Nintendo Will Be Receiving A $12,000,000 Judgment From LoveROMs & LoveRETRO

Seems like you never got the memo, and are relaying a tagline someone never meant to be the point of what they said.
New data also showed that they did not download any roms, and even if they did… its still their product.

It’s not stealing. It’s copying. The more realistic argument is if this effects the sales of official games. The argument of “lost sale” is hard to exist if they are not selling the games.

And I could afford a ROM from the stor… oh wait. I can’t get it (except for 3DS and Wii U) because THEY WON’T F***ING SELL IT on the Switch.
This is partly why many people download ROMs off the internet without permission. You can’t expect them to stop if Nintendo themselves are in some way “encouraging” that kind of Nintendo piracy by not letting others actually buy the games legally. It doesn’t matter if you think it’s “wrong”, Nintendo needs to realize that their attempt at preventing unauthorized Nintendo ROM downloads is just way out of touch with reality. And making people go bankrupted as an attempt at preventing it is wrong, and should be declared a violation of the 8th amendment.

Copyright is not a human right. It’s a monopoly that was supposed to be limited for 14-30 years a while back.

The argument of lost sales is not lost when they may (and frankly, probably will) resell their games sometime in the future. Either way your missing my point entirely. There are many experiences people want in life, but because they can’t obtain it reasonably in a legally way, that doesn’t mean we should break the law every time we want something. To think you “deserve” some experience that Nintendo isn’t willing to give you is stupidly entitled. Why do you HAVE to play certain games? Grow up. The world will continue on and so will your life even if you can’t play these games. That’s my main point.

Reply to another reply, can’t directly press reply to it.
“However, that does not make stealing something ok. Thinking you deserve to play the game anyway is entitled (see previous reply).”

But again, it’s not “stealing” because IP isn’t real property.
And even on the subject of stealing, the world isn’t black and white. You know, the whole poor family stealing from the general store to save their family example?

“Just because someone give’s someone else a “reason” to commit a crime does not make the crime ok, nor does it make the victim of the crime responsible.”

I am not saying “it’s a legal excuse” but on a moral side, IP laws is usually a censorship laws. Sometimes, a law can be wrong. And even with the purpose of not effecting sales even respecting IP laws in general maybe, there is evidence that downloading DS games without permission actually helped promote sales. It can be very hard to say when downloading Nintendo ROMs really hurts sales. Which I believe is an argument that should dictate when something is “fair use” too even though I said “no legal excuse” which I’m not sure of now.

“I couldn’t disagree more. These people were making money off of their product that Nintendo (REAL people’s livelihoods) invest tons of hours and money into. They have more to lose than anyone else. Nintendo knows their games are valuable, and they can ACTUALLY SEE someone else making a profit off of them. If anything, Nintendo’s the only one’s who are in touch with reality for seeing that their hard-earned money is going to someone else.”

If they were actually making money off the ROMs, I am less mad at Nintendo but 12 million is still not too far.
Plus, Nintendo in the general view of IP is WAY out of touch with reality. They are too strict, they take down fan games out of fear. They might be thinking that “one infringement” is always bad when in reality being too strict can actually lead to less sales.

“While I don’t know the details of the case, it was decided that the guilty party had indeed cost damages equal to $12,000,000. A punishment that expects that much in return is not excessive or unusual. If they can’t afford it, they should have thought of that before they set out to commit an illegal act with $12,000,000 consequences for their own gain.”

It’s unusual and cruel period. It’s very unusual to make others pay that much money. Court rulings aren’t always fair.
I don’t want to hear the claim of them thinking what would happen, especially when they didn’t really know it would be that bad maybe.

Last section,
Copyright not being a human right also means that “copying” has no effect on the original. The idea you can monopolize information and preventing people from making money off of copies isn’t a solid right either.
Copying isn’t theft, but copyrighting food (for example) and then not letting people make that food and make money is wrong. And therefor, it could be said for the general information that can be Copyrighted today.
Plus there is the argument that there is no lost sale too (which should matter in one way sometimes).

=Other Reply Reaction=
“The argument of lost sales is not lost when they may (and frankly, probably will) resell their games sometime in the future.”

I am aware of that argument maybe, but they may also not. Plus there is no loss sell at the current time of that in a case where they aren’t selling any of their games at the moment. Future predictions is not a valid argument mainly. I think it should be a moral defense (but I won’t say do it) when they are currently not selling games after a small amount of time has been passed. Plus again, Nintendo’s ridiculous actions can actually make less people buy their games.
Also you know what could also “make money someday”? Making people pay money while owning the game. So it continuing to own a game you bought a “lost sale”? What about parody that sometimes is protected by Fair Use? Is that a lost sale because Nintendo can make a parody with money that can be covered by Fair Use outside without money?

“To think you “deserve” some experience that Nintendo isn’t willing to give you is stupidly entitled. Why do you HAVE to play certain games? Grow up. The world will continue on and so will your life even if you can’t play these games. That’s my main point.”

And why does Nintendo HAVE the make games? They could also probably make money with even basic jobs and still maybe live off a low profit income or medium without having a gaming job. You grow up.
And in the end, Nintendo is basically encouraging piracy in a general way in some way (though probably not in a legal sense). I have a right to say that.

_________

Sorry if I made a mistake or more with this comment. Don’t think I can edit my comment here.

After writing all this I realize that I wrote a freaking paper. I do not necessarily expect you to read all of it, and I have provided a TL;DR at the bottom with my main points. There was a lot of red herrings/moving of the goal posts that I still wanted to address, but did not think they were relevant to our main points and excluded them from the TL;DR. I go into more details of each of my points so you may want to read those sections if you plan on replying to them.

============== Section 1: Getting lost in Terminology ================

“But again, it’s not “stealing” because IP isn’t real property.”

While I still think “stealing” is perfectly valid in this case, for your sake I’ll say it isn’t. My argument does not hinge on the word we use to describe taking something without paying for it. Imagine getting a haircut, but then walking out the door without paying. You didn’t “steal” any physical property, but you’ve still done something wrong whether or not we call it “stealing.”

“And even on the subject of stealing, the world isn’t black and white. You know, the whole poor family stealing from the general store to save their family example?”

Describe to me how this is relevant. We’re talking about video games here. Other than maybe a few extremely fringe cases that don’t actually happen, when is there EVER a good enough reason for someone to play video game that something like theft would be ok?

All in all, You’ve completely dodged my point here. I was asking why not being able experience something suddenly makes it ok to do something wrong. You responded with “Well piracy isn’t stealing! (not even an argument that piracy isn’t wrong) and a vague “Well the world isn’t black and white” (which doesn’t get us anywhere if you can’t apply it to this situation). Even if we said that piracy is ok since it isn’t stealing, you’ve done nothing to answer why availability even makes a difference. If you truly believe that piracy isn’t wrong, availability should not make a difference and you would pirate it anyway (unless you can provide an ACTUAL reason that availability changes it from wrong to right). To put it clearly, “How does the availability of an experience (note: experience, not food, not water, not clothing. Not something necessary) CHANGE a morally wrong way to obtain it into a morally right one?” If you don’t think it’s morally wrong in the first place, than bringing up availability in your original post was utterly pointless.

“Sometimes, a law can be wrong”

Agreed. Now convince me that Nintendo using this law to prevent other people from profiting off of their games is wrong.

========= Section 2: Are IP Laws Bad? What’s the Point? ===========

“I am not saying “it’s a legal excuse” but on a moral side, IP laws is usually a censorship laws.”

Ok, this is both wrong and irrelevant. IP laws primarily function as a way for people to be able to create something and be guaranteed that if someone is going to profit off of their work, it’s the original creators. I understand that it’s not perfect and it gets abused, but at its core this is the purpose of IP laws and the laws satisfy that purpose ALL THE TIME. Explain to me how IP laws are usually used to actually CENSOR information (i.e. show me that the majority of IP laws are used to censor things that are deemed to be obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security). Even if we are to say this is the case, how is Nintendo not letting you play their old games censorship? Even if that is usually the case, is it here?

I said “Just because someone give’s someone else a “reason” to commit a crime it does not make the crime ok”. The only actually argument I can formulate from you here is “well, IP laws as a whole are bad (because they are censorship) therefore it is actually GOOD to disobey them”. If my earlier points on why IP laws aren’t purely censorship don’t convince you, than we’re back at a form of my previous statement: “If you think it’s morally good to pirate (to fight censorship), than bringing up availability was utterly pointless in the first place.”

========= Section 3: Does Piracy Help Businesses? ===========

“And even with the purpose of not effecting sales even respecting IP laws in general maybe, there is evidence that downloading DS games without permission actually helped promote sales. It can be very hard to say when downloading Nintendo ROMs really hurts sales.”

A study or two is not enough to convince me that this is the case. Without having two actual worlds where we can compare the difference in sales between one with piracy and one without (basically impossible), studies of this sort will probably not convince me. Even if we were to assume it was true, it only holds if only some people pirate and others don’t, which make it especially difficult to say it’s absolutely good to pirate. Admittedly, it’s hard to prove that piracy cost sales, but I personally find it makes much more sense to default to “yeah, someone not paying for something results in a lost sale”. Regardless, the dubiousness of this aspect at least makes it bad as an argument for the goodness of piracy.

“Which I believe is an argument that should dictate when something is “fair use” too even though I said “No legal excuse” which I’m not sure of now.”

Sorry, I’m not tracking here. Which argument should dictate whether or not something is “fair use”? Is it, “copying ROMs qualify as fair use if the piracy helps the company in question increase in sales?” I don’t entirely see the connection. Even if it were somehow considered in fair use laws, how on earth would you determine whether or not it was the case? Doesn’t seem practical.

======= Section 4: Is Nintendo out of Touch with Reality? ========

“If they were actually making money off the ROMs, I am less mad at Nintendo but 12 million is still too far.”

I’ll address this later.

“Plus, Nintendo in the general view of IP is WAY out of touch with reality. They are too strict, they take down fan games out of fear. They might be thinking that “one infringement” is always bad when in reality being too strict can actually lead to less sales.”

I generally do I agree with you here. I think “WAY out of touch” is a bit of a stretch, but generally I think taking down fan games is a bit much. However, I was talking about their anti-piracy stance in the context of distributing ROMS (you were too), which I personally don’t think is out of touch with reality (as described in my earlier post).

===== Section 5: Is 13,000,000 a violation of the 8th Amendment? ======

“It’s unusual and cruel period. It’s very unusual to make others pay that much money. Court rulings aren’t always fair.
I don’t want to hear the claim of them thinking what would happen, especially when they didn’t really know it would be that bad maybe.”

Sure, court rulings aren’t always fair, but lawyer’s don’t just pull these numbers out of nowhere. They make careful calculations, and the people who were involved with the decision agreed that it was fair. If you’re not convinced, I don’t care. However, you have made no actual argument as to how it is cruel and unusual. Until you can show me where in the case there was a discrepancy, I am more inclined to believe the words of the people who were actually there.

Additionally, there’s no way you can say 13,000,000 million is ALWAYS unfair (since some who steals an actual 13,000,000 should have to pay it), therefore you must come up with adequate reasoning for why it is unfair. Simply stating “It’s unusual and cruel period” doesn’t cut it. Just because you think it doesn’t need explaining does not mean everyone will agree. Clearly those involved in the case did not think so. I think it is worth noting that according to the court documents the defendants themselves admit that their involvement with the websites “caused Nintendo irreparable injury”.

===== Section 6: Copyrights, human rights, and information rights ======

“Copyright not being a human right also means that “copying” has no effect on the original. The idea you can monopolize information and preventing people from making money off of copies isn’t a solid right either.”

Did you not read my original post? I never claimed copyright laws were a human right. I simply said that I think it is good for people who work hard to create something have a way to be financially compensated for it.

“Copying isn’t theft, but copyrighting food (for example) and then not letting people make that food and make money is wrong. And therefor, it could be said for the general information that can be Copyrighted today.”

I think this argument fails on 3 different accounts:

1: You cannot simply jump from “copyrighting food is bad” to “copyrighting information is bad.” These are clearly different things. The only thing “copyrighting food is bad” disproves would be general statements like “copyrighting is never bad”.

2: Food is something that comes from the earth. Information is far more abstract. While I think information is important, it clearly is not something follows the same rules as food.

3: Simply lumping video games as “information” is a slight of hand that changes the argument. Video games are the culmination of hard work, intelligently written code, creative ideas, and ultimately something that will provide an experience. Information suggests that you will learn something or gain some new knowledge. Conveying information is far from the purpose of video games, and until you can convince me that preventing someone from experiencing something for free is wrong, I will not be convinced that IP laws (particularly as it relates to video games) are wrong.

All in all, you’ve once again COMPLETELY dodged my point. I was questioning why you thought being able to experience something for free is a human right. You have refused to give an answer to this question.

===== Section 7: Are future profits relevant? ======

“I am aware of that argument maybe [referring to reselling games in the future], but they may also not. Plus there is no loss sell at the current time of that in a case where they aren’t selling any of their games at the moment.”

No loss of sale in the current now is a TERRIBLE way to determine loss, and you’d be kicked out of any business if you told them only to only worry about the profits RIGHT NOW. If a game isn’t released yet but gets hacked a month early, should we all just play it right away since “well, there’s no lost off sale now!” This is nonsense.

“Future predictions is not a valid argument mainly.”

Yes it is. Once again, no one actually functions in the way you are describing. Everyone looks to “how do our actions now give us more benefit in the future”. This might be your worst point so far, and you’re going to have to come up with MUCH better reasoning than “it is not a valid argument mainly”.

“I think it should be a moral defense (but I won’t say do it) when they are currently not selling games after a small amount of time has been passed.”

This is so mind-numbingly short sighted and extremely non-specific. When is the “small amount” wide enough? If future sale might be affected, why shouldn’t future sales be considered? Why does an experience currently being unavailable suddenly make taking it for free morally change from being wrong to good?

===== Section 8: Future Sales! (and what I never argued) ======

“Plus again, Nintendo’s ridiculous actions can actually make less people buy their games.”

Just because these action result in less sales, it does not mean the alternative is better. If the alternative resulted in an even greater loss in sales, than it is worse. So this point alone does not stand. Even if it did, why does it matter? You are victim blaming again. Just because someone makes a choice that makes other people commit an act of “theft” (call it what you will), it does not necessarily mean they deserve it or that they are responsible.

“Also you know what could also “make money someday”? Making people pay money while owning the game. So it continuing to own a game you bought a “lost sale”?”

I cannot for the life of me understand what you are saying here. Are you trying to say:

1. Forcing someone to continually pay to play something they own results in more money to the person who made the game.
2. I’ve argued that the person who makes a game should make money off of the game
3. Therefore my reasoning results in companies forcing buyers to continually pay for games is good

I may be wrong that this is the argument you are trying to make, but it’s the only thing I can come up with. If it is, the jump to step 3 is wrong. I simply said that companies should be provided a way to safely provide them a means to make money off of their product. I never said it had to be the maximum amount of profit, just some way to make money. IP laws, while imperfect, provide them a way to earn money based on what others perceive to be the value. Frankly, this point is lost to me.

“What about parody that sometimes is protected by Fair Use? Is that a lost sale because Nintendo can make a parody with money that can be covered by Fair Use outside without money?”

There is a big difference between “providing someone a way to make money off of something they created” and “providing someone a way to make money off of something they may make”. It’s not just about lost sales, it’s about lost sales on something you have ALREADY created. This fundamental difference between something that has been made vs. something that may be made is too different to make this kind of reasoning applicable.

Frankly I shouldn’t have written those last few paragraphs because your points here are completely irrelevant to what I said. We were talking one simple thing “Does piracy results in less sales?” Whether or not these other things you’ve mentioned result in lost sales have NOTHING to do with this question. I never argued that the best solution is “maximum sales”, simply that future sales might be lost when Nintendo may resell their games. I understand that you have addressed that question (as I have responded to earlier), but these sentences are a complete moving of the goal post and seem like a desperate attempt to prove me wrong on something I never said.

===== Section 9: Closing Comments (and what I never argued, again) ======

“And why does Nintendo HAVE the make games? They could also probably make money with even basic jobs and still maybe live off a low profit income or medium without having a gaming job.”

I never argued this either and I have no idea why you are. You’re right, no one HAS to make games. But they want to and I think their hard work should be compensated. What on earth is your point?

“You grow up.”

In light of your previous sentences I fail to see why this is relevant. Forgive me for being harsh, but I told you to grow up since thinking that you for some reason deserve a video game is like a child who feels they are entitled to things they want. I may have been needlessly inflammatory, but at least I had a legitimate reason for saying it.

“And in the end, Nintendo is basically encouraging piracy in a general way in some way (though probably not in a legal sense). I have a right to say that.”

I never said that you didn’t have the right to say it, or even that “Nintendo is basically encouraging piracy in a general way” is wrong. I said that even if Nintendo is encouraging it, that does not automatically make it ok to pirate. You’re once again moving the goal posts and trying to win an argument I never made.

The worst par of all this is that YOU STILL have not addressed what I claimed to be my main point so I will state it again: “There are many experiences we want in life, but just because we can’t obtain it reasonably in a legally way, that doesn’t mean we should break the law every time we want something. To think you “deserve” some experience that Nintendo isn’t willing to give you is stupidly entitled. Why do you HAVE to play certain games?”

============ Section 10: TL;DR =============

Main points/questions:
1. How does the availability of an experience (note: experience, not food, not water, not clothing. Not something necessary) CHANGE a morally wrong way to obtain it into a morally right one?

2. If you don’t think piracy is morally wrong in the first place (and actually good), than bringing up availability in your original post was utterly pointless.

3. Simply stating “[13,000,000 is] unusual and cruel period” doesn’t cut it as an argument. Just because you think it doesn’t need explaining does not mean everyone will agree. Clearly those involved in the case did not think so.

4. You’ve once again COMPLETELY dodged my point when talking about human rights. I was questioning why you thought being able to experience something for free is a human right. You have refused to give an answer to this question.

5. Saying that future predictions are not valid is a terrible argument, and you’re going to have to come up with MUCH better reasoning than “it is not a valid argument mainly” to defend it.

6. You still have not addressed what I claimed to be my main point so I will state it again: “There are many experiences we want in life, but just because we can’t obtain it reasonably in a legally way, that doesn’t mean we should break the law every time we want something. To think you “deserve” some experience that Nintendo isn’t willing to give you is stupidly entitled. Why do you HAVE to play certain games?”

———————————————————–

I’m not concerned with your typing mistakes, I’ve probably made tons too. It really sucks that you can’t edit comments here.

Reply to other comment.

I’m just gonna make a “short” version from some of the stuff I’ve read:
You just don’t get it mainly. Though I meant to say in one part that it’s not a human right instead of not a right.
It’s not stealing because copying isn’t stealing. It’s copying:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4
Even an official post at DeviantArt realize that “art theft” isn’t actually “art theft” maybe, but might be infringement.
Yes, it may still possibly be an infringement of Copyright, but the moral argument here is that Intellectual Property is not real property; copying does not effect the original; copying does not effect the person’s direct life. That’s why I am ignoring the “it’s the law of that, does not make it OK, therefor don’t criticize me!” crap.
(You might of already addressed this but I am still explaining further)…:

The idea that someone can make a profit over information was only an idea. And because of the facts about the idea (Intellectual Property) not being a human right, it’s just an idea, which you then defend as if it’s automatically moral or similar. It’s like as if we decide that only one person can make a type of food by law, then sue anyone who makes the same food for money, you would probably start defending that type of law too automatically (explained further more later). My point is that just because an idea in law gets passed as a “right”, doesn’t make it moral and you seem to act like it always is or similar to being moral.

And I am not making a “legal argument”. I am making a moral argument. Yes, the people at the website was distributing ROMs, and I’m not very surprised that Nintendo was able to win a lawsuit (I also argue 12,000,000 is cruel and unusual), but JUST because they could do that, and just because they own the copyright (which is barely a moral law, and only LIMITED right which was SUPPOSED to expire after a small amount of years but got expanded which is damaging legal creative culture), doesn’t mean “they did the right thing” and neither does it mean they can’t face criticism.

IP laws preventing legal information from being shared publicly is censorship. It’s preventing copied information from being shared, and preventing that is a form of censorship. Though I don’t think all Copyright and all censorship is “just bad”, but it can be used as censorship a lot (Mainly on Copyright mostly, and Patents, mostly) in ridiculous ways. My point is it can be used too far and when it does, I vote it shouldn’t be allowed.
The Nintendo ROMs are about 30 years old, and Copyright was originally meant to last around that long. Preventing history of games that are barely beings sold or at all, over games that old is very unnatural (may be legal, but still).

THE PURPOSE OF COPYRIGHT:
“to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for a limited Time to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” – Copied and pasted might have more too.
Copyright was limited for a reason (but was abused so much later). Copyright being forever is very bad for culture and culture is a huge part of how we live. And in the end, Copyright was never mainly a human right which is why these types of criticism is a huge thing.

Going to someone’s house they own, and stealing for example, a chair that they own is wrong because it violates their freedom of actually owning a physical, real property thing (but of course, the whole food thing for poor might be less black and white). Stealing it EFFECTS them. However copying the chair, even if you go in and past some special labels (e.g. Intellectual Property) law will not change the fact that copying does not effect the person except for maybe a violation of a special law. Yes they could “sell the chair” but making it exclusive still limits the freedom of creativity and easy life living. That violates freedom. And many forms of Copyright laws today, could be said the same too. It’s proven that it stifles culture mainly, and it even violates the purpose of Copyright (eh?).
Do you get it now?

And it’s legal video games but it’s part of culture and legal culture is important.

===Cruel and Unusual===
Agreeing…? I have a feeling they were forced to agreed with it (i.e. the victims (which you might say they aren’t victims)) for probably forced to sign that.
Plus, the argument of “lost sale” still exist because of effects, making it hard to see if there really was damages.

===Food and Copyrighted Creativity===
Food and information creation is different yes, but the idea that you can “copyright” it and then allow money is again, just an idea. And as you said Copyright is not a human right.
Anyway, it could of been possible to restrict food creative recipes for the purpose of profits too, meaning for so long or even forever, another company can’t make Pizza, and can’t make hamburgers without permission for example. And in that horrifying world, you would probably defend the law for that purpose because of the idea existing for so long.
Again, food and information creative works are not the same, but the two idea laws are.

Just because it’s possible to make a profit on exclusive legal rights, doesn’t mean it’s always fair to prevent others from using it for free or even for a profit in very limited ways. Maybe Copyrighting a video game, making profit when needed, for a small limited time with fair use protections and as long as such profits isn’t “including rentals and then anyone keeping games they legally got is infringing” could be fine. But what Nintendo did trying to censor history like this and hurting other people is one of those things that I argue is just too far. Even if those people were profiting off (which I would defend suing for protection of Trademark and maybe Copyright but with money suing).

===Future Sales===
If Nintendo for example have not allowed sales of their games and say they aren’t planning to, I think it could be more fair at the time for, but not legally though, for people to download them.Though, I might say this to stuff that has ALREADY been sold for a while, or maybe to things that are never gonna release (but that could also be a separate issue at the same time).
I will say this is about after selling and for a while. If someone hacked the game before release and then sold it, I think that’s a separate issue and I think that is likely bad. And of course I already addressed with the short time thing.

And back to the “profit” idea, which isn’t always fair.
Maybe I can explain this more better:
What if they wanted to profit off rentals of new copies, and found a way to consider it “infringement” to copy a backup you legally got to keep the game (that was not a rental first) alive? Because they wanted the person to rent the future game in the future? And what about DMCA laws preventing the ability to bypass copy protection in order to back up ROMs? Because well, what if they want you to buy another game in the future of the same game? Are you gonna defend that because rent is a profit possibility and buying a new game is a profit possibility too?

I’m mixed on the “less sales. vs. what’s worse” thing, but I think it really depends.
It’s hard to tell because “is there even a loss sale from downloading Nintendo ROMs without permission” in the first place?

For the last part, I was just worried you are saying that the possibility to make sales is always right against someone who didn’t buy by copying something legal they own of the same copyright.

==Last Part==
Will quote this one:
“I never argued this either and I have no idea why you are. You’re right, no one HAS to make games. But they want to and I think their hard work should be compensated. What on earth is your point?”
And some people want to play the Nintendo games, and I think that should be protected right. I say this because you say they don’t need to for life. So I think you might be acting hypocritical here.

And this one:
““There are many experiences we want in life, but just because we can’t obtain it reasonably in a legally way, that doesn’t mean we should break the law every time we want something. To think you “deserve” some experience that Nintendo isn’t willing to give you is stupidly entitled. Why do you HAVE to play certain games?””
But the argument here is if breaking that law is even bad in the first place?
And why I have to play certain games? That goes back to the “why do they have to make certain games”? And remember, “profit law ideas” are not a moral thing or anything similar, and regardless of what you claim, your comments seem to act like it’s automatically moral or similar. Because of the issues with the profit and “Intellectual Property”, again, that’s why I am criticizing many of your points likely.

BTW, actual piracy is for eample bad. Downloading legal games without permission of a copyright owner is a different thing. XD

===TL;DR Kinda===
Copyright was a limited right. It was limited for a reason.
The idea that you can profit off something, and then prevent anyone else from doing so is only an idea. You could do the same for food style, and it would be the same kind of law even though food and creative information is different.
Also, if Copyright was like this in history and for thousands of years, our culture would be very different maybe. Profits or not, we need to protect legal culture.

Profit reasons are not always good (not sure if you agree with that though but still saying). Nintendo could profit their games by rental and might claim it’s a “lost sale” to keep a game you bought before such system ever happened with repair and copying, would you defend that idea?

===
NOTE: I probably didn’t respond to some, and it’s possible some of my stuff has a little more different wording than my original. For example, maybe “not a valid argument of future sales” could of been too much, so I then make it more on a depending way instead.

I’m not going to address every point anymore because frankly you getting even increasingly off topic and ignoring my actual points and focusing on trivial ones. Instead I’ll address each section, and remind you what you missed.

I’m not going go through every point you made since you kept moving the goal posts. However, I’ll try to address each of your main points and go over specific things you never addressed.

1. “IP laws aren’t stealing”
You clearly didn’t read my post since I go over this in the first few paragraphs (I even said that I was willing to not look at it as direct “theft” for the sake of argument). I do not think copying ROMs is the same as stealing a physical object. However, it is similar to something like getting a haircut then leaving without paying for the service. This a whole branch of legal law called “theft of service”. You can dislike the nomenclature, but regardless of what we call it your still taking a service/experience without paying for it.

2. On this topic, you’re completely ignoring my original point and have moved the goal posts. I was not asking you whether or not you thought breaking IP laws were ok by whether or not they were theft. I was asking you what I have asked you over and over. “Why does their availability change them from being bad to good?”

3. “You think that if something is a law than it is good!”
No. I do not. I specifically said that I agreed that laws are not always good. All I ever argued was this: I think it is generally good for people to be compensated for putting time and effort into a good/service that people use. I did not say IP laws were a human right. I did not say IP laws are morally good. Frankly I never even argued that breaking IP laws were always morally bad.

4. “Just because Nintendo followed the law does not mean they did the right thing”
I never argued this. You’re moving the goal posts again. YOU’RE the one why said it was a violation of the 8th amendment. I was simply providing you with a legal reason as to why it didn’t.

5. “IP laws are censorship”
You clearly did not read my post because I went over this in Sections 2 and 6. My main two points are:

a. Censorship is not simply “blocking information” (is a library censoring people by requiring a library card to read the books?). Censorship entails some sort of attempt to block information that has been deemed offensive, socially dangerous, or a security risk (or something of the sort). If you think that all forms of blocking information is censorship, then you must be more specific in each case to explain why it is actually wrong. You have not done this.

b. Video games are far more than just “information”. I go into details in my previous post and you did not address any of those points.

6. On this topic, you’re also completely ignoring my original point and have moved the goal posts. I was not asking you whether or not IP laws are bad. I was asking you what I have asked you over and over. “Why does their availability change them from being bad to good?”

7. “Copyright is abused now!”
I agree with you on this. I said that copyright laws are not perfect and are abused. You’re moving the goal posts again. You trying to win an argument I never made.

8. “The chair example”
See my earlier bullet (bullet 1). I do not think breaking copyright laws is the same as stealing a physical object, I have already said this. I have not idea why your beating me over the head with this.

9. “It’s hard to know what the damages actually were”
Of course it is. That’s why people do extensive research and the results must be agreed by multiple people. What are we supposed to do? Only punish people who’s crimes can be obviously quantified to perfection? This is silly, and you still can’t tell me where this estimate is actually wrong. You’ve only said “we can’t know for sure!” which is not helpful at all. There’s nothing in science that is sure, but we do the best we can. That’s how we operate as humans.

10. “Food…?”
Look, see my earlier point on why I don’t think it’s fair to call video games purely information (while recipes essentially are). Even if we were too assume that, this doesn’t means that all forms of “information blocking” is either all good or all bad. Video games take a lot of time, effort, man-hours. Creating a recipe does not. If we lived in a world were game creators were not compensated for their work, then there would be little to no video games. I think copyright laws are good not because they enforce moral goodness, but because they successfully (although not perfectly) create a world were thousands of video games exists and provide people with jobs. Does this mean we may not be able to play them all the time? Sure. But it’s the best we’ve come up with to make things like video games sustainable.

11. “Nintendo is censoring history!”
Then so are you flushing your crap down the toilet. If you create something, show to only a few people, then tear it to shreds it is not a big deal. You HAVE to be more specific than this broad statement.

12. “If it has been out for a while THEN it should be ok”
But why? Hows is this different from playing a hacked game early? What difference does time make? You have given no reason to make this jump from logic.

13. “Profit and sale possibility!”
I already addressed this, and you’re moving the goal posts again. Here’s it is again. “we were talking one simple thing “Does piracy results in less sales?” Whether or not these other things you’ve mentioned result in lost sales have NOTHING to do with this question. I never argued that the best solution is “maximum sales”, simply that future sales might be lost when Nintendo may resell their games in the future.” I don’t why you keep bring up more points about whether or not an increase in sales in certain situations is good or bad.

14. “Playing games is a right because people want to play them”
I’m sorry, but this is garbage. People simply “wanting” something is awful right to think people deserve. Many people want to rape, murder, and steal, but that does not make it ok.

15. “Nintendo does need to make games to live, therefore you are a hypocrite”
*Sigh* you’re outright losing me here. I never said Nintendo has some sort of human right to make games or that their lives depend on it. I just said that I think it is generally a good thing (not necessarily morally good) for Nintendo to be compensated for their hard work. That is all.

16. The rest of you “last part” is so baffling to me I will address it piece by piece.

“But the argument here is if breaking that law is even bad in the first place?”

No. This was never the original argument. Look back at my original comment, I specifically asked, “why does availability make a difference?”

“And why I have to play certain games? That goes back to the “why do they have to make certain games”?”

No, It absolutely doesn’t. I never said Nintendo should have to make games. You have not given me a good reason to think you deserve to play whatever game you want. This is not a positive argument for it.

“And remember, “profit law ideas” are not a moral thing or anything similar, and regardless of what you claim, your comments seem to act like it’s automatically moral or similar. Because of the issues with the profit and “Intellectual Property”, again, that’s why I am criticizing many of your points likely.”

While I never actually said the laws are morally good, this has NOTHING to do with my question. I asked why you think you deserve games that are unavailable. This has nothing to do with that. You’ve got to get better at staying on topic.

17. Other points you never addressed:

“If you don’t think piracy is morally wrong in the first place (and actually good), than bringing up availability in your original post was utterly pointless.”

“You’ve once again COMPLETELY dodged my point when talking about human rights. I was questioning why you thought being able to experience something for free is a human right. You have refused to give an answer to this question. “

You spent a lot of time arguing in your post against points I never made, and in every place where I said you missed the main point you kept going on about everything but the main point. I’m not using the term “moving the goal posts” to sound cool. I’m bringing it up because its a practice that makes honest debate nearly impossible. If you bring up something that is not related to my actual points next time, I will not address it.

Reply to new reply:
1.
You mean “Violating IP laws aren’t stealing”?
The hair cut thing is very different, because you agreed to owe them money. If a hair cut person kidnapped me, and then cut my hair for no reason, then I don’t think I need to pay the person anything.

2.
Maybe it really depends on when Copyright law is even fair. It could be a bit subjective at the same time,
though, there is also a “fair use” law (not that it’s automatically fair use to copy Nintendo ROMs without permission alone).
Here is an example of what I believe is completely stupid to do: Sueing someone for downloading a Nintendo ROM they already own. The results are no different than backing it up. I also vote that it needs to be a defense. <This is an example, I know this whole ROM site isn't on that topic itself.

3. You say they are not moral, but you then say they are generally good. That's kinda the same thing (similar), then you use that opinion as if it's good which is clear…
Anyway the problem with IP laws while not being a human right,
is that it can violate things that ARE human rights (i.e. freedom without interference and without threatening toward another freedom).
For example, the US constitution protects certain rights. When Copyright law interfears, it's violating it. DMCA can be used to violate free speech.

4.
OK, it's just that I felt that you were defending them.

5.
a. I think you might have a point there, though I don't think yours is exactly the same as one diffinition, though close, though. Anyway however Copyright could be used to block out information that is considered "unacceptable" to the artist, which is a form of censorship. And of course, even if one form of blocking out public information isn't considered
"censorship", I think it's just as bad regardless if "censorship" is really a special term or not.

b. I mean they are made out of data, which is information. The usage of them, and feelings alone is separate of course.

6.
Not sure if I understand, but I think that it may depend on the purpose of Copyright, with a balance of protected freedoms. Maybe what is "too far" isn't 100% clear, but it certainly is a thing of topic that I think is important.

7.
Maybe I'm just lost in the argument. But I do remember that it sounded like you were defending Nintendo on this, and then maybe acted like it's wrong for those people to do that to old games. Unless I'm mistaken.

8.
OK for the chair part, but what about the part where I was talking about copying the chair involving profits?

9.
But the "agreements" were probably forced, and I don't think all "agreements" involving what is "lost" is always right.

10.
Actually food recipies are also forms of work. It also does even need to be hard (like Copyright creative works) in order
to count. We could of protected recipe resulted food combination and have exclusive profits, but we don't.
I think there might be a theory that the purpose of Copyright was made to help prevent works from being forgotten, and that's probably where profits were mainly important.
But these Nintendo ROMs have been sold so long, and it's gotten to the point that ROM sharing is helping keeping history alive. Taking down the history of old ROMs that are barely sold is what I argue isn't good and they do not even need to profit off old Nintendo ROMs either. I don't know why you would use "it's good" to the point of trying to cover that (unless you're not?).
You even at times said something like "no excuse" or "it's stealing", which is what got me into a lot of arguments.

11.
OK, what is important for legal culture is making sure legal works are known to the public and enjoyed.
Nintendo taking down every single ROM site of old 20 – 30 year old games can make many of the games hard to be known, especially if a legal game was barely known in the first place. That hurts legal culture, and Copyright's purpose is to help legal works be known.
Downloading old ROMs, and even making legal mods can help promote the official company (those effects are real, and needs to be protected for balance).
Profits isn't the only thing.

12.
Because when a game has been out for 30 years and it was popular for example (and please look at 11.), then it should be considered more OK. Making a profit off a single work for over 30 years to the point of preventing the importance of legal culture and knowledge, isn't healthy.
The person doesn't need to profit over the same information over and over again, plus profits isn't always good (which you may or may not addressed, but just in case?)

13.
I don't know man, but I argue "no", it's "not a lost sale". The only real effects that exist is the effects of selling, but positive effects, even because of "copyright infringement" exist.
Plus sometimes you I think acted like "making a sell" is always superior, that any "less" sells of sharing Copyright is always bad. But if you don't mean that with the "maximum sales" thing, then alright then.

14.
Did I say "want" is a right automatically?
The difference between playing, say, a legal video game like Super Mario Bros. and raping for example is that raping violates the person's human rights.
Copying a video game without permission of a game that's public does not. And since Copyright and IP laws are not human rights, that's what makes it different. There is your answer.
Human rights (though some might look at it different, sadly) means to live, and be free without violating another person's freedom and without threatening to violate such person's freedom.

15.
I said you were acting like a hypocrite (or might, can't remember) was because you kept arguing that we don't need video games, but then you said Nintendo making it is good or close enough.
Yet, I think it's good for some people to enjoy and be happy with some Nintendo games, especially for certain health reasons of some people.

16.
a. Skipping, I probably already addressed this in this.
b. Look at 15. If Nintendo can be allowed to make games, then maybe people should be allowed to play their games that was already published without monopoly control.
c. Probably already addressed it. Though I am not sure if I agree with this statement either.

17.
Last Part (honestly I don't want to keep expanding too long, especially since for someone who likes to CONNECT arguments together.)
I probably made those posts because whenever I debate, I sometimes connect one topic to another. For example, if you thought "profits" were "always good" for Nintendo ROMs,
I wanted to make a lot of points in connection to the "it's good" and "profits". It's probably hard to explain.
Remember the rental example and fair use examples? (I also feel like you didn't even address those.).
So if you think profits of Copyright material is good, I started addressing about the rental thing and "what about fair use preventing it?" (and new point, future profit of parody) or similar enough.
Of course that's my example. You probably already said you don't mean all profits, which I wanted to make sure somewhere in this reply.

___
I reply by typing while looking at the messages I reply to from top to bottom generally. I might edit a little after reading further down.

Sorry if I made a mistake or more in this.