Those are used copies and even if they were not they are no longer in print and they are not receiving money any longer for a title like Terranigma.

As for Dragon Ball Z, I don't speak Japanese.

I instead download a English translated rom and play it that way.

Regardless, considering they didn't want to release it in the US anyways they aren't losing anything they could have potentially gained if I had not downloaded it.

In other words : "No harm, no foul"

You asked where, I answered ;)

All that other jazz, I know. I'm a retro fan as well ;)

I know, but I wanted to respond in that way just so I can link back to that post in the future if someone tells me the same thing while attacking me for downloading NES, SNES, Genesis, GB, MAME, etc... roms.

As for retro gaming, I am 100% there with you. Do you have a mobile device? If so, check out Zenonia. You might like it. They are on sale for only $0.99 right now. 

Me, I bought them when they were $5.99 and they were soooo worth it.

The closest I come to mobile devices is my PSP :O

I'll check it out though, next year is smarthphone year for me I think.

Do that then. Even a year from now the game will still be awesome.

Can't wait for Z3 to release on Android in June. I hate that iUsers have it already.

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?

Zenonia is good (I have Zenonia 2 on my phone) but I can't help but wonder how much better the game would play if I had physical buttons. The virtual D-Pad is annoying. It doesn't make the game unplayable. The game compensates for the lack of D-Pad precision (you don't have to be facing an enemy perfectly to be able to hit them). But physical buttons would help a lot. And the menus are very clunky. You can't just select something from the menu immediately by touching it, you have to cycle through the menu with the virtual D-Pad. Eww. I downloaded the PSN Mini version of Zenonia 1 awhile back but haven't tried it yet. I'd imagine that Zenonia would play a lot better with the physical D-Pad than a virtual one. Zenonia 2 looks like it's going to remain iOS/Android exclusive though so I have no choice but to play it with the virtual D-Pad. Maybe it takes getting used to, I don't know. There are some games that don't work out too well with a touchscreen but some that do. So I get tired from hearing from gamers that smartphone games suck. But yeah, for something like Zenonia and for emulation of old-school 8-bit/16-bit/Playstation 2D that require good D-Pad precision (like Mega Man, Tetris, beat-em-ups, etc.) I don't like touchscreen controls too much.

Yeah, I just have a problem with people charging for stuff that should be free, developers can't make money off old games anymore unless its up on wiiware or something like that, so people shouldn't be taken advantage of

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!

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.

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?

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.