Yeah that's pretty much my attitude towards it too. I mean to me it's like recording an old movie or a sports event off the TV to watch later. If you're making `em to sell bootlegs then yeah that's bad but if it's just your own personal use I really don't see the problem.
"If everybody is thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking"- George S. PattonIt's funny to compare the emulation-hurts-gaming argument to the internet-news-hurts-news argument. They're both based on the idea that a secondary free source of something (entertainment or information) suffers if the pay-to-use primary source suffers, and they use very similar logic to get to their points, but it seems likely that people who'd support one argument would consider the other ridiculous without ever recognizing the parallels.
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something AwfulYeah I'm totally going to go pirate the classic newspapers like the 1992 New York Times. They just don't make em like they used to.
edited 1st Nov '10 11:12:37 PM by storyyeller
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play↑↑A very important difference between both positions is the support of the medium. if you take 1992's newspaper today, you can still operationally interact with it, ie.: hold it in your arms, open it and read it. With games (and with software in general) you run into the consequences of planned obsolescence. You most likely can still obtain Adventure In The Spaceship for the Vic20 legally, but you have to still find a Vic20 and a TV with which it will operate, raising operational cost to the point where you wold be expected to not have to want the product. All since, say, newest TVs today may most likely have HDMI-input-only with a DRM layer so that you can only connect it to "approved providers". See this
for kicks.
edited 2nd Nov '10 8:21:41 PM by SilentReverence
Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?^ I don't follow the argument made through the link. Are you attributing to developers a plan of censorship with a goal of making it impossible to think certain thoughts? I would think "keep the bottom line as high as possible" would be a more probable motivation.
edited 2nd Nov '10 8:27:51 PM by feotakahari
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful^No, I was attributing to developers that in order to have people merry go round with interrelated devices, they drop compatibility with everything else. The comic was just for the kicks.
Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?Used to do it a lot. Still have them, and would plan to use it some time in the future for sure. I would have to say that if it's released at least ten years or two "generations" ago (so Conkers Bad Fur Day for the N64 would be arguably acceptable), it's fine. Otherwise, I just don't bother.
edited 2nd Nov '10 10:25:31 PM by WartysNeryon
For me, in theory, if it's abandonware, the makers aren't gonna make any more money off of it, so it's up for grabs.
In practice, my laptop sucks so I don't actually emulate much. Just some Gameboy games I had on my old computer.
Let's Play Final Fantasy IV!All right, first of all, I support Piracy. I cannot even near afford to pay for a tiny fraction of the games I'm interested in play, and I already spend hundreds of dollars a year on gaming. Far more than is economically responsible. Piracy? What's piracy? I buy and play games however I can because I'm a gaming fan, not get worked up over something fairly unrelated to a gaming experience, like the arbitrary faux-morality found in "anti-piracy". If you're strongly anti-piracy, you're not more of a gamer, you're either a person who likes to spend less time playing video games or playing a variety of video games, or you're rich. The whole anti-piracy thing just sounds like an excuse for rich people to be snooty or people who don't want to try out a different game being recommended to them.
If you want people to also buy games, that's fine. But being pro-buying and being anti-piracy are two very different things. I am in near equal parts pro-both.
Secondmore, why is there such a strong conflating of not just downloading, but downloading games you don't own for emulation? Admittedly, of course, the emulation community does much of this, even when many are pretending not to for their image. But many people emulate who own the consoles and the games. In many ways, it's a lot simpler to simply make a click on the desktop than plug-in a very old Super Nintendo Entertainment System.
Besides the pro-Piracy argument that "it's okay if it's hard to buy, or even if you can you can't support the makers and it's a collectors item". Emulation has many advantages over the traditional media. You can click of the mouse instead of popping in a disc or a cartridge. Emulation offers you a plethora of shaders for 2d graphics. Emulation enhances 3d graphics with various plugins. Emulation gives you a highly enhanced amount of features original to the consoles, with an improved interface, not having the limitations and non-DIY nature of them. For instance, it is much more simple to gamesave in all sorts of manner, cheat code, use controllers, and even record video, on a computer than finding a television workaround. And for many things, like handhelds, not only does emulation improve options and graphics, but also graphics per interface or screen. Handhelds can be hard on the neck and back, and it's much advantageous to be able to play a Gameboy game on a "50 LED LCD TV 1080p screen at a desk or tv stand and whatever controller you want instead of a tiny screen, which you have to squirm around to give your neck some remote ease. The Virtual Console and Play Station Network have made headway in this effort, and I applaud and purchase from them for it, but they are no where close to making the emulator obsolete. I'll say that we're nearing the obsoletion of the emulator when there is a superior version for the PC released for all older console games.
Emulation has made Final Fantasy X feel like a new game. And I never would have felt like making the effort to play it again on the PS 2. I OWN the game. But the memory of my old case and copy is not something I want to be on my mind when I want to play it again. It looks much sharper than it did on a TV plugged in with the S-Video, and someday when I make upgrades, I'll easily be able to make Let's Play videos. And furthermore, using an emulator essentially gives me the superior, "infinite" memory card, as opposed to pay far overprice for some tiny size storage just to put my gamesaves. In every case, emulation gives you a LOT more options if you look for it. Pretty much every console of game that has been emulated looks better in SOME way to their elsewhere counterpart.
I can buy, and am planning to buy Final Fantasy VII from the Play Station Network, even though I already own a copy. But their simple smoother nowhere close to competes with Pete's Open GL 2 plug-in.
I definitely own a Play Station 2, and several of the games I emulate. But I don't want to ever go near that thing again if I can avoid it, and I want my computer to completely, eventually replace it. As much as I'm a console gaming fan, it's because of the exclusive games to the consoles(a good portion of the games I enjoy, seem to be made by Japanese developers, for the console only). Computer gaming, not the games themselves, but the format, is vastly superior.
edited 15th Nov '10 11:04:55 AM by Ukonkivi
Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]I doubt many people are arguing emulation for games that are owned at least. I agree that emulating has many conveniences. You don't have to worry about batteries dieing or scratched cd's causing issues, since as long as you have a clean rom and a good emulator, you probably won't have issues, and any issues that may appear are chronic ones that you're already aware of, instead of something unexpected like the cd skipping after playing an rpg for 3 hours without having the chance to save. And it offers things like Fast fowarding or save states (I actually don't save state myself except for some games that don't allow saving, but it's still useful).
That said, I do think it's a bit much to say that people who only buy games and say no to emulation are snooty rich people. I still hold by my stance of only buying new games if they are available, and not emulating newer systems since that's money for the developers. Am I a snooty rich kid? No, the actual end result is that I don't wind up buying every game I'd like to. It does limit the games I can get, but I'm ok with that, because I find that that also acts as a natural limit to what I buy. I find that when I have a crapload of games available to play, it's hard for me to complete any. Heck, even with this system it's still hard for me to complete what I want, but it helps.
Taking a break from FE1, for the FE8 draft insteadI'm not saying that prefer to buy is for snooty rich people. It's a lifestyle choice for people and there's nothing snooty about it. I just don't think it makes you more of a gamer, or any of the other arguments anti-pirates make about the issue.
A downloaded game is not a lost sale. Sure, a person who pirates may never be interested in supporting the industry. And that does irk me. And I have a problem with that. But again, Anti-Piracy isn't the same as pro buying. If the problem you take with piracy is people never buying, you shouldn't say you're against piracy, you should say you're against never buying. And seriously, even then, people shouldn't have to pay for games they've tried and hated. For instance, I've been used and comfortable with JRP Gs for most of my life, and have tried little other than Diablo II, which I didn't like and haven't gone back. But now that wRPG fans seem to be harassing jRPG fans so much lately, I'd like to have a go at The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Fable, and Fallout, but I'd feel bitter if I bought them and greatly disliked them. And I'd definitely happily and proudly buy them if I enjoy them. But if I have to choose between buying them and never playing them, then I think I'd choose to never play them. And I'm certainly not going to make a clear flamebait thread of "why should I buy and try [x western rpg]?", to only get me a thousand people calling me a Japanophile trash who needs to kill myself. Also, a bunch of people telling me I should feel ashamed for not having played Elder Scrolls, Fable, Fallout, or Mass Effect, may sway my mouse, but they can't sway my wallet.
Really the moral issue that people are asking when they is "is piracy EVER" okay, is not only just "should underground games even be allowed to be played, or is it only moral for them to be unplayed and forgotten?", but "should I play now, or pay later since I can't afford to have this new game and pay the water bill".
Some people have become recently unemployed, or live in a poor country. And of course, these people should spend time looking for a job. But people can't spend every waking hour doing so. And do people from poor countries not deserve to play many games? There are also many people with minimum wage jobs in 1st World countries who can only dream of spending $300 on video games a year.
I think that a truly hardcore gamer isn't caught up on questions like that, so much as they want to play more games more often. They want to own as many video games as they can, they want to play as many video games as they can, and they want to dedicate as many hours as they can to all of them. I've spent so much money on video games in my life I could own several nice, cheap used cars. I have probably spent a good 10,000 or more on video games in my lifetime. And I am young. And I have played many more, of course because I love video games more than my wallet would afford even if I chose not to eat every day. And I don't even consider myself a truly hardcore gamer.
If I had actually spent all the money I could, on every single piece of music I had ever listened to, every single movie or show I had ever watched, and every single video game I had ever played, in the hypothetical situation I actually had that much money. I could afford a nice 500,000 home by now.
I know that if it weren't for piracy, there wouldn't be so many people like me banging down at people's door trying to get them to release more copies of Seiken Densetsu 3 and Bunny Girl Must die.
And I know that I would not have listened to over 10,000 music artists, completed over 5,000 shows of my choosing, and played over 1,000 Video Games. And I plan to buy nearly every single one of them before I die, and listen to, watch, and play much more, before I die.
You can say that "but some people won't buy". But that shouldn't be the same as being against piracy, even for games that you can buy and support the maker. To say nothing of being against pirating games you can't support the maker, can't buy, and cannot emulate, period.
Some people here are taking a strictly anti-emulation stance. And conflating it with, well, pirating. Saying some instances of piracy are okay or denouncing it outright. And that's simply not true, not only do I disagree with them on piracy on a moral economic level, being sympathetic to the proletariat, but emulation simply isn't the same as pirating. I don't know about you, but I enjoy playing games like Pokemon much better on a 22" screen instead of a 5" screen, and dream of someday playing it on 55" 1080p LED LCD TV a and an hq2x filter. I've really wished they would make a full fledged console Pokemon game for years now, but they haven't. And even if they did, I'd eventually to be able to play in on a computer.
Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]Your logic is intensely flawed. Here's what it sounds like when ported to another medium:
"I enjoy reading books. However, books are expensive, I have no local libraries, and I don't have a lot of money. I steal books from my local bookstore, because if I would have to pay for every single book I read, it would cost me far too much money. Do I not deserve to read books simply because I can't afford to pay for everything I read?"
The answer is, "no".
The point is simple - if you can't afford something, you don't get it. Not "if you can't afford something, you steal it". It's a matter of priorities. If you want a house more than you want games, you don't buy games. Period. There are millions of people worldwide who manage to get through their lives without ever playing video games. When I was a kid, I got three or four games a year, played the hell out of them, and kept myself entertained.
I am not saying that every pirated game results in a lost sale - but if you actually would have to buy each and every game you play, you would certainly be buying more than you do now, because you'd be bored. Hence your piracy is losing somebody at least one sale somewhere, because you're getting your free gaming fix in the meantime.
Piracy may not be the end of civilization and a huge sink on the bottom line - but it is morally wrong, and anyone who tries to claim otherwise is just trying to justify the immoral behavior they've chosen. Not saying it isn't sometimes justifiable, any more than stealing medicine to help your sick mother may be justifiable, but it's still wrong.
(Yes, we've veered away from emulation, because those last two posts bothered me too much.)
edited 16th Nov '10 6:47:22 AM by Cidolfas
I'm ambivalent towards emulation. I don't do it personally, but it doesn't really bother me.
Hugging a Vanillite will give you frostbite.Except that downloading is like checking out items from a library. And nothing like stealing books from a local bookstore. One is physically taking a physical object from a store that carries it. While the other is copying information.
My logic is intensely flawed? Yours is hilariously flawed. Comparing piracy to stealing is one of the most ridiculous statements in the history of humanity, and there's a lot of them. And it is your statement saying that the poor do not deserve to be able to read books they want to read, play games they want to play, listen to music they want to listen to, and watch shows and movies they want to watch, that is morally wrong.
Under your logic about "piracy", libraries are immoral. Home taping is immoral. And so on and so forth. A downloading site is just like a Library, a collection of information made available to the public who may not be able to afford it at the time, though buying media is still encouraged. And someone likely had to buy the material to make it public. Just like download sites have to get their hands on a copy of something, in order to distribute it.
The only difference is that "internet piracy", where people share files some copyright fascists deem wrong, is New Media. Something as a format that makes media available to more people. I'm sure there are a lot of lost sales on account of libraries. And just like Online Downloads, people didn't earn this. Are library users stealing? Yes, Libraries are immoral theft. And anyone who tries to claim otherwise is just trying to justify the immoral behavior they've chosen. We should all be slaves to Fascist Capitalism. I mean, as long as the poor people don't get to have nice things while the vast sum of wealth in the world is held by a few, all is well with the world, huh?
You know, there are a lot of companies out there that have wanted to clamp down on selling things used. Because it doesn't make them a sale if their object is simply resold ad nauseum. But it's simply unrealistic, and human rights would be hard to push back that far in the name of Corporate power. But obviously many companies have shown a genuine dislike of used selling of their products.
Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]I think that's more to do with the "New Media" thing than anything. Libraries have been around for centuries(millennia, actually), and while companies may not like the lost profits they get from libraries and used selling, they've been a part of the status quo for a long time.
Part of the issue of selling piece of data, is paying for the cost of the media it is "printed on" so to speak, in the first place. The physical media costs money to distribute. Libraries could never just give out copies of things because it was not efficient, while lending with a 'contract' of sorts, was.
The further you go back, the harder it was to create media. But in modern times, it's as easy as a quick digital copy. All dependent on things such as connection speed and computer power.
So the internet itself is kind of like a transcendent library. One can do what their connection can give them, a connection that works in wires instead of delivery trucks.
And the so called issue has been there since Antiquity. Many Copyrights finally outstay their welcome and die. And become Public Domain like they should have largely been treated to begin with. And yet things that are free still sell due to some nature of Physical Media service. Free works, such as say, the Bible, are readily and heavily purchased. I'd say the Bible, a work that is completely free, is one of the most purchased works in Literature in human history.
That part about "keeping the information in a book" is also poignant. If I check out a book, in text, I can make the strenuous effort of typing the entire thing and saving it as a file on my computer. Have I stolen the book? As well, Libraries often carry Video Games, Music, and Movies. And I have myself also copied Video Games from a Library into an .Iso file, and kept them on my computer. Which is essentially the same as downloading them. Also, when I was younger, and an addict of certain books, I even went so far as to type the entire thing into notepad.
If I download a torrent of an .Iso file of a game I want to play, is it stealing? Why and why not?
If I extract an .Iso from a game I checked from a Public Library, is it stealing?
If I copy the information from an e-book, digitally, to my computer, that I checked out from a Public Library, is it stealing?
If I copy, by hand and eye, a Print Media I have checked out from the Library, onto my computer in some word processor, is it stealing?
Any difference between these four is very gentle.
edited 16th Nov '10 9:01:09 AM by Ukonkivi
Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]Emulation is only justifiable when it's the last resort (for example, games that are not going to be released outside a specific region and/or the game is too rare and/or expensive).
Emulating games that you don't own and can be easily bought from likes of Virtual Console or eBay is just as wrong as outright stealing(in fact, it IS outright stealing).
edited 16th Nov '10 9:25:34 AM by ThatOtherGriffin
Nevermind the all important Piracy discussion posters like you have helped to bring about in me.
But you're saying that if I own a Super Nintendo, and I own that game, that playing that game on the computer with ZNES is stealing?
Also, the users here are seriously making me want to bump some of the old piracy discussions on this forum. This place is starting to make me feel a bit ill with the anti-piracy mentality of some users. Such as calling Piracy stealing. One of the silliest things I've ever heard in my life. Really, it's nearly on par with calling homosexuality paedophilia.
In any case, I'm happy that people at least support the playing of games that aren't buyable. Unlike Shrinemaiden.org. Who has taken being the antithesis of Doujinstyle to Fan Dumb. According to them, rarities such as Bunny Girl Must die shouldn't be played unless paid for, or you're "ripping them off" or whatever inane anti-piracy rhetoric they're using at the time. And games like that pretty much aren't buyable. So they're essentially saying Bunny Girl Must Die shouldn't be played and be forgotten like the terrible game it is.
(I love Bunny Girl Must Die. I wish I could buy it and support the Author).
edited 16th Nov '10 9:33:43 AM by Ukonkivi
Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]I used to emulate/download almost EVERY game I had. NES, SNES, but GBA too, and later DS and PSP. It's gotten increasingly less lately, but this is mostly due to the fact that I now can actually afford to buy the games I like, as opposed to my past, jobless kiddo self.
I have nothing against emulation or piracy, but I'd rather buy the game myself, too.
Stargate SG-1 Let's Watch. Because my ZHP thing failed.Oh, sorry. I missed that part it would seem. I'm glad that you don't conflate emulation with piracy.
We still disagree on the issue of piracy, though. Why is piracy theft? Is it stealing to read a book you don't own?
edited 16th Nov '10 10:32:49 AM by Ukonkivi
Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]As stated: Libraries are not immoral, because you are borrowing the item, you are not keeping it. Home taping is immoral, because again, you are keeping something you never paid for.
Never did I say "poor people don't deserve to read books/play games/whatever". Money is a commodity. It is your decision how to spend that commodity, and if you want to play games, you will need to forego whatever else you might have bought with that money. Sure, rich people have more of it - the same way beautiful people have an easier time getting jobs and dates, and people with disabilities have harder times getting around. Going around saying "it's not FAIR!" is a fruitless, childish way of complaining about your lot in life, rather than taking what you have and doing whatever you can with it. "I'm poor, so why can't I have that yacht? I'll just steal it from the rich guy who has it!" Immoral and wrong.
There are plenty of online companies - Gamefly, for example - where you can pay a small fee for unlimited game playing, as long as you return it. Using them is going through legal and ethical pathways to purchase your material. Similarly, libraries and video rental places have deals with distributors and they get portions of the rental or late fees as well as the original copies of the item. Illegal download sites do not.
One last point about libraries - each and every copy must be purchased. Meaning that for one publisher to supply every library in the country, tens of thousands of copies must be bought from the publisher. Similarly for video rental stores. With downloads, though, only a single copy needs to ever be bought for everyone on the Internet to have access to it. The difference in profit loss is literally exponential.
Copyrights are a red herring. They have no bearing on this. The vast majority of video games are still under copyright.
"If I download a torrent of an .Iso file of a game I want to play, is it stealing? Why and why not? "
Yes - because the exact thing you got for free is being sold in stores, right now, for a price.
"If I extract an .Iso from a game I checked from a Public Library, is it stealing? "
Yes - because you never paid for it, you are supposed to be returning the item and effectively you are not.
"If I copy the information from an e-book, digitally, to my computer, that I checked out from a Public Library, is it stealing? "
Yes - because you were supposed to return it, and effectively you didn't.
"If I copy, by hand and eye, a Print Media I have checked out from the Library, onto my computer in some word processor, is it stealing? "
No - because you do not have that original item any more. You don't have the pages, you don't have the cover, you don't have the bindings. Moreover, you had to go through sustained personal effort to end up with what you have. Photocopying that same book - or even photocopying your hand-typed copy - is stealing - because the effort is less and the end result is much closer to the original.
"But you're saying that if I own a Super Nintendo, and I own that game, that playing that game on the computer with ZNES is stealing?"
No - again, I said I was commenting on your post about piracy, not emulation. If you own the original there is nothing ethically wrong with having it in a slightly different format. This is why you can buy a CD and legally rip it to iTunes, and why no one has ever been prosecuted for emulating something they already own.
"Is it stealing to read a book you don't own?"
No - again, because you do not keep that book. It is stealing only if you take it away and don't give it back. Which is why libraries have overdue fines.
Lovely, you've just compared all of class struggle to a whining child over the issue of piracy. Capitalism isn't fair. And people have a right to complain about Class inequalities. It's not childish to say "it's not fair" about class. It's being class conscious.
I am personally disgusted with your Social Darwinism in this case. Against the poor, those considered less pretty by a culture(essentially, worthy of being considered racism. Race doesn't exist, so treating people differently on the job based upon looks might as well be a form of racism), and the disabled. People deserve the same opportunities, independent of what they look like. Those in power do have the right to withhold power, this is bourgeois and exploitative. And the disabled deserve to have the same opportunities as everyone else in society. And their so called "childish, fruitless whining" is why we have so many accommodations to the disabled. And the poor wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the immoral exploitation of the rich. Every single person would be able to live comfortably and play games that they want, outside of a Capitalist system.
And Libraries have worked that way for centuries because of the limitations of physical media. The borrow says nothing of the copy. Physical media cannot be taken like some loaves of bread and fish Jesus act and be distributed physically who goes to the library without using costly materials. While digital media storage and transfer is much more efficient. The fact that Libraries have to have several copies to lend out and websites only need one, says nothing about the morality of the matter and everything about the inefficiency of Physical Media. And if a Library contains Software meant for installation, the only way to simulate what you are talking about, would be to uninstall the program when one has returned the copy. And surprisingly enough, many Libraries carry Computer games for "borrow", as you put it. But whether you return the disc or not, you contain the data on your computer from typical usage. You "keep" the game as soon a you run it in it's typical function.
And the only difference between borrowing and "having" is the time in interval. All a person has to do when they have run out of time with a checkout, is check it back in. And the purpose in this interval is to make sure other people get to read the book or such, not to keep materials from customers so they will be tempted to buy it.
No - because you do not have that original item any more. You don't have the pages, you don't have the cover, you don't have the bindings. Moreover, you had to go through sustained personal effort to end up with what you have. Photocopying that same book - or even photocopying your hand-typed copy - is stealing - because the effort is less and the end result is much closer to the original. I wish I knew how to quote right now, but this is hilarious cognitive dissonance. You have and don't have the original item anymore equally as much as the previous cases. If you download an .Iso from a game you have never owned physically tghe "original item". But you have it's data contents without taking anything. If you copy the .Iso of the game from the Library, and you return it, you do not have that original item anymore. But you have it's data contents without taking anything. If you copy the text from an e-book at the Library, and you return it, you do not have the original item anymore. But you have it's data contents without taking anything. If you physical re-type a print media you have checked out from the library, and you return it, you do not have the original item anymore. But you do have it's data contents without taking anything.
If you extract an .Iso at home, and return the checked out Video Game while keeping the .Iso on your data storage, you do not have the original item anymore. The only accurate point you make is that it takes more effort. But it doesn't matter how much effort it takes to copy material, whether with a pen and paper, with a very old computer, or a very new 4 GHz 8 GB DDR 3 & 200 GB SDD computer, it's still a copy. The exact contents as the original, without purchase. And not temporarily. The only way you mean "effectively you are not returning it", is . And the only contrast you are able to make is effort, copying a disc with the aide of computer is easy, while re-typing an entire book is hard. But either way, it is a copy of something you yourself did not create. You did not write the book or program the game, and you have copied the material. The fact that typing it yourself is inefficient is meaningless. The morality of "Copyright" isn't based upon how much effort one wastes. Watching a pirated movie on an old, horrible TV, isn't any better than watching a pirated movie on a new, shiny, LED TV.
If you write down or type by hand a book you have copied from the Library, instead of simply download from the internet or copy an e-book from the library, you have not "stolen" something any less or more. You have simply used incredibly inefficient, obsolete, and generally pointless methods for means of data copy, instead of efficient ones.
And what if someone takes that typed copy of a Library book they have checked out, and host it on the internet? Say, they put it on a bittorrent tracker? Or perhaps, a file sharing client such as Soulseek? Like many have done with popular works such as the Harry Potter series? This is the file they have copied down themselves, and you say this is not immoral piracy. But are they not allowed to share this extensive notepad file? No...? Let's make this about something other that a popular J.K. Rowling book. What if someone, instead of put Harry Potter on the internet, has a poor friend in college, who cannot afford the books for classes this Semester. Would it not be comparable to the J.K. Rowling book case, to copy your entire textbook word for word, and give it to your friend? You are splitting fine, meaningless hairs here, with a vivacious inanity.
I can't believe someone would even attempt to argue what you are.
And that bit about emulation isn't directed at you at all. But the thread, generally those who have said emulation is immoral unless it's unbuyable. You should know better than that.
edited 16th Nov '10 12:23:27 PM by Ukonkivi
Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

Personally, I hate handhelds. I buy the game and emulate it.