

That being said, of all the moralistic preaching, nobody explained that how all those SCUMM games I wanted to play, but couldn't, and did anyway through SUCMMVM, is wrong? I did break the law, but who did I hurt in the process? What ethical or moral crime have I committed?

Or what about my RUN"HISTORY column this week? doubleback was made 27 years ago. The guy who made them probably doesn't even work with the company any more, and Tandy no longer even acknowledges the existence of the platform it was on (they removed everything CoCo related from the catalog when I was still in high school). I'd bet no one there even realizes they have the rights to the game anymore, and even if they did there's no money to be made in selling it again, considering there'd only be a handful of people who'd even buy it as almost no one outside of the few die hard CoCo fans like myself even remembers it existed.

Forgive me if I don't go into some great moral panic about it.

[Vermillion]

Total, good read, thanks for the info.

And I don't disagree that the patent system isn't inherently broken. But I don't think that legal prescendence has caught up to technology either. It's a giant quagmire of grey and stupidity, with corporations setting the rules.

And please don't take my riding my high horse to imply that I myself don't have copies of some music that is not available (Wrath of Khan). I'd buy it if it was available, but it's not. I just feel like I know I took it and it's not mine. I am projecting my own guilt upon you poor huddle masses. For shame... :)

[Ravenlock]

Or what about my RUN"HISTORY column this week? doubleback was made 27 years ago. The guy who made them probably doesn't even work with the company any more, and Tandy no longer even acknowledges the existence of the platform it was on (they removed everything CoCo related from the catalog when I was still in high school). I'd bet no one there even realizes they have the rights to the game anymore, and even if they did there's no money to be made in selling it again, considering there'd only be a handful of people who'd even buy it as almost no one outside of the few die hard CoCo fans like myself even remembers it existed.

That's an excellent point.

Vermillion, according to your argument, what J Arcane did for that column was theft, and (your words) "wrong". Can you see how it can come across as insulting, when someone is going out of their way to keep alive and share a thing that would otherwise be dead and forgotten, to have someone come along and accuse them of thievery? Do you honestly believe (even putting aside the difference between theft and copyright infringement already discussed) that J Arcane was wronging anybody by showing how to emulate CoCo? Who was he wronging?

I suppose it might be your position that a content creator has a right to forever silence his own work - to essentially say "and I want this to die with me" - and if that's the case I can I guess I can only strenuously disagree. I think once you've made a contribution to the culture at large, past a certain point it's out of your hands and that's the way it ought to be. Our contributions to the global conversation, such as it is, should be recognized and rewarded, but they do not belong solely to us.

[Ink Asylum]

And I don't disagree that the patent system isn't inherently broken. But I don't think that legal prescendence has caught up to technology either. It's a giant quagmire of grey and stupidity, with corporations setting the rules.

I think that's why you have a lot of people in the thread recognizing the legal wrong but believing it's morally right. Corporations have the money and influence to make the rules practically whatever they want them to be. So is a copyright law morally right when it keeps getting extended by powerful corporations just because it's a law?

[total]

Yeah. It's depressingly ironic once you realize that one of the companies most responsible for todays draconic and nigh-endless copyrights made vast amounts of money essentially taking old stories not protected by modern copyrights and animating them. Without that deep well of material Disney would have had to get by solely on original content, and we've seen how weak those stories can be.

It's a beautiful web they've weaved. It's also fantastical that the whole idea of copyright arose to promote the idea of the artist and push more culture into society. It was never intended to be a timeless money printing machine. Now copyright is used to hold the artist and culture for ransom by content distributors.

[Ink Asylum]

It's a beautiful web they've weaved. It's also fantastical that the whole idea of copyright arose to promote the idea of the artist and push more culture into society. It was never intended to be a timeless money printing machine. Now copyright is used to hold the artist and culture for ransom by content distributors.

Leave it to a corporation to find a way to turn something designed for the good of manking and hone it into another tool for filling their coffers.

[total]

Leave it to a corporation to find a way to turn something designed for the good of manking and hone it into another tool for filling their coffers.

If I could go back in time, I would start by going back to the Sonny and Cher days. Like when they were still together. I would punch Sonny's stupid ass in the throat repeatedly for this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act), steal Cher's fine ass for poking material, then carpet bomb Disney.

[Vermillion]

That's an excellent point.

Vermillion, according to your argument, what J Arcane did for that column was theft, and (your words) "wrong".

I didn't read his article, so I can't say right or wrong. All I can say is that copyrights expire for exactly the reason you stated. Things become public domain after an extended period of time, so that when the owners are dead and gone things do not get forgotten or lost. If the law still applies to the copyright for the works in J Arcane, then all I can say is maybe he is an "infringer". If he thinks that he is providing a public service that's fine, he's still not exempt from the applicable laws in place.

The law is the law until it is changed.

[Ink Asylum]

And it's changed conveniently every time Mickey Mouse is about the become public domain, getting extended another decade or two.

The law is the law but in this case the law is written by and for corporate profit protection. It may be legally valid but that doesn't make it right.

[J Arcane]

I didn't read his article, so I can't say right or wrong. All I can say is that copyrights expire for exactly the reason you stated. Things become public domain after an extended period of time, so that when the owners are dead and gone things do not get forgotten or lost. If the law still applies to the copyright for the works in J Arcane, then all I can say is maybe he is an "infringer". If he thinks that he is providing a public service that's fine, he's still not exempt from the applicable laws in place.

The law is the law until it is changed.
The law won't expire for another 100 years.

And by then, if Disney still exists, it'll be longer.

Do you really think there's going to be anything around that'll even run games like this by then? The shelf life of computer hardware isn't that good. There is literally only one working PDP-1 left in the world to run the original Spacewar. One. And that was only 47 years ago.

We'll see the same thing happen to other games and platforms long before the "law" has a chance to open these things up for proper conservation. Already the number of people in the CoCo community is dwindling, and the last machine released for the platform only came in the early 90s.

Technology doesn't follow the rate of sea change the rest of the media do. In the last century we went through what, maybe 4 or 5 major new media technologies (film, radio, TV, home video, DVD). Meanwhile in a third that time we've gone through countless different computer platforms, all incompatible with one another, and all abandoned by the market in a matter of just a few years. The whole life span of the CoCo3 on the market spans only about 10 years, and that's for a relatively successful platform.

Bottom line is, your precious law, if followed to the letter, would kill history.

[Vermillion]

Bottom line is, your precious law, if followed to the letter, would kill history.

Dude, you should totally write for a living because you have impeccible flair for the overly dramatic :)

CoCo dieing isn't going to cause any major bouts of pandemonium or regretful after thought by society as a whole. It, like many other things, will simply fade into existence as a stepping block to something better. It is cute and people are fond of it, but what value does it really add at this point? I don't see this as anything different than those people that fight to keep the history of Pez alive and in a muesem. If the nastalga makes you happy, go for it, but in the grand scheme of life, shrug.

Like I said, I don't disagree with you that the law is archaic and not keeping up with technology. But we live in a system of laws, to preach otherwise makes you a communist (see, i can be dramatic too). Like I said, again, you know the law and choose to break it out of some kind of crusade of self prescribed relavence. I don't knock you for that, I just simply state that until the law is changed (and people fight to change it), you are still accountable to it.

fight the powers that be my brother!

[Ravenlock]

If I could go back in time, I would start by going back to the Sonny and Cher days. Like when they were still together. I would punch Sonny's stupid ass in the throat repeatedly for this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act), steal Cher's fine ass for poking material, then carpet bomb Disney.

I read those words and I hear them in House's voice thanks to your avatar, and it makes me extremely happy.

Just wanted you to know.

[Ravenlock]

The law is the law until it is changed.

And morality is determined solely by what the law is? That's a fascinating and terrifying point of view. Again, I was asking whether you thought what he did was "wrong". Nobody's arguing with you that it might at present technically be illegal, but you appeared to make equivalents of the two.

EDIT: In case I'm not making myself clear, I really am not disagreeing with you that the topic is about legally questionable if not outright illegal behavior. It absolutely is. But you came in and said (1) it is theft, and (2) it is therefore wrong. #1 is semantically incorrect for reasons already discussed, and I think #2 is highly debatable. That's what I'm focusing on.

[Vermillion]

Raven,

I already discussed from the earlier post that "theft" is an invalid term. You are not "petty theives", you are "petty infringests" :)

I never said that the law had anything to do with morality. I said the law is the law. If people choose to disobey it out of a sense of doing something for a community, that is their right. But they are still bound by the rule of law and they know it. They just feel that the results of their actions greatly outpace the liklihood/ramifications of being incriminated or prosecuted. I don't knock them for that at all. And sometimes it is those actions that bring about change, but until that change comes, those are the bumps you are going to take on the way.

To answer your question: If he broke copyright law, then yeah, I think it was wrong because he didn't do it to provide any sort of ethical or social value to the masses, he did it because he simply chose to inform others about a topic he felt was nastalgic and quaint. Do I honestly care, nope.

Law is simply man's best attempt at selectively enforcing the prevailing opinion of morality on others by those in power.

[total]

I read those words and I hear them in House's voice thanks to your avatar, and it makes me extremely happy.

Just wanted you to know.

That makes me happy in my pants.

[Ravenlock]

Raven,

I already discussed from the earlier post that "theft" is an invalid term. You are not "petty theives", you are "petty infringests" :)

Okay, we're cool there. ;)

I never said that the law had anything to do with morality.

Really? Because it sure looks like you up here:

The thing is, everyone knows that stealing is wrong. The point of this thread was to try to place some false veil over to it make people feel better about doing it. I don't care that you do it, hell, no one really cares if you are downloading copies of activision games and playing them on the PC. But not caring and being "right/wrong" are two different things. I just would like to see people own up and just say "I do it, I know it's wrong, I just don't care" instead of pretending.

That certainly sounds like a definitive claim that what these people are doing is immoral, and that it's immoral because it's against the law. Granted, at that point you were still calling it stealing, but if the rest of the statement would still stand after replacing "stealing" with "copyright infringing" then you're still on the hook for equating illegal and immoral.

Though "everyone" would obviously not necessarily agree that copyright infringing is wrong in every case, so maybe that statement gets a lot shakier after that change anyhow. ;)

I said the law is the law. If people choose to disobey it out of a sense of doing something for a community, that is their right. But they are still bound by the rule of law and they know it. They just feel that the results of their actions greatly outpace the liklihood/ramifications of being incriminated or prosecuted. I don't knock them for that at all. And sometimes it is those actions that bring about change, but until that change comes, those are the bumps you are going to take on the way.

To answer your question: If he broke copyright law, then yeah, I think it was wrong because he didn't do it to provide any sort of ethical or social value to the masses, he did it because he simply chose to inform others about a topic he felt was nastalgic and quaint. Do I honestly care, nope.

I think he would take issue with your second paragraph there, and to some extent so do I. Just because the survival of CoCo, or of any other piece of cultural history, isn't particularly important to you, doesn't mean it isn't important to anyone. The very topic sentence of this thread asks whether preserving something that would otherwise be lost excuses copyright infringement (ethically / morally, not legally). To claim that such a concern never factors into the act is to essentially call everyone discussing it a fraud.

Law is simply man's best attempt at selectively enforcing the prevailing opinion of morality on others by those in power.

Yes. And if we didn't often get it woefully wrong - sometimes by mistake and sometimes deliberately - we wouldn't so often feel the need to turn around and change it. There are constantly people questioning the morals behind almost any given law, and that's exactly as it should be. I don't see how a discussion about the ethics of breaking laws that are either questionable in their nature or their application is so different.

[J Arcane]

Dude, you should totally write for a living because you have impeccible flair for the overly dramatic :)

CoCo dieing isn't going to cause any major bouts of pandemonium or regretful after thought by society as a whole.
It, like many other things, will simply fade into existence as a stepping block to something better. It is cute and people are fond of it, but what value does it really add at this point? I don't see this as anything different than those people that fight to keep the history of Pez alive and in a muesem. If the nastalga makes you happy, go for it, but in the grand scheme of life, shrug.

The majority of society doesn't care about the history of anything. What the hell does that have to do with the merits of preserving it.

Do you honestly see apathy and ignorance as virtue? That your judgement of what's valid should in anyway infringe upon the greater pursuit of history?

There's a lot to be learned from the history of our technology, lessons that we still don't seem to grasp today.

The Color Computer 3 can run an operating system called OS-9, a full microkernal based realtime multitasking operating system, that ran on a 1.79mhz processor with 128kb of RAM. Meanwhile 20+ years later and Windows still has difficulty with this shit.

Clever hackers have even made a full IDE and Flash interface for the thing, and there was even talk of networking. The Commodore 64 has a full IP stack available for it with a CPU/RAM upgrade, along with semi-POSIX compliant OSes.

Or what about all those games? Are you telling me you don't think there's a single game on the entire platform, or the many others like it like the Commodore 64 or the Apple II or the Spectrum, that modern game designers couldn't learn some tricks from, couldn't recover some forgotten but great ideas for gameplay?

And all this should die and be forgotten because, what? Disney's afraid of losing Mickey Mouse money? Because you don't think it's important?

An unjust law is a law that is not worth the paper it's printed on. Men have died holding up that principle, why should it suddenly be irrelevant just because you don't think the subject at hand is important? Who gave you that right?

Like I said, I don't disagree with you that the law is archaic and not keeping up with technology. But we live in a system of laws, to preach otherwise makes you a communist (see, i can be dramatic too).

And I'd tell you your understanding of political structures is deeply flawed if you seriously think "breaking the law" has a damn thing to do with communism.

Like I said, again, you know the law and choose to break it out of some kind of crusade of self prescribed relavence. I don't knock you for that, I just simply state that until the law is changed (and people fight to change it), you are still accountable to it.

fight the powers that be my brother!

And I'm telling you I don't give a flying fuck what the law saws, I care about what's right, and what's for the best of society, and when the law disagrees with that, I will break it as freely as I wish whether you like it or not, nor will I feel an ounce of guilt for it or make some pointless statement of concession to satisfy your warped sense of fascistic morality.

[Ravenlock]

And I'm telling you I don't give a flying fuck what the law saws, I care about what's right, and what's for the best of society, and when the law disagrees with that, I will break it as freely as I wish whether you like it or not, nor will I feel an ounce of guilt for it or make some pointless statement of concession to satisfy your warped sense of fascistic morality.

And it still sounds to me like Vermillion's position is "Great! Do it and be guilt free, but at least admit what you're doing is wrong."

Which of course runs kind of counter to the whole point here, which is that we're saying it's not wrong. I mean that's what the entire thread is about.

[Vermillion]

Sigh...

The law doesn't have anything to do with "morality", in the sense that the law is simply a time in space assertion of what morality was, not what morality is, and as morality is subjective and constantly reevaluated with each generation, then they are not a direct one to one correlation. Spitting on the ground on Sunday in some states is against the law, but to say it is "morally" wrong would probably be considered an incorrect statement in this day and age.

The fact that you take offense to my opinion of CoCo's social relevence and place in history is fine. Like I said, some people dedicate their entire existance to perserving the history of Pez. It's important to them and they may be offended that you do not think it is as socially or historically relavent to you. It's your opinion and I have never once said your opinion is invalid.

And because it is so important to you, you are willing to dismiss any legal requirements that may prohibit your actions. Again, good on you. No one is stopping you, honestly, very few will even care one way or the other, but again, you are still bound by current law. Now is he morally wrong, my opinion is still 'meh, probably', because I don't see breaking the law as morally right in most cases unless it is in conjunction with confronting a social injustice or through the protection of the weak or helpless. This is neither of those, this is simply a "because i want to".

p.s. thanks for the posts Raven, i have enjoyed them. it's always good to just debate things.

p.p.s. to Arcane, Dude seriously calm down. If you didn't take the communism thing as a misrepresentation to increase drama then I can't carry on a civil conversation with you.

[J Arcane]

The law doesn't have anything to do with "morality", in the sense that the law is simply a time in space assertion of what morality was, not what morality is, and as morality is subjective and constantly reevaluated with each generation, then they are not a direct one to one correlation.

The error in this philosophy is automatically assuming there was any "morality" of any kind involved in instituting the law in the first place.

Unless you're one of the new capitalists and libertarians who honestly see "make as much money as possible" as the only moral imperative, but somehow I get the impression you are not one of those.

[Ravenlock]

Fair enough. I don't have a problem with most of what you're saying now, my only issue to start with was that you came into the thread essentially appearing to demand that everybody own up to being amoral and just not caring about breaking the law (or "being wrong", as you phrased it), when in fact the whole point of this thread in particular is caring very much about these old games and believing that preserving them is, specifically, right. You can see where those positions are incompatible, I'm sure. ;)

p.s. thanks for the posts Raven, i have enjoyed them. it's always good to just debate things.

You're most welcome. Yes, it is. :)

[Vermillion]

The error in this philosophy is automatically assuming there was any "morality" of any kind involved in instituting the law in the first place.

Why do you feel that a vast majority of laws come into existence then? Most laws that were passed in this country are because some rich, bible thumping, male, WASP thought it was a good idea :)

Raven, what can I say, I'm an attention whore and knew my posts would get overlooked if I didn't start off with a big opening ;)

[J Arcane]

Why do you feel that a vast majority of laws come into existence then? Most laws that were passed in this country are because some rich, bible thumping, male, WASP thought it was a good idea :)
Money.

The current state of copyright law is about money. Most laws these days are passed, because at their heart, someone either thinks it'll make them more money, or prevent something from costing them money.

As my history teacher once said, at the end of the day, people vote with their pocket books.

[Vermillion]

People voted with their pocket books, that's why CoCo died :) I kid, I kid...

Money, power, and law make up the 3-way orgy that is morality...

[muddi900]

I read those words and I hear them in House's voice thanks to your avatar, and it makes me extremely happy.

Just wanted you to know.

Me too. It makes that much more interesting.

[J Arcane]

People voted with their pocket books, that's why CoCo died :) I kid, I kid...

Money, power, and law make up the 3-way orgy that is morality...
You have a very strange definition of "morality" then. One I don't think I can ever even pretend to agree with.

[Vermillion]

Arcane, it was a bit glib, but it is still kind of relavent. Think about it, morality is constantly redefined with every generation. And a lot of laws are designed to support the current definition of morality (stealing bad, gay bad, murder bad, infidelity bad, bribing bad, etc). Who passes laws? People in power.

So in effect, morality at any given time in history is enforced on the masses by those the masses elect to create laws, thus those people we place in power. And how do you get to be in power, more often than not, money.

[J Arcane]

I recognize the presence of that process, but I do not acknowledge that it is in itself "morality".

Profit motive is, in my mind, amoral at best, and immoral when it is used to the detriment of others.

I am more of the opinion that there is such a thing as a natural morality, higher, or at least more basal, than such concerns.

What is good is a different concern from what makes money. The greater good indeed, is very often unprofitable, which is why there is so much suffering and immorality in the world.

[Ravenlock]

It might be simpler to say that what advances "the greater good", by definition, tends to do more for other people than it does for one's self, and so the people who end up at the top of the power / money heap - the ones who have done the most for themselves - obviously aren't usually that invested in it.

[J Arcane]

It might be simpler to say that what advances "the greater good", by definition, tends to do more for other people than it does for one's self, and so the people who end up at the top of the power / money heap - the ones who have done the most for themselves - obviously aren't usually that invested in it.
cf. public health care in the United States. ;)

[ClannerDelta]

You people need to play more Civ 4.

It's clear that greater culture helps us expand our borders without resorting to warfare.

If you don't like killing babies, you'll download every game... NOW!

[DangerousDaze]

Money.

The current state of copyright law is about money.

You talk about money like it's just something that corporations and lawyers bring into the picture later on, but money is what drives people to create in the first place. Copyright law is just there to ensure that people get paid for their efforts. It's all about money.

You tell yourself whatever you like but when you receive goods or services without payment then you're cheating people, not just companies.

[Ravenlock]

If you get a copy of something that is no longer being sold without paying for it, who are you cheating, DangerousDaze? We're not talking about downloading Modern Warfare 2 here. The whole thread is very specifically about games you can't buy, not games you don't want to buy.

Most content creators I know, including myself, would greatly prefer that people enjoy their work for free rather than not be able to at all.

And as a sidenote, no, money is certainly not what drives all people to create in the first place - some, I'm sure, not all - but that's pretty far afield from the topic at hand.

[DangerousDaze]

If you get a copy of something that is no longer being sold without paying for it, who are you cheating, DangerousDaze?
If a game is offered as freeware by its owners then there's no problem. I wish more companies would do this kind of thing and I agree that it's a worthy thing to do.

However, I believe that just because something isn't offered for sale at any particular time or place doesn't automatically mean that you can take it for free. This goes back to J Arcane's orginal point where he believes he is perfectly justified in pirating anime movies because they're not being sold in his region; to me that's wrong (but I wouldn't care about him doing it because my morality is my own, even if I care to share it on a forum!).

It could be that the game is to be re-released, either singly, as part of a pack or even emulated. So by taking that game without permission you may still be depriving someone down the line.

And as a sidenote, no, money is certainly not what drives all people to create in the first place - some, I'm sure, not all - but that's pretty far afield from the topic at hand.

People need money to survive in this world. Sure, people may live for their work and have altruistic intent but altruistic intent doesn't keep the wolves from the door. This is about video games (old videogames, but videogames nonetheless) and I don't know any of those that were ever sold for the greater good of mankind. ;)

[Ravenlock]

However, I believe that just because something isn't offered for sale at any particular time or place doesn't automatically mean that you can take it for free.

...

It could be that the game is to be re-released, either singly, as part of a pack or even emulated. So by taking that game without permission you may still be depriving someone down the line.

Not if you then buy it when it is re-released down the line. I've actually done this myself, purchasing a game I had already downloaded and played because it showed up on Good Old Games, for example. Again, the goal is not to avoid paying for things, the goal is to ensure that games don't just disappear.

People need money to survive in this world. Sure, people may live for their work and have altruistic intent but altruistic intent doesn't keep the wolves from the door. This is about video games (old videogames, but videogames nonetheless) and I don't know any of those that were ever sold for the greater good of mankind. ;)

Of course people need money to survive, and yes, we're talking about something most people don't exactly consider "high art." But the people who actually made most of the games we'd be talking about here no longer even work for the companies that sell them. They made their money off their creation when the game came out (or, if the game flopped, they didn't), they've moved on, companies and properties have been purchased, traded, and closed down.

I'll purchase a game from Good Old Games when they offer it because I believe in what they're doing, but let's not pretend it has anything to do with rewarding the original creators of those games. In many - maybe most - cases, they've long since stopped having any connection to the sale of those games, and anybody bringing in money for them at that point is just managing a brand.

[roboninja]

The close tying of morality to (current) law seen here is not necessarily surprising, but I do find it disappointing. Maybe I am an anarchist at heart, but my personal morality has little to nothing to do with current law. Of course, in many instances they intersect; that is to be expected. But I never have the view that the reason I feel something is "wrong" is because it is illegal. Such thinking can lead to many dangerous places.

[J Arcane]

If a game is offered as freeware by its owners then there's no problem. I wish more companies would do this kind of thing and I agree that it's a worthy thing to do.

However, I believe that just because something isn't offered for sale at any particular time or place doesn't automatically mean that you can take it for free. This goes back to J Arcane's orginal point where he believes he is perfectly justified in pirating anime movies because they're not being sold in his region; to me that's wrong (but I wouldn't care about him doing it because my morality is my own, even if I care to share it on a forum!).

Dude, could you at least read the fucking thread? Nowhere did I say anything about anime. People need money to survive in this world. Sure, people may live for their work and have altruistic intent but altruistic intent doesn't keep the wolves from the door. This is about video games (old videogames, but videogames nonetheless) and I don't know any of those that were ever sold for the greater good of mankind. ;)

So you've never seen a freeware game? Never played one game that got released for free on the internet, no NetHack, no Dwarf Fortress, no old game that the author released to public domain or free ware, nothing?

[DangerousDaze]

Dude, could you at least read the fucking thread? Nowhere did I say anything about anime.
I do apologise. I was confusing you with someone else.

So you've never seen a freeware game? Never played one game that got released for free on the internet, no NetHack, no Dwarf Fortress, no old game that the author released to public domain or free ware, nothing?

I was referring to games that were offered for sale. I could hardly accuse someone of releasing a game for free as being commercially motivated.

[menage]

That would be me:D

Sidenote.

As someone who ''designs' things myself I would find it pretty fucked if my work got lost because the moneyhats are siting on the license.

[Generation ABXY]

As someone who ''designs' things myself I would find it pretty fucked if my work got lost because the moneyhats are siting on the license.

It may be fucked up, but there's not much anyone can do if they've sold the work. I mean, if I hired Michelangelo to do a sculpture, I'd be well within my rights to smash it to dust afterwards.