Is emulating retro games a sin?

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

The NES super mario games are widely available both on ebay and under official remakes. If you owned an original copy or remake then there’s nothing wrong with using an emulation. If you didn’t and you want to do the morally correct thing then you should buy a copy, I’m sure they are in the Wii store.

 

[exnihilo]

You can make ideas property legally, but that still doesn’t make it ‘stealing’ if you ‘take’ it. Again, you aren’t depriving anyone of his property. If you steal a sheet of music you are stealing. If you use the musical arrangement contained in the music you are not. The owner of the sheet of music suffers no loss.

The fundamental consideration is that physical goods are by nature limited. That is why we can have ownership in them. If they were unlimited then ownership would be irrelevant. Ideas are not by nature limited. My having an idea doesn’t subtract from some pool of ideas.

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

You can’t own an idea, this is a common misconception of intellectual property right law. You own manifestations of ideas (e.g. designs, likeness, colour patterns). Nintendo own super mario, they don’t own the idea of a fat plumber waddling from the left hand side of the screen to the right.

 

[ChunkMonk]

Well that depends on a rather limited (and arbitrary) definition of ‘stealing’. Take writing for example. A common practice among writers is to use alpha and beta readers; basically people who read an unfinished story as its being written and critique it.

If an alpha reader takes the story he is reading, publishes it under his own name, and sells books containing that story, most people would say that he has stolen the idea. He has deprived the person of their rightful claim as author, and also by selling it he is depriving them of their rightful wages as the true author.

If we argue semantics, we could theoretically claim that ‘stealing’ is not the moral crime being committed here, but regardless, it is a moral crime. And I think that would be a very weak argument, because the definitions of words are somewhat determined by the common usage, and common usage would support the description of ‘stealing’ in describing the aforementioned case.

The same with the word ‘property’. One could argue, semantically, that ‘property’ should only be defined as physical goods. That would be a weak argument. One, semantics arguments are notoriously weak anyway, and two, common usage and even legal standards would argue against such limited usage.

Ideas are not limited, but a single idea is limited. If I take credit for the invention (or discovery) of a particular idea, I have excluded all others from being the inventors (or discoverers) of that idea. This is obviously limited by practical considerations. I can name my marketable band ‘The Beatles’ because 'beatles" is a common word with common usage that long predates the famous 60s group. I cannot name my marketable band ‘Metallica’ because that is a made-up word and it’s usage is historically exclusive to that single context.

There are also uses of parody that would go into this. Those would provide cover for someone like Wierd Al Yankovich who replicates precise musical arrangements, but does so under the obvious use of parody.

 

[CoffeeAndDonuts]

I think it’s more that it’s a creative sin to keep milking the same game over and over again for money. Super Mario Brothers came out over thirty years ago, and it’s just lazy for Nintendo to keep selling the same game over and over and over and over on different platforms.

 

[exnihilo]

You can’t own an idea, this is a common misconception of intellectual property right law. You own manifestations of ideas (e.g. designs, likeness, colour patterns). Nintendo own super mario, they don’t own the idea of a fat plumber waddling from the left hand side of the screen to the right.

I would still call those ideas since they are not a particular physical object.

Well that depends on a rather limited (and arbitrary) definition of ‘stealing’

Well what is stealing?

The same with the word ‘property’. One could argue, semantically, that ‘property’ should only be defined as physical goods.

We have physical and immaterial things. You are saying we can own immaterial things. That would be ideas and spirits. I’d assume you exclude spirits. Why should we be able to own ideas? Why does ownership of ideas expire if it is like property? Why aren’t things like the alphabet and punctuation marks owned if ownership of ideas is some fundamental right?

If I take credit for the invention (or discovery) of a particular idea, I have excluded all others from being the inventors (or discoverers) of that idea

Hardly. In fact in the history of many ideas they were discovered independently by multiple people. Often this was around the same time. The only thing you can do with an idea is prevent someone else from discovering it if you first inform him of that same idea.

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

You can argue semantics all you want but i am telling you that if you went to an IPR lawyer and said “someone stole my idea” then you would be laughed at. It’s not really a subject where people get to make their own mind up about it, there’s a lot of case law that makes this a very black and white issue.

 

[exnihilo]

Lawyers aren’t philosophers. If something is immaterial then what is it?

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

As i said, by all means keep calling it an idea and just hope you never try and register a piece of IPR. The question is about theft which has very clear definitions in law, we don’t need a word salad debate to answer it.

 

[ChunkMonk]

Why should we be able to own ideas?

Because the publication of ideas can lead to material and immaterial benefits.

Why does ownership of ideas expire if it is like property?

Honestly? Because practical considerations outweigh the potential moral wrong. Otherwise we would have to track down the heirs to Cervantes if we wanted to print Don Quixote.

Why aren’t things like the alphabet and punctuation marks owned if ownership of ideas is some fundamental right?

You would have a hard time tracking down the original inventors of those ideas. Anyway, you can hopefully see the difference between a specific story like Harry Potter and the alphabet.

In fact in the history of many ideas they were discovered independently by multiple people.

Is it likely that someone independently came up with the entire series of Harry Potter, word for word, without having any prior knowledge of the books?

It is a fallacy to take an argument to absurd lengths and use those absurd lengths to say the entire argiment is invalid.

 

[ChunkMonk]

said “someone stole my idea” then you would be laughed at.

If you have documentation proving the theft of coprywritten material then you will in all likelihood have your case taken up.

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

Because they stole the material. I repeat, you cannot steal an idea!!!

 

[exnihilo]

Because the publication of ideas can lead to material and immaterial benefits.

If that is all it takes then we could justify owning all sorts of things, including people.

Honestly? Because practical considerations outweigh the potential moral wrong. Otherwise we would have to track down the heirs to Cervantes if we wanted to print Don Quixote.

It is impractical because ideas don’t concern limited things. If it is a moral thing to own ideas then we should try to rightfully compensate owners not say it is too hard to do.

You would have a hard time tracking down the original inventors of those ideas. Anyway, you can hopefully see the difference between a specific story like Harry Potter and the alphabet.

We could auction off unowned ideas and keep track of the owners going forward.

Is it likely that someone independently came up with the entire series of Harry Potter, word for word, without having any prior knowledge of the books?

No, but for medical, industrial and other technologies sometimes near simultaneous discovery has occurred.

 

[exnihilo]

you cannot steal an idea

I agree, but that is what IP is all about. If you aren’t stealing an idea what are you stealing?

 

[ChunkMonk]

Well that’s just semantics. It might be applicable in the court of law to distinguish between the idea of Harry Potter and the production of propagation of that idea.

If JK Rowling had emailed me a copy of Harry Potter before she publsihed and then I had published it as my own, she would have had the legal right (in the USA at least) to sue me. And most people would have described my action as ‘stealing’.

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

In the case being discussed you are stealing the code amongst other things.

 

[ChunkMonk]

If that is all it takes then we could justify owning all sorts of things, including people.

That’s merely another argument of absurdity. I can do the same:

You claim there should be property rights concerning physical goods. Well then you had better track down the real owners of the ancient pottery found in archeological digs.

Of course that is absurd and impractical. Humans aren’t mindless robots. We can use practical considerations to determine what is a prudential application and what is an absurd application of the law.

We could auction off unowned ideas and keep track of the owners going forward.

Only an owner can auction off property, so whom do we determine to be the proper authority that can auction off the alphabet? One can ‘auction’ off the Belt of Orion all one wants, but as one is not the owner, said auction carries no moral weight.

 

[Laura_N]

No, you can only steal physical things. Stealing is depriving someone of his use of his property. You can’t deprive the use of something digital (we’ll actually you can, that is what the media companies try to do to us).

The taking of potential revenue argument isn’t a good one. That means then anytime you turn down someone for work you are stealing from him.

No, it would be stealing if I had them do the work and then didn’t pay them, since I still received the service, which is basically what pirate software is doing. You’re still using something, but not paying for it.

 

[pnewton]

The question is whether he may obtain a copy of a work that its producer copyrighted so that the producer could be compensated.

The question is whether it is a sin, or more precisely, when it is a sin. There are many here that are absolutely convinced it is always a sin under all conditions. However, the Church does not say this. A thousand opinions do not equal one doctrine. While the Church does have doctrine on the right to actual physical property, and expands this to intellectual property, we must remember that even physical property rights have limitations. For example, the universal destination of goods and the limitation on rights to abandoned property all limit property rights. If we are to treat intellectual property like physical property, we must also weigh the limitations.

Now you may not agree with me. However, I would be slow to try and hold my conscience, or yours, as the gold Catholic standard above and beyond what the Church does. Somethings we have to work through for ourselves based on the totality of the issue, which is why again, I suggest, if it is an issue, consult your priest.

 

[pnewton]

Because they stole the material. I repeat, you cannot steal an idea!!!

We shouldn’t be tied up in the semantics of whether or not it is stealing. That is just an argument based on the term. We even have this in law as “theft of service.” If you want to use a difference term, it would make it no more or less sinful. The Bible refers to it as denying a worker his wage. Either way, it can be sinful.