The touchy subject of...roms

If people start arguing that it's immoral not to pirate, I'm pulling out of here faster than a farmer on fire.

Being poor is not an excuse to pirate. It doesn't matter whether or not it has an "impact" on the industry-- the idea is that if you want something like that, you pay for it. Just because you lack money to pay for it does not mean you should get it anyway.

Originally Posted by Tonchiki

If people start arguing that it's immoral not to pirate, I'm pulling out of here faster than a farmer on fire.

Being poor is not an excuse to pirate. It doesn't matter whether or not it has an "impact" on the industry-- the idea is that if you want something like that, you pay for it. Just because you lack money to pay for it does not mean you should get it anyway.

And thus, you're helping to create the false scarcity I described earlier. Why is it that you wish to rob someone of pleasure and culture even if their enjoyment has no negative effect, and, in fact, has a positive effect on the industry? It's a heartless dichotomy- you advocate robbing another at no benefit.

Originally Posted by 8bit

And thus, you're helping to create the false scarcity I described earlier. Why is it that you wish to rob someone of pleasure and culture even if their enjoyment has no negative effect, and, in fact, has a positive effect on the industry?

Forget about the damn industry-- it's the principle of the thing. Why should some people pay to get this thing, when others get it for free for no reason? The only way out is to make everything free. See that happening? Neither do I.

It's a heartless dichotomy- you advocate robbing another at no benefit.

Excuse me?

He's basically saying that it has no negative effect on anyone, and it has people who can't afford the game playing it (therefore increasing exposure.) There's no point in stopping it.

Of course then there are people who can afford the games, but just pirate it anyway. That's a different story though.

I'm not stating my stance here, just trying to clarify a little.

Originally Posted by Tonchiki

Forget about the damn industry-- it's the principle of the thing. Why should some people pay to get this thing, when others get it for free for no reason? The only way out is to make everything free. See that happening?

Yes, that would be the end goal.

Regardless, why do you care so much about the principal, if the principal contradicts reality?

Excuse me?

You're supporting a heartless dynamic, robing others at no gain, at no benefit to yourself, but at the benefit of those who's single goal is to lower the overall quality of life.

Originally Posted by GK: 5895/9999

He's basically saying that it has no negative effect on anyone, and it has people who can't afford the game playing it (therefore increasing exposure.) There's no point in stopping it.

Of course then there are people who can afford the games, but just pirate it anyway. That's a different story though.

I'm not stating my stance here, just trying to clarify a little.

And those who can afford the game will likely spend their disposable income elsewhere, on something they would have bought otherwise- however, in our current economic and cultural structure, it's more likely that we'll pass up or pirate music, and purchase the game- thus the gaming industry is booming, and the music industry is losing sales.

Originally Posted by GK: 5895/9999

He's basically saying that it has no negative effect on anyone, and it has people who can't afford the game playing it (therefore increasing exposure.) There's no point in stopping it.

Of course then there are people who can afford the games, but just pirate it anyway. That's a different story though.

I'm not stating my stance here, just trying to clarify a little.

But these aren't exactly life-saving items here, so why should people who can't pay for it get it? It completely defies the point of even having a price on it.
Granted, people sometimes rip off welfare and all that too.

Originally Posted by 8bit

Yes, that would be the end goal.

Regardless, why do you care so much about the principal, if the principal contradicts reality?

Because... ****ing... I can't even find a way to explain this, because I'm shocked I even need to be saying this.

Why on Earth would there even exist prices for these things (or ANYTHING) if people should just be able to have them if they don't have the money for them? We're talking games here, not life-saving things. These things could be viewed as privileges, not rights. If someone makes a game and wants to make money from it, what right do people have to procure their own illegal copy and not pay for it, while still getting the full enjoyment out of it?

You're supporting a heartless dynamic, robing others at no gain, at no benefit to yourself, but at the benefit of those who's single goal is to lower the overall quality of life.

Right, so by paying for my entertainment I am directly supporting the MPAA and RIAA. Okay.

You know what I think might work is if people open their eyes and actually realize that these things are making things worse, and get rid of them.

But that's not going to happen now, is it?

I pay for my goods these days, that way i support the people behind the production of the product and to allow them to create more products and to make a living.

By pirating such goods like games, cd's, dvd's/blu-rays. You don't support the real artists/developers but you support the people who made these counterfeit products, which 1/2 the time involves fueling the drug industry.

Originally Posted by Tonchiki

Because... ****ing... I can't even find a way to explain this, because I'm shocked I even need to be saying this.

Why on Earth would there even exist prices for these things (or ANYTHING) if people should just be able to have them if they don't have the money for them?

Indeed, why should capital exist at all if the false scarcity of resources really is false, and the moralities and immoralities you've known do not apply to reality?

We're talking games here, not life-saving things. These things could be viewed as privileges, not rights. If someone makes a game and wants to make money from it, what right do people have to procure their own illegal copy and not pay for it, while still getting the full enjoyment out of it?

Let's ignore the legality of it for a second- For a file to be shared, it must first be aquired, and in order to aquire a product such as the one you describe, you must pay full price for it.

So what right do you have, as the owner of the means of production, to dictate the rights of the owner of the product?

Obviously you have that right when it comes to the pure legality of the matter, but what of a logical or moral standard? From a moral point of view it doesn't seem like you should be able to impose your will on a product which you've already sold off- it's the 'have a cake and eat it too' situation. From a logical perspective, if it is ultimately beneficial there is no reason to oppose it.

Right, so by paying for my entertainment I am directly supporting the MPAA and RIAA. Okay.

Yes, your capital is going directly to the corporations which make up the MPAA and the RIAA. You're funding them.

You know what I think might work is if people open their eyes and actually realize that these things are making things worse, and get rid of them.

But that's not going to happen now, is it?

What things? Piracy, or the media cartels?

Originally Posted by Jimes

By pirating such goods like games, cd's, dvd's/blu-rays. You don't support the real artists/developers but you support the people who made these counterfeit products, which 1/2 the time involves fueling the drug industry.

Propaganda.

Piracy; Internet piracy, the kind that the media cartels actually feels threatened by, is carried out communally- by people like you and me who have no profit to gain off of piracy, and, in fact, give their pirated materials away for free, as selling them would be a disservice.

Originally Posted by 8bit

It is absolutely an excuse. If you lack the disposable funds to purchase the product in the first place your piracy isn't making any impact whatsoever, so by preventing the individual in question from pirating you are creating a false scarcity of resources (content) and a dynamic which is either detrimental or ineffectual to any person involved- unless, of course, your goal in creating this dynamic is to prevent the individual from discovering content which you have not created; in which case, you're a dick.

You aren't creating a false scarcity, you're reducing demand.

Interestingly, reducing demand, unlike creating a false scarcity, lowers prices.

Further, no one has any right to this content. That's the point, really. To insist that you should be able to get it for free because it costs too much means that no one should pay for anything, because everything costs more than it could.

The problem there is that, regardless of the feasibility of communism, we are not currently set up to operate in a communist society, and trying to convert to one by forced lowering of prices will not end well.

In many cases it is immoral, in my eyes, not to pirate. The media trusts, the MPAA, but to a much larger extent, the RIAA exist simply as cartels- they do not make the product in question, however, they profit more from the product than the creators. They exist, not to create, but to block. They no longer have any purpose in their respective industries- they take no part in creation and piracy is truly a testament to the easy of distribution and advertisement today. Where they previously existed to open channels of distribution, and spread word, they've been replaced by ease of use through modern utilities such as the Internet. In order to attempt to coexist with modern utility, they center most resources in the field of stifling it- through anti-piracy and attacks on resources (such as Internet radio) which attempt to legally ease distribution.

The RIAA and MPAA still provide a massive amount of money to creators. Without them you have many fewer creators.

Further, just because less money than you'd like goes to creators doesn't make it somehow right to deprive them of all income, now does it?

Originally Posted by 8bit

Indeed, why should capital exist at all if the false scarcity of resources really is false, and the moralities and immoralities you've known do not apply to reality?

If money didn't exist at all, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But this is now, so we are having this discussion. If someone wants to create something, they should be able to make a profit from it if they so choose. People do not have the right to obtain a copy of someone's game for free when they are not giving it away.

Let's ignore the legality of it for a second- For a file to be shared, it must first be aquired, and in order to aquire a product such as the one you describe, you must pay full price for it.

So what right do you have, as the owner of the means of production, to dictate the rights of the owner of the product?

Obviously you have that right when it comes to the pure legality of the matter, but what of a logical or moral standard? From a moral point of view it doesn't seem like you should be able to impose your will on a product which you've already sold off- it's the 'have a cake and eat it too' situation. From a logical perspective, if it is ultimately beneficial there is no reason to oppose it.

You're talking about file sharing. But what right do the people have to obtain the copy they didn't buy? They don't have any sorts of rights to it. This is not a single physical object.

So how about forging paintings and selling those? Is that legal if you have a picture of the original?

Yes, your capital is going directly to the corporations which make up the MPAA and the RIAA. You're funding them.

But why do they exist in the first place? Someone put them there.

What things? Piracy, or the media cartels?

If people had any sense, these media cartels wouldn't have as much (or try to be obtaining as much) power as they do.

You know what, John could do this better than I could, I should just wait for him to answer all this.

Originally Posted by John

You aren't creating a false scarcity, you're reducing demand.

Interestingly, reducing demand, unlike creating a false scarcity, lowers prices.

Further, no one has any right to this content. That's the point, really. To insist that you should be able to get it for free because it costs too much means that no one should pay for anything, because everything costs more than it could.

The argument is not that it costs too much, the argument is that piracy is simply beneficial to the industry it effects.

The RIAA and MPAA still provide a massive amount of money to creators. Without them you have many fewer creators.

The creators represented by those groups are a tiny fraction of the total creators, and even if the RIAA/MPAA ceased to exist they would most likely continue to create.

Further, just because less money than you'd like goes to creators doesn't make it somehow right to deprive them of all income, now does it?

However, piracy does not deprive the creator of the product deemed best by consumer, the same amount of money is going into the respective industry with or without piracy- piracy simply redistributes the capital so that it reaches what the consumer considers 'best', rather than what the consumer believes to be safest.

Originally Posted by Tonchiki

If money didn't exist at all, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But this is now, so we are having this discussion. If someone wants to create something, they should be able to make a profit from it if they so choose. People do not have the right to obtain a copy of someone's game for free when they are not giving it away.

You're talking about file sharing. But what right do the people have to obtain the copy they didn't buy? They don't have any sorts of rights to it. This is not a single physical object.

However, the shared file has to come from somewhere, and if the file is being pirated it is most likely coming from someone who bought the product in full. If you are selling the product, why do you get to dictate how the product is used after it has been sold?

So how about forging paintings and selling those? Is that legal if you have a picture of the original?

Nay, however, if you forge a painting, give it away for free (or for the cost of production), and do not take credit for the work I would say your actions are perfectly okay.

They still wouldn't be legal, but really, I don't care for legalities.

But why do they exist in the first place? Someone put them there.

They used to serve a purpose, so thirty years ago they were put in a relatively beneficial position, however the times have changed, and it's time for them to be removed.

If people had any sense, these media cartels wouldn't have as much (or try to be obtaining as much) power as they do.

Fortunately, many people do have quite a bit of sense, hence the entire piracy community.

Originally Posted by 8bit

The keyword, however, is take, not copy, but take. I am not taking any property, I am copying the property which belongs to someone else.

Weather or not you want to define it as theft is really trivial, though. Whether you call it theft or not, the impact does not change, and the impact is positive.

Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968:

"A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it."

Section three and case law define "appropriating" as assuming any of the rights of the owner in that property, creating copies and distributing ROMs, or indeed playing them, would probably be defined as such a right, the exercise of which would amount to appropriation.

"Property" under section four includes intangible property, such as intellectual property or data (since fiddling with peoples' electronic bank accounts has amounted to theft in the past).

"Belonging to another" under section five means another person is in possession of it, or that another person has a right or proprietary interest in that property. The company in question naturally has a proprietary interest in that data.

"Intending to deprive the other of it" under section six will still be regarded as such even if you don't intend for the other to lose the property permanently, since you're treating the property as if it were yours to dispose of regardless of their rights in it (i.e. the right to the proceeds of the sale thereof).

"Dishonesty" is tested under the Ghosh case, where if A) by the standards of the ordinary community what you're doing is dishonest, and B) you know that by these standards what you're doing is dishonest, then you have done so dishonestly. Whether or not you consider it moral, it could be argued, is different to whether or not it was dishonest (in much the same way that if you think a lie is justified, it may be justified, but it is still a lie).

If all the above elements are present, then it's very likely that it would be found to be theft. I'm not sure about the dishonest part (since by the standards of the ordinary community I'm sure pirating from big corporations may not be considered dishonest, but they may consider it dishonest if done to a smaller company or an individual's data were he intending to distribute it for a fee and I know people who are totally against pirating, supporting Metallica's campaign against sites like Napster, while doing so themselves and had at one time downloaded movies on a regular basis), but the rest I think pretty much adds up. If all the elements aren't there at the same time (such as you not thinking or knowing it to be dishonest until after you've already done the rest), then it isn't theft, as demonstrated by a case where a man had eaten a meal at a restaurant, then only when the bill arrived and the food had changed its form upon consumption (becoming his property and part of his body) did he form the intent to refuse to pay for it after an argument.

There was a case however where a man had taken some reels of film from a cinema he worked at, made some copies of that film, and returned them to the cinema in the same condition as he'd found them, and he was not found guilty of theft (perhaps of another offence, but not of S.1 Theft), but I doubt the argument was raised that he was denying the company their right to earn the money from the people he was distributing it to by giving it to them for free, effectively "appropriating" it.

Now whether or not I agree with piracy or whether or not it's good or bad isn't what I'm discussing here. I'm just talking about whether or not it's theft, which, under English law, I think it would be (although that's just from my interpretation of the act). Just flexing my legal muscles since it's been a long summer.

Originally Posted by Tonchiki

Why not just make every product free ever?

Originally Posted by 8bit

Yes, why not?

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968:

"A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it."

Section three and case law define "appropriating" as assuming any of the rights of the owner in that property, creating copies and distributing ROMs, or indeed playing them, would probably be defined as such a right, the exercise of which would amount to appropriation.

"Property" under section four includes intangible property, such as intellectual property or data (since fiddling with peoples' electronic bank accounts has amounted to theft in the past).

"Belonging to another" under section five means another person is in possession of it, or that another person has a right or proprietary interest in that property. The company in question naturally has a proprietary interest in that data.

"Intending to deprive the other of it" under section six will still be regarded as such even if you don't intend for the other to lose the property permanently, since you're treating the property as if it were yours to dispose of regardless of their rights in it (i.e. the right to the proceeds of the sale thereof).

"Dishonesty" is tested under the Ghosh case, where if A) by the standards of the ordinary community what you're doing is dishonest, and B) you know that by these standards what you're doing is dishonest, then you have done so dishonestly. Whether or not you consider it moral, it could be argued, is different to whether or not it was dishonest (in much the same way that if you think a lie is justified, it may be justified, but it is still a lie).

If all the above elements are present, then it's very likely that it would be found to be theft. I'm not sure about the dishonest part (since by the standards of the ordinary community I'm sure pirating from big corporations may not be considered dishonest, but they may consider it dishonest if done to a smaller company or an individual's data were he intending to distribute it for a fee and I know people who are totally against pirating, supporting Metallica's campaign against sites like Napster, while doing so themselves and had at one time downloaded movies on a regular basis), but the rest I think pretty much adds up. If all the elements aren't there at the same time (such as you not thinking or knowing it to be dishonest until after you've already done the rest), then it isn't theft, as demonstrated by a case where a man had eaten a meal at a restaurant, then only when the bill arrived and the food had changed its form upon consumption (becoming his property and part of his body) did he form the intent to refuse to pay for it after an argument.

There was a case however where a man had taken some reels of film from a cinema he worked at, made some copies of that film, and returned them to the cinema in the same condition as he'd found them, and he was not found guilty of theft (perhaps of another offence, but not of S.1 Theft), but I doubt the argument was raised that he was denying the company their right to earn the money from the people he was distributing it to by giving it to them for free, effectively "appropriating" it.

Now whether or not I agree with piracy or whether or not it's good or bad isn't what I'm discussing here. I'm just talking about whether or not it's theft, which, under English law, I think it would be (although that's just from my interpretation of the act). Just flexing my legal muscles since it's been a long summer.

Ahem..

Originally Posted by Me

Weather or not you want to define it as theft is really trivial, though. Whether you call it theft or not, the impact does not change, and the impact is positive.

Now, US law defining theft could cover piracy, but as you've already pointed out, it would be on shaky ground, and as I've already pointed out, I'm not really concerned with the legalities. I understand fully that US and international law has been used to prosecute and win lawsuits against file sharers, and while I'm concerned with the violation of human rights in these cases, and I'm interested in changing the law, what we should be looking at is its effect on society, and whether or not it's beneficial in general.

hurpa durpa.

Originally Posted by 8bit

Ahem..

Now, US law defining theft could cover piracy, but as you've already pointed out, it would be on shaky ground, and as I've already pointed out, I'm not really concerned with the legalities. I understand fully that US and international law has been used to prosecute and win lawsuits against file sharers, and while I'm concerned with the violation of human rights in these cases, and I'm interested in changing the law, what we should be looking at is its effect on society, and whether or not it's beneficial in general.

And as I said in the last paragraph, I just wanted to make the point that it probably would be found to be illegal, regardless of any moral issues.

If I must state my opinion, I think it should remain illegal, since goodness knows what would happen if we didn't have that ONE deterrent (the simple fact that it's illegal regardless of its enforcement). It's one thing for people who do currently pirate media to do it, since they're a relatively small percentage who don't affect the profits in any noticable way, but it's another to give the general populace carte blanche to pirate without paying any revenue to the companies in question, since they'll never turn out a profit. As is, many of those few people who pirate are principled enough to at least pay to buy a legal copy later on if they consider it worth the money in order to endorse those who produced it, and not if they're not. But if the majority thought they could do so legally, they'd never pay even if something is excellent, because the majority aren't so principled. Why pay for it if you don't have to?

Maybe they could take it so far as to make movies available for pirating on the internet, and have a "donate to the producers" option if you enjoyed it, but how many would use that? I've been using MIRC for years, and there's been a little annoying notice since I started saying "hey, if you like MIRC, why not donate to the guy who made it"? I never have, because I don't have to.

So I can see an argument in favour of piracy in some situations. If a film or game isn't available in your country, for example, you shouldn't have to pay extortionate amounts to import it, and if the company intended for you to buy it they'd make it available in your country. Therefore they clearly don't, and can expect no less than for you to obtain it in a way that won't cost you a stupid amount just to obtain it, on top of the standard price which may be extortionate itself. If it costs too much to import, you wouldn't anyway if piracy was impossible, and so it's not money they lose because you didn't buy it. It may even be the case that you can't get it imported into your country, meaning that this company has no way of earning money from you to begin with, so they lose nothing from you downloading it, since it's not money they would gain if you didn't.

If a game is so old that there's no way a company could profit off it in this day and age, and the only copies available are pre-owned, then piracy has no real effect or detriment there. VC, XBLA, and PSN have changed the situation here now, so the only real objection is that Nintendo at least once indicated that such downloads would be free at one time before realising they could exploit the system to make a tidy sum, but that's the only objection and not really a legally enforceable one.

If you are one of those principled pirates I mentioned above, who will pay for anything he downloaded and enjoyed and not for those he didn't, then again, despite the subjective nature of one's opinion, I suppose I can't reasonably object without basically saying that someone who doesn't deserve money should be given it anyway (although ordinary members of the public deciding if someone deserves to be paid for their work is, in a way, a form of vigilantism, in that they're taking authority into their own hands).

But I can't see an argument in favour of just legalising that which we today call media piracy.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

And as I said in the last paragraph, I just wanted to make the point that it probably would be found to be illegal, regardless of any moral issues.

If I must state my opinion, I think it should remain illegal, since goodness knows what would happen if we didn't have that ONE deterrent (the simple fact that it's illegal regardless of its enforcement). It's one thing for people who do currently pirate media to do it, since they're a relatively small percentage who don't affect the profits in any noticable way, but it's another to give the general populace carte blanche to pirate without paying any revenue to the companies in question, since they'll never turn out a profit. As is, many of those few people who pirate are principled enough to at least pay to buy a legal copy later on if they consider it worth the money in order to endorse those who produced it, and not if they're not. But if the majority thought they could do so legally, they'd never pay even if something is excellent, because the majority aren't so principled. Why pay for it if you don't have to?

Maybe they could take it so far as to make movies available for pirating on the internet, and have a "donate to the producers" option if you enjoyed it, but how many would use that? I've been using MIRC for years, and there's been a little annoying notice since I started saying "hey, if you like MIRC, why not donate to the guy who made it"? I never have, because I don't have to.

So I can see an argument in favour of piracy in some situations. If a film or game isn't available in your country, for example, you shouldn't have to pay extortionate amounts to import it, and if the company intended for you to buy it they'd make it available in your country. Therefore they clearly don't, and can expect no less than for you to obtain it in a way that won't cost you a stupid amount just to obtain it, on top of the standard price which may be extortionate itself. If it costs too much to import, you wouldn't anyway if piracy was impossible, and so it's not money they lose because you didn't buy it. It may even be the case that you can't get it imported into your country, meaning that this company has no way of earning money from you to begin with, so they lose nothing from you downloading it, since it's not money they would gain if you didn't.

If a game is so old that there's no way a company could profit off it in this day and age, and the only copies available are pre-owned, then piracy has no real effect or detriment there. VC, XBLA, and PSN have changed the situation here now, so the only real objection is that Nintendo at least once indicated that such downloads would be free at one time before realising they could exploit the system to make a tidy sum, but that's the only objection and not really a legally enforceable one.

If you are one of those principled pirates I mentioned above, who will pay for anything he downloaded and enjoyed and not for those he didn't, then again, despite the subjective nature of one's opinion, I suppose I can't reasonably object without basically saying that someone who doesn't deserve money should be given it anyway (although ordinary members of the public deciding if someone deserves to be paid for their work is, in a way, a form of vigilantism, in that they're taking authority into their own hands).

But I can't see an argument in favour of just legalising that which we today call media piracy.

If someone were to ask me 'do you believe piracy should be legalized', surprisingly, my answer would be a reluctant no. If one were to ask me if piracy should stay illegal I would give the same answer.

You see, I have to side with the law of transformation in this instance. While legalization of piracy is obviously one of my end goals, it is by no means one of my immediate goals.

I side, mostly, with the platform of the International Pirate Party, on most related issues- the repeal of DMCA and similar acts, a ban on DRM, and the elimination of patents. The Pirate Party also includes reducing copyright monopolies to 5 years before content enters the public domain, however, I'm slightly more conservative in this area. I advocate reducing copyright monopolies to 5-10 years depending on the medium, and extending that monopoly in the case of copyleft licenses such as the GNU GPL and Creative Commons.

This is, however, my immediate goal, which does not include legalizing piracy. My extended goal, on the other hand, is to eliminate all law, which naturally includes legalizing piracy. After we meet my immediate goal, or something similar, the transition from an existent copyright, to the complete lack of copyright needs to be a gradual one, in which copyright slowly shortens, thus also slowly losing its impact, and also giving the world and the industry time to adapt to the changing structure of copyright law.

While it is technically illegal, legality /= morality, I don't see the use of
ROMs as any more wrong* than the government making laws against
prayer in school. The gov't has absolutely no power to make decisions
about religion (separation of church & state grants us freedom of
religion) no matter how the idiotic Supreme Court defines it, the
intention is clear. What does this have to do with ROMs? The
debate over ROMs is technically a copyright debate far more than
a financial debate.

*under certain specific circumstances

-------

ROM use in the following instances is not wrong (morally):

-trying before you buy, just using a ROM to see if a game
you are interested in is really worth the $...this service is
offered at Gamestop...incidentally this applies because a
lot of emulators have big problems and don't work
correctly 100% of the time

-having a ROM as a back up copy is perfectly legal if you
get the ROM from your own game, as long as you own
your own game, downloading a ROM from another
source is only a technical debate, there is no real difference

-using ROMs to pass the time until a game is available
for purchase on a Virtual Console

-using ROMs to replace dead save batteries (Nintendo told
me that they can't replace my OoA battery, but why
should I buy a new cartridge? eventually all the save
batteries will die)

-using ROMs that will never be re-released because the
game isn't picked up

ROM use in the following instances is wrong (morally):

-getting free games for nothing
-distributing ROMs indiscriminately

Originally Posted by Cukeman

While it is technically illegal, legality /= morality, I don't see the use of
ROMs as any more wrong* than the government making laws against
prayer in school.

The government has done no such thing.
It's made it illegal for schools to require prayer or to have school officials lead prayers. Students are still allowed to pray whenever they wish.

ROM use in the following instances is not wrong (morally):

-trying before you buy, just using a ROM to see if a game
you are interested in is really worth the $...this service is
offered at Gamestop...incidentally this applies because a
lot of emulators have big problems and don't work
correctly 100% of the time

I don't agree. If developers want to give you a demo, then great! If not, then you've no right to take their code and "make your own."

-having a ROM as a back up copy is perfectly legal if you
get the ROM from your own game, as long as you own
your own game, downloading a ROM from another
source is only a technical debate, there is no real difference

I agree here. This is, I believe, illegal under the DMCA, but I've no moral issues with it.

-using ROMs to pass the time until a game is available
for purchase on a Virtual Console

Another yes and no. If a game isn't currently available in your market, then I've no issue with using ROMs, but if it is...

Real artists don't need money for there work.

Originally Posted by Phazon goron

Real artists don't need money for there work.

But if they can't support themselves while devoting their lives to their art then they can't make more of it because they'll have to get a menial job on the side. And they wouldn't really bother if they couldn't benefit from it anyway. Motivation, man.

Originally Posted by Eggys

Emulators are legal to own but .roms aren't, unless the owner of the .rom allows it to be published which is always under a fee.

It's like downloading music or movies without permission; it's illegal. I don't even see how this is in serious discussion.

Because much like many other legal topics, we're not just here to discuss what the law is, but also opinions thereon, and discuss what we think the law should be.