Sure the holders are getting the money, but the workers are not as far as I know. So simply they got their wages already, and companies are just taking little bites from games customers that have already bought the product years ago. This whole idea of 'virtual console' is a scam in itself. I can understand if these virtual console games were being released on some form of hard copies (like those 'mega collection' discs), I feel like I pirated the game, as I downloaded it from the internet and play it on non-original hardware. From a business man's point of view, sure it works excellent, but I'll never buy something that's virtual console or similar I'll rather use real hardware and software. The other issue is, for gamers that want to play previous gen are somewhat fucked anyway, the amount of games that have been placed on XBL, PSN and eShop is so minimal, this endorses piracy as well. Although I agree with your point of view, I can't see it that bad if some people choose to play on an emulator than virtual console. It's pocket money for companies, not their main income like new games are.
Preservation efforts very actively seek to generate metadata, sure--but in 90 years when we only have hashes and it comes time to put together the library because it's finally legal, we'll all be dead and so will the carts/discs--what good is metadata then? What has actually been preserved? Who is in charge of this secret 100% legal archive I am not aware of? ...how does this apply more for one side than it does for the other?
No its not. To steal something, you have to deprive the owner of it. Duplicating something cant be theft, as they still have the original. At best, you are potentially depriving them of money they maybe might have made... maybe. Its not really the same thing, though I agree with your points on it affecting people etc, its still not theft. Its copyright infringement, which even if it is depriving someone of potential profit, its still not stealing. To use your baker analogy, its like someone coming into your shop and duplicating the bread. You still have all your loaves, but that person didnt have to buy it. You have no idea if he even would have bought your bread in the first place and you can still sell all the ones you made at full price. The only thing you have lost is the potential sale to that person, as if they couldnt magically duplicate your bread - they MAYBE may have bought it. However, they may not have - you have no clue. Like was mentioned earlier in the thread, there would be no need for the word "piracy" or "copyright infringement" if the word theft, that we already had covered it.
When we only have hashes? What? I'm not ignoring the fact that just about every console game has been dumped. Many have even been redumped in the last decade. Nobody? You've never made personal backups? Also I'm sure you're well aware of the archives people download illegally. It's pretty obvious by now that almost no mass produced game will be "lost" in entirety, especially once DVD and BR images are feasible for cloud hosting, but without metadata people are not likely to have (legal or not) pristine archives of pre-DVD media. Because pirates have no legitimate claim to fairness? Neither do "preservationists"; so when Pirate A has no incentive to share with Pirate B, life "won't be fair" to Pirate B. And that's where U-G came in.
if 1 loaf is stealed hmm.. how about super markets ? very small amount is probaly stolen, so what they still make enough profit.
Right, but how are these going to be preserved if they are not shared? Are people 90 years from now supposed to track down the personal backups of people 90 years prior? What is your argument here? Illegal downloading is unnecessary because... of illegal downloading? Oh, I'm quite aware of how important metadata is to disc preservation, given that I am the founder of a Dreamcast GD-ROM dumping/indexing project... Depends entirely on your views on copyright and culture. When it comes to retro games, I kind of side with the view that humanity has taken from prehistory until around the 18th-19th century...
You're way too focused on my legal stance. I acknowledge illegal downloading just as I acknowledge personal backups. My point is that preservation and accessibility to everyone (piracy) aren't mutually inclusive. Preservation has become another excuse to justify piracy. Yes, partially. People will archive and yes, pirate, on their own--mass piracy CAMPAIGNS are not necessary, and they actually detract from the legitimacy of preservation projects; massive torrents (in the open!) are slaps in the face to rights holders, AND they often spread poorly preserved data. Game "preservationists" should take a cue from EAC + freedb + Accuraterip which allow people to archive accurately, privately and legally (and assists in illegal trade). AFAIK Redump is a start, but it's not there. ??? Information has never been freer than today. I don't see how culture which evolves collaboratively on a mass scale can be compared to the work of individuals. Even culture/derivative works typically acknowledge/buy license from the originals. To me it sounds like your stance is that any information deemed cultural should be freed for consumption, which is humanitarian and all, except that it violates the liberties of the creators, which isn't. Would you argue that the greater good trumps personal liberties?
How long should these rights exist for? I agree that copyright content should be protected but not indefinitely has it has. There should be something said about some of these things becoming a part of the culture eventually. I mean should the Mona Lisa still be under copyright because the creator felt violated and wanted to keep all rights for it forever? How about Shakespeare? Can a copyright holder make a will for his work allowing how it may be used? I think there is a balance to be had. Give Copyright owners 10 - 20 years of protection on there works. This allows plenty of time to make money on the original work. If it turns out to be such an amazing cash cow then let the right holder renew it for a fee. This also allows for things to not be lost forever. The reason things aren't lost forever is because pirates refuse to let it happen.
One can't presume to know what Leonardo or Shakespeare would will of their work. Shakespeare's works may not even be written by one man. They died 500 and 400 years ago respectively, none of this legal framework was in place, things couldn't be reproduced as they are today, and neither would have any idea of how their works would influence humanity. More or less their works were "taken" from them after their death. With or without their works, life would go on. Accordingly tomorrow's people will live, even if their lives aren't enriched by the high art of today's media in the public domain. In 400 years all of today's works will also be in the public domain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act 10-20 years however is a flash in the pan. Sometimes it can take longer than that to even monetize work and a lot of LIVING creators will not get their dues, much less their estates. Should literature become public domain after 20 years so that Hollywood may freely exploit whomever, even while the authors are still living? In your proposition why is it that only intellectual property may be confiscated (or taxed) after 20 years? Why not confiscate (or tax) physical property as well? They're both property and measures of wealth. You know what? Why not just confiscate/tax money in the bank? Why should we allow people to be unrestrictedly rich? It isn't fair that my buying power is so far less than the next highborn child. Try writing the next Harry Potter and dying a pauper compared to those who exploited your work, I'm sure it'll feel lovely. This would change the whole pace of how creative people work and I know in my case it'd be extremely demotivational.
So what if the legal framework was in place for this? How about this the first color mickey mouse cartoon titles "The Band" 1935. How long should this stay out of the public domain in your opinion? What would you say would be a suitable length of time for a copyright to be held? And as you say life would go on. Copyright is a protection of an idea to encourage people to share there idea with society and still be able to profit. (at least in the USA this was the idea) You are still equating intellectual property (an idea) to physical property. The difference is when my ip expires I don't lose any thing. (I still have my idea).
