If software is no longer produced....

[BluePriest]

Heres an interesting take i saw while reading a gamefaqs board about the game earthbound.

To put in context, this guy argues taht if you want to play it, you can find roms for it, then another guy said that some people actually liek to follow the laws. The guy saying to find a rom then said....

Earthbound was released in 1995. We'll be generous and say they kept making the game until the N64 came out. That was 1997 for Australia who got it last.

Since then they have refused to give Mother 3 to the U.S. and have refused to allow it to be bought in any other fashion in the U.S. 15 years, going on 16, without a single word on it despite having plenty of opportunities to do so.

Now they are still fighting it under miniscule notions which signifies that they still do not want it here.

Using this info, it is very clear they have made all the profit they wanted to off it here in the U.S. The creator of the series himself has said he is done with it and anyone who wants to make another in the series is welcome to. Hence, the fan made Mother 4 was born.

tldr the game is no longer in production, and is off all shelfs of stores except collector stores, so its perfectly fine to use a pirated copy of it.

Thoughts?

Honestly, even from a moral perspective I can see what he is saying. The game is not being sold anywhere anymore, and it wont ever again in the US. Should pirating software that is no longer for sale (aside from newer versions ofc) be legal to pirate?

[Drake_XIV]

As long as it means we get a new Mother, I'm [almost] all for it.

[Naesala]

It feels bad, but if the games are no longer being sold and are considered collectors items, I see no reason why roms shouldnt be allowed. Thats why I'm okay with using GBA roms, but not DS roms.

[OldTrees]

We teach children not to play with guns. A gun could be loaded or unloaded, have the safety on or off for all the child would know. Nothing bad happens if the gun is left alone. Something bad could happen if the gun is played with.

Nothing bad happens if piracy does not occur. Piracy might be bad. Like with a gun, there is value in being cautious.

Background: I tend to follow a rights and duty based ethic.

I see no reason the desire not to provide (unlike the desire not to forbid) would be morally relevant to whether piracy were morally permissible or impermissible.

[Belthus]

I have no problem with using unauthorized copies of any media if they are no longer for sale. The main justification for copyright and other intellectual property laws is to encourage creative activity. People are more likely to write, program, record music, etc., when they can make money on it. The most popular creative people can earn a living doing it. If these things are taken out of the equation for a particular game/book/song/etc., then the case for using the heavy hand of government to enforce IP becomes much weaker in that instance.

[ddevans96]

It feels bad, but if the games are no longer being sold and are considered collectors items, I see no reason why roms shouldnt be allowed. Thats why I'm okay with using GBA roms, but not DS roms.

I have no problem with using unauthorized copies of any media if they are no longer for sale. The main justification for copyright and other intellectual property laws is to encourage creative activity. People are more likely to write, program, record music, etc., when they can make money on it. The most popular creative people can earn a living doing it. If these things are taken out of the equation for a particular game/book/song/etc., then the case for using the heavy hand of government to enforce IP becomes much weaker in that instance.

Basically these.

It's very difficult for me to take this out of the context of the Mother series, which is very dear to me, but in general, piracy should not be considered quite as bad when a game is not being produced or has not been produced in a way that makes it easy to get.


In the case of Mother 3, the fan translation brought it to people who could not find a copy of the game, which has greatly increased it's popularity. I guarantee some of these people, myself included, would pay all the money they own and then some for a legit copy of the game.

(NOTE: I do not generally support using ROMs and emulators, but in the case of Mother 3, considering Nintendo's lack of attentiveness to bring the game to English audiences, I found it warranted. Please use your own discretion.)

As long as it means we get a new Mother, I'm [almost] all for it.

Google the Mother 4 fan game if you haven't already. Progress is very slow but it is happening. Use Twitter if you have one for possible updates.

[Naesala]

Along the same lines as the Mother series (which I haven't played yet >.>) is the Fire emblem series. The first game in america, FE7, is the prequel to FE6, which has not made it to American shores. So the only way I can understand the full story is to play a fan made english translation. I could read a synopsis I suppose, but that's not nearly as fulfilling

[YoungSot]

The whole concept of "intellectual property" doesn't make sense to me. I don't think people can own ideas, and if I have an idea and you make use of that same idea, that's not stealing, that's learning. Digital "piracy" may be illegal but I don't think it is inherently immoral.

So my answer would be yes.

[OldTrees]

The whole concept of "intellectual property" doesn't make sense to me. I don't think people can own ideas, and if I have an idea and you make use of that same idea, that's not stealing, that's learning. Digital "piracy" may be illegal but I don't think it is inherently immoral.

So my answer would be yes.

Do you feel that people have the right to select who can or cannot use the product of their labor in the form of the service of innovation? (Note this is much softer than most current forms of "intellectual property". For example it allows others to use the idea provided they also come up with the idea.)

[YoungSot]

The whole concept of "intellectual property" doesn't make sense to me. I don't think people can own ideas, and if I have an idea and you make use of that same idea, that's not stealing, that's learning. Digital "piracy" may be illegal but I don't think it is inherently immoral.

So my answer would be yes.

Do you feel that people have the right to select who can or cannot use the product of their labor in the form of the service of innovation? (Note this is much softer than most current forms of "intellectual property". For example it allows others to use the idea provided they also come up with the idea.)

That would certainly be an improvement, but no I do not believe that is a right. Patents and other forms of IP are the government creating an artificial monopoly, as a way of subsidizing innovation. I do not believe it is the government's place to subsidize any part of our economy like that, and I certainly don't want them to do so by limiting competition, which is the very thing which makes a free market work. Humanity would still innovate without IP laws, and in fact a sufficiently free market requires constant innovation in order to stay one step ahead of your competitors, and those innovations would reach the market much more quickly and cheaply.

[OldTrees]

The whole concept of "intellectual property" doesn't make sense to me. I don't think people can own ideas, and if I have an idea and you make use of that same idea, that's not stealing, that's learning. Digital "piracy" may be illegal but I don't think it is inherently immoral.

So my answer would be yes.

Do you feel that people have the right to select who can or cannot use the product of their labor in the form of the service of innovation? (Note this is much softer than most current forms of "intellectual property". For example it allows others to use the idea provided they also come up with the idea.)

That would certainly be an improvement, but no I do not believe that is a right.

If you can, would you expand on this. I am interested in seeing your perspective on innovators.

Patents and other forms of IP are the government creating an artificial monopoly, as a way of subsidizing innovation. I do not believe it is the government's place to subsidize any part of our economy like that, and I certainly don't want them to do so by limiting competition, which is the very thing which makes a free market work. Humanity would still innovate without IP laws, and in fact a sufficiently free market requires constant innovation in order to stay one step ahead of your competitors, and those innovations would reach the market much more quickly and cheaply.

I agree with all of this for multiple reasons. The primary reason is that the artificial monopolies are a restriction on independent innovation.

[YoungSot]

Do you feel that people have the right to select who can or cannot use the product of their labor in the form of the service of innovation? (Note this is much softer than most current forms of "intellectual property". For example it allows others to use the idea provided they also come up with the idea.)

That would certainly be an improvement, but no I do not believe that is a right.

If you can, would you expand on this. I am interested in seeing your perspective on innovators.

I do not consider it a right, because rights exist to protect our basic freedoms from other humans. They do not guarantee happiness, health, or wealth; they attempt to guarantee simply that whatever happiness, health and wealth you have will not be taken from you by force. If caveman-you invents fire, and caveman-me sees it and manages to replicate the feat, you have not become less wealthy or healthy or happy.

On a more "practical" note regarding innovators:
As you get closer and closer to a free market type economy, barriers to entry are lowered and competition gets fiercer. No business is too big to fail, and any company must be constantly proving it's worth to remain in the marketplace. In such conditions, innovation is in high demand as a means to gain an edge on the competition, and anyone who can meet that demand will reap the rewards. No government intervention is necessary to make innovation valuable.