John Stamos Mullet Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Sorry, theft is theft. It may be socially acceptable theft, but it's still theft. I'm just as guilty of it as everyone else, but at the end of the day it's not legal no matter how you want to try and phrase the argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_me Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 (edited) Just because pirates find loopholes, or crack copy protection, doesn't make it ok to pirate software. They are violating the software's stated TOS at time of purchase. Again, it's unreasonable to you, because you want extra free copies of something you're not actually entitled to. That doesn't make it legal, or ethical. Convenience is not a justification for theft. Earlier you were complaining that copy protection causes software to be lost forever because we can't make copies. Now you're saying it doesn't work so they shouldn't bother. Honestly, I'm having a hard time understanding your point here. The point is clear. Copy protection prevents people from making backup copies that they were legally permitted to do. The original copy fails and you can't use your software. Manufacturer's realised that copy protection didn't stop people from copying and they stopped the practice. Further, you also have the legal right to modify a copy of software you own to suit your needs. I could jump up on a soapbox here and be really insulting and throttle this answer for a number of reasons, but let me be level headed about it: Those technically inept suits run companies in industries that employ hundreds of thousands of people, who become jobless, and in some cases homeless, when they lose their employment due to piracy. People claim software piracy is a victimless crime. It's not. Real people lose their jobs, their income, their entire life's work due to rampant piracy. So those "suits" are merely protecting their business, and by extension, their employees. How many jobs were lost due to piracy? In the 1980s they were hiring high school kids that could code because there were so few programmers available. In the 1990s contract programmers were making $50 to $95 an hour because they were in such high demand. Sorry, theft is theft. It may be socially acceptable theft, but it's still theft. I'm just as guilty of it as everyone else, but at the end of the day it's not legal no matter how you want to try and phrase the argument. Having an unauthorised rom file is not illegal in all cases. And in more cases it's not criminal. Edited August 16, 2018 by mr_me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempest Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Having an unauthorised rom file is not illegal in all cases. And in more cases it's not criminal. Keep telling yourself that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlegamer Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Now that Mickey Mouse is set to rightfully enter the public domain, it's time to revisit the current unconstitutional copyright "law." Game programs for depreciated platforms 20+ years old should be in the public domain. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Stamos Mullet Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Now that Mickey Mouse is set to rightfully enter the public domain, it's time to revisit the current unconstitutional copyright "law." Game programs for depreciated platforms 20+ years old should be in the public domain. Stating personal opinions phased as facts does not make them facts. There is nothing unconstitutional about copyright law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlegamer Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Stating personal opinions phased as facts does not make them facts. There is nothing unconstitutional about copyright law. Current copyright law is unconstitutional. It makes a mockery of the phrase "for limited times" The purpose of the copyright clause of the Constitution is to ensure a steady flow of innovations in the arts and sciences into the public domain. Article I Section 8. Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempest Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Current copyright law is unconstitutional. It makes a mockery of the phrase "for limited times" The purpose of the copyright clause of the Constitution is to ensure a steady flow of innovations in the arts and sciences into the public domain. Article I Section 8. Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” I don't disagree, but until the courts rule it is unconstitutional it's the law of the land like it or not. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Stamos Mullet Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Current copyright law is unconstitutional. It makes a mockery of the phrase "for limited times" The purpose of the copyright clause of the Constitution is to ensure a steady flow of innovations in the arts and sciences into the public domain. Article I Section 8. Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” How is The current term a mockery? It provides for the copyright to be enforceable for the life of it's author plus a term no longer than 120 years. Who are you to say you're more worthy of appropriating the use someone else's work while they're still alive, or while their work is still commercially relevant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Stamos Mullet Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 I don't disagree, but until the courts rule it is unconstitutional it's the law of the land like it or not. And until they do - any interpretation that it is unfair is a matter of personal opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempest Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 And until they do - any interpretation that it is unfair is a matter of personal opinion. Not disagreeing with that either. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMenard Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Sorry, theft is theft. It may be socially acceptable theft, but it's still theft. I'm just as guilty of it as everyone else, but at the end of the day it's not legal no matter how you want to try and phrase the argument. Again, it depends on the jurisdiction. Theft is a criminal offense pretty much everywhere, copyright infringement isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMenard Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Keep telling yourself that. Again, that isn't true everywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Stamos Mullet Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Again, it depends on the jurisdiction. Theft is a criminal offense pretty much everywhere, copyright infringement isn't. Whether it is enforceable by criminal or civil penalties, it is illegal in all jurisdictions. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxpressed Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Only a few more posts to read, and I will earn my Atari Age associates degree in paralegal studies! 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMenard Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Whether it is enforceable by criminal or civil penalties, it is illegal in all jurisdictions. Again, no it isn't. I already explain how it works where I live. The government instituted a tax to compensate media creators for the "loss" of revenue. But unless you are selling/distributing the copies that you are making for yourself then, no it isn't illegal here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Stamos Mullet Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Only a few more posts to read, and I will earn my Atari Age associates degree in paralegal studies! But that doesn't apply to people living in the uncontacted tribes of the Amazonian Rainforest, and certain parts of the Democratic Republic of the Congo! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMenard Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 But that doesn't apply to people living in the uncontacted tribes of the Amazonian Rainforest, and certain parts of the Democratic Republic of the Congo! Canada is in the rain forest? Now you're really trolling... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_me Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Keep telling yourself that. If the usage falls under fair dealings limitation exemption or fair use limitation under copyright law it becomes legal. In other cases and in the US the rom files would have to total more than $1000 to be a misdemeanor. What's a 35 year old rom file worth? A thousand dollars worth is a lot of rom files. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Stamos Mullet Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 If the usage falls under fair dealings limitation exemption or fair use limitation under copyright law it becomes legal. In other cases and in the US the rom files would have to total more than $1000 to be a misdemeanor. What's a 35 year old rom file worth? A thousand dollars worth is a lot of rom files. The $1000 worth is not calculated on the cost of a single game to purchase at retail, but at the potential gains one would make by redistributing it. Same as the DCMA cases against music pirates who were sued for sharing those MP3s with thousands of other users on Torrents and Limewire. In some cases, the worth of those redistributions would number in the millions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icemanxp300 Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 LMAO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Stamos Mullet Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Again, no it isn't. I already explain how it works where I live. The government instituted a tax to compensate media creators for the "loss" of revenue. But unless you are selling/distributing the copies that you are making for yourself then, no it isn't illegal here. psst... I have some bad news for you. Your loose interpretation of Canadian copyright law does not pertain to software. Only Music. While the unauthorized copying - uploading - of complete copyrighted works such as books, movies, or software is illegal under the Act, the situation regarding music files is more complex, due to the Private Copying exemption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing_in_Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_me Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 The $1000 worth is not calculated on the cost of a single game to purchase at retail, but at the potential gains one would make by redistributing it. Same as the DCMA cases against music pirates who were sued for sharing those MP3s with thousands of other users on Torrents and Limewire. In some cases, the worth of those redistributions would number in the millions.No It's not. We are talking about having an unauthorised copy not distributing multiple copies. You are talking about damages owed from distribution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMenard Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 (edited) I'll let John play by himself. It's way more important for his ego than it's for me to waste my time arguing with him. Have a nice life. Edited August 16, 2018 by AMenard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Stamos Mullet Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 No It's not. We are talking about having an unauthorised copy not distributing multiple copies. You are talking about damages owed from distribution. You're just making up fake numbers off the top of your head and posting them here as fact. Please cite your sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempest Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Again, no it isn't. I already explain how it works where I live. The government instituted a tax to compensate media creators for the "loss" of revenue. But unless you are selling/distributing the copies that you are making for yourself then, no it isn't illegal here. I'm only speaking for the United States, I have no idea about copyright law in other countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.