Is emulating retro games a sin?

[Arwing]

I would say so. It’s receiving the benefit of something without giving due payment for it. If the game is no longer being distributed officially by the publisher, pirating it is still against the law even if it is not harming the owner.

The mainstream Nintendo games, such as the Super Mario Bros for the nes and Pokemon games for the gameboy.

If you want to play these games in particular, you have a few options such as buying physical copies (and the systems to run them) from retro game stores or online resellers and buying them on the Nintendo eShop (3DS has all the main Pokémon games on the Game Boy, as well as the original Super Mario Bros. If you have a Wii or a Wii U, Mario should be on there and it is also included in the NES Classic Edition which is supposedly getting a restock next year.).

If a game you’re looking for is not available as an affordable download and you’re not willing to pay whatever it’s going for online, my suggestion would be to simply skip the game.

 

[pnewton]

If the game is no longer being distributed officially by the publisher, pirating it is still against the law even if it is not harming the owner.

One thing I have found is that this varies with country. There are some countries that are addressing this issue quicker than the United States. Even in the U.S., we need to make it clear that fair use is not piracy, if one had already paid for the program. I would bet that most retro gaming is done by those who have already purchased a program legitimately but the hardware has become damaged or obsolete.

 

[somethingtodo]

If you owned an original copy or remake then there’s nothing wrong with using an emulation.

By this logic, would it be unwise to buy used copies of the games, just so I have the right to legally play them in an emulator, considering I have acquired a legitimate copy?

 

[Arkansan]

It’s noteworthy that copyright violations are not considered theft legally. It’s a separate law. That should tell you something.

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

Indeed it would be wise

 

[Arkansan]

exnihilo:

I’m not sure it is just to be able to own ideas, which is the foundation of copyright law. The injustice of the law is also in the fact the state only enforces penalties against the common man and not against the corporations who violate the law by making false copyright claims.

It’s not a question of ownership. It’s a question of the right of the state to regulate commercial activity.

Filing false claims is woefully under-prosecuted, but is a separate aspect of the law. In any case, corporations are frequently the targets of copyright lawsuits by other corporations. Most IP litigation is inter-corporate, not between corporations and random individuals.

 

[Arkansan]

If you go through the work of developing a product, you also ought to retain the right to refrain from distributing it.

That’s simple. If you don’t want to publicize a work, don’t. If I make information publicly available, I can hardly blame others for spreading it.

 

[Arkansan]

The Bible refers to it as denying a worker his wage. Either way, it can be sinful.

Those who enter a contract with a worker and defraud him commit injustice. But if someone decides to do work without my even knowing about, I’m not obliged in principle to compensate him, should his work later benefit me.

 

[PetraG]

A computer program isn’t “information.” No one here is suggesting the OP couldn’t imitate the product and make up a similar game of his own. A body of work was performed to develop a game program, not merely an “idea,” and everyone here appreciates that. The work was done in order to make a profit. It is impossible to make a profit on the work of developing a game program without publicity, so it is preposterous to say that publicity is license to take the product without paying. It is true with a book or a piece of literature, too, but in this case it is even more obvious that a “word-for-word” copy, so to speak, is necessary to get the value of the thing.

If the makers let the product’s copyright lapse, that shows they do not care who uses the product. If they’ve done that, then it is clearly fine to copy or use the product without seeking them out to compensate them.

 

[PetraG]

Does the work not have a copyright statement on it?

If he’s merely using a copy that someone else paid for, that is OK. That is allowed under the terms of sale. If he is copying something that the product clearly says cannot be copied without the owner’s permission and the law supports the producer’s right to make that rule, then he ought to pay for the product.

 

[pnewton]

Those who enter a contract with a worker and defraud him commit injustice.

Then make up your own word for such infringement. I was using another analogy. Re-defining terms, or using other ones, is not really relative to the problem. People here are using theft with cause. First, the term is used in law, as in “theft of service.” Second, it is included under the section on Seventh Commandment. If you prefer a more precise term, that is your prerogative, but the term does not define the moral principle.

 

[pnewton]

The following are also morally illicit: speculation in which one contrives to manipulate the price of goods artificially in order to gain an advantage to the detriment of others; corruption in which one influences the judgment of those who must make decisions according to law; appropriation and use for private purposes of the common goods of an enterprise; work poorly done; tax evasion; forgery of checks and invoices; excessive expenses and waste.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P8B.HTM

On the other hand, I found this:

Intellectual Property Rights. We are also concerned about intellectual property rights provisions with> regard to pharmaceuticals. The Church locates intellectual property rights within the broader framework> of the common good and believes these rights should be balanced with the needs of the poor.

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...l-issues/trade/upload/USTR-letter-7-19-13.pdf

I am just noting that there is a balance the Church recognizes that would not be agreed upon by most major corporations.

By the way, this is a most interesting topic and one that is kind of the edge of current ethics. I am pleased so many consider it worth weighing. We should always strive to do right by our fellow man.

 

[exnihilo]

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.

But you didn’t have them do the work. You didn’t contract to have them work. It would be theft of service if you had them work and didn’t pay them.

 

[Arkansan]

I was trying to make an analogy, although I didn’t explain it well.

I have a right to keep my private information private. Yet that doesn’t mean that I can publish it and restrict who it can be spread to. Likewise, the fact that authors and inventors have a right to not publish their work doesn’t automatically give them a right to stop publication once they’ve done it.

 

[Arkansan]

The point wasn’t semantic at all. Employees have a right to be paid by their employer, because he has agreed to an exchange of money for their labor (and of course, as with all contracts, he is bound to pay a fair price). Doing labor, on one’s own volition, doesn’t grant a person the right to be compensated by the universe.

 

[pnewton]

Doing labor, on one’s own volition, doesn’t grant a person the right to be compensated by the universe.

No one said anything about compensation by the universe, only those who make use that labor. If you are trying to say that there is no sin in any sort of violation of intellectual rights, then that is not Catholic teaching.

 

[Arkansan]

Given that positive law restricts the right to copy a copyrighted work to the holder of the copyright, it would at minimum be sinful to cause notable economic damage to the holder of the copyright by violating it (e.g. by making illegal copies publicly available). I’m uncertain as to whether individual violation is morally wrong. I explained this in my first post in the thread.

In any case, what i said holds true. The simple fact that someone did work of their own volition, and another person at a later date benefited in some way from that work, does not create a labor contract between them. To use an obvious example, if I come over to your house and mow your yard, without your knowledge, I have no natural right to payment from you. This remains true even if you voluntarily benefited from my work later (e.g. by selling the house at a higher price than you would have been able to obtain otherwise).