this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
758 points (99.6% liked)

RetroGaming

19568 readers
448 users here now

Vintage gaming community.

Rules:

  1. Be kind.
  2. No spam or soliciting for money.
  3. No racism or other bigotry allowed.
  4. Obviously nothing illegal.

If you see these please report them.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://radiation.party/post/41704

[ comments | sourced from HackerNews ]

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dafungusamongus@lemmy.sdf.org 97 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Copyright laws desperately need to be updated to account for scenarios like these. Although, to many people piracy is undesirable, I take no issue with anyone using this method to acquire content that is otherwise unavailable.

[–] Hogger85b@kbin.social 64 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yep. A lot of streaming services recently have been taking shows and films off the service and burry them as a tax write off. In my world if they write it off they should have to put it in public domain. If they can still sue people who copy it then it obviously has value to the rights owner still.

[–] hansl@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The regulatory and legal system is mostly reactionary. Eventually someone will be sued or sue one of the services about it and it will be settled and become precedent. Which way is hard to say, but I can definitely see your argument being persuasive.

[–] Pips@lemmy.film 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The problem is essentially how do you define ownership? Is there a right to not make something the copyright holder owns publicly available?

I think in the cases of abandonware or more recently the moves by media companies to delist certain media for tax benefits, there's a good argument to be made over forfeiting the copyright, so it's now public domain and fair game. But I also think for something like the Star Wars Holiday Special, where the creator/copyright holder (not sure about that status post-Disney acquisition) genuinely hates it and does not want it available to the public, the owner should be allowed to restrict access to it.

[–] Syrc@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

But I also think for something like the Star Wars Holiday Special, where the creator/copyright holder (not sure about that status post-Disney acquisition) genuinely hates it and does not want it available to the public, the owner should be allowed to restrict access to it.

Personally I disagree on that too. If something has been made public once it should stay public, unless it contains actively harmful information or something.

[–] cccc@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

How do you get tax benefits for that? Sounds pretty shady.

[–] vlad76@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unfortunately I'm not expecting those laws to ever change for the better.

[–] demonsword@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

and they won't as long as lobbying is legal and legislators are all in the pockets of big companies

[–] Grangle1@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The only times I allow it myself are in this case (zero legal availability) and for unofficial/fan translations of games not available in your home region/language. Nobody would be getting your money anyway, no theft of compensation/profits there. If any games do become available, though, then we should support them. The more we put our money where our mouth is for a return to market for these games, the more incentive there is for companies to bring more of them back.

[–] YouShutYoMouf@lemmy.fmhy.ml 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm also ok with pirating anything that now sells for more than original retail value due to scarcity. Looking at you, $1k SNES cartridges...

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

I personally put that in the "company can't make profit from me purchasing it" category and consider that pirating or purchasing a used copy is ethically the same.