Android removes emulators

[Antabus]

WereKitten said:

Antabus said:

WereKitten said:

Antabus said:

So if I can't acquire something legally, it is ok to steal it? Really?

Not this again.

Digital copying is not stealing because there is no subtraction of any good. At worst it is infringement of copyright.

But - by definition - if you can't buy a copy of a game it means that by obtaining a digital copy of it you're not avoiding to pay anyone for that content, thus you're not damaging anyone with a missed sale - the only kind of damage copyright infringement can bring.

The goal of copyright is to incentive and defend the production of arts and entertainment content. How exactly would not obtaining a copy of a game that can't be bought help the authors?

Yes, in principle a damaged party could sue you for copyright infringement. Who would that be, again?

That is your way to think. Acquiring something without proper compensation might as well be considered stealing by some other.

I live in EU. Therefore I can't buy for example The Last Story, I am not damaging anyone if I download the game? I bet Nintendo agrees with you!

1) In legal terms stealing and theft are well-defined terms. Not all cases where you "acquire something without proper compensation" fall into their realm.

Moreover there's lots of cases, especially when the goods are of digital or epehemeral nature, where I'm pretty sure you don't think of that as stealing yourself, not even in very subjective terms.

2) When you read a digital copy of a public domain work, say Shakespeare's plays or the Ilyad you're acquiring something, compensating nobody. Is that theft?

When you borrow a book from a friend of yours, read it and return it and end up not buying the book, are you stealing that content?

If you buy a used DVD, zilch of your money goes to the authors. Have you properly compensated their work?

3) If you use free-as-in-free-beer, open source software you're getting terribly complex pieces of software infrastructure worth hundreds of thousands of man-hours without paying a cent. Are you stealing?

All these examples are to show that trying to define what is proper doesn't make much sense if your reasoning follows rails based on finite goods. Flawless information replication breaks economic models based on scarcity, and any ethics that wants to economically support the arts must follow.

Compensating work of incredibe intrinsic value with zero can be proper and ethic, depending on the circumstances of its distribution and the economic chain. The only moral compass that makes logical sense is asking yourself if you're doing what you can to financially incentive the authors of what you sincerely enjoy.

If you can't compensate them for circumstances out of your control I can't see the logic or ethics in denying yourself the content: the very thought of a victimless crime makes no sense.

1) It depends on your local law, so I really can't comment on how it is in where you happen to live. But in here a digital copy is someone's property, if you take the ownership of said copy without compensation - you are stealing.

2) Public domain is public domain. If a game is public domain, then you can copy it legally.

If you borrow a book from a friend, your friend or the person who he has acquired the said book from has compensated for acquiring the ownership of the product. If you take the book from the legal owner without his or her agreement, you steal it. If the legal owner (your friend) agrees to loan/gift/sell the book to you, you are not stealing it.

Same thing goes for the used dvd, original author has already forfeitet the ownership of the said product to the person who has acquired it. You will pay for the ownership, so it is not stealing. Again.

3) If you use the program within of what is said on the license, you are using it legally. That is, once again - not stealing.

 

Your examples are piss poor and so is your reasoning for accepting piracy.