Having found this board thanks to stumbling onto Get-Your-Rom, it's pretty obvious that I'm into retro emulation.  However, I am one of the first to turn my nose at piracy of contemporary games.  It's obvious that games, like anything else, take time and effort to create, and deserve to stand on their own in the marketplace without the threat of bootleggers cutting them off at the knees.

Now obviously, there's technically little difference between what we do here and what they do at places like The Pirate Bay.  However, I'm not here to discuss technicalities.  What of the moral differences?  99% of the games hosted on this site will never be re-released and will, without emulation, be lost when the systems that played them are broken.  In this light, it's obvious that sites like RGR and GYR are needed, if only to preserve this culture's history, especially in a time when it seems the larger publishers could give a damn less about gaming history.

So where's the line?  Obviously, the newest games shouldn't be on this site.  That would be no different than stealing.  But how far back until we can realistically say that, yes, this is something that can be put on the site without threatening its money-making potential?  And, going beyond obvious law issues, should there be a moral obligation to comply with rights holders who don't want THEIR games on this and similar sites?

Me, I say that being conservative is the best policy in this regard.  The most obvious AOK would be when a system can no longer easily be serviced, or is obsolete  due to incompatibility with contemporary displays, which we see with consoles from the NES to the Dreamcast.  The PS2 and GameCube, by contrast, still have repair support offered, and there's still quite the vibrant games market on eBay (eg, it's more than just crazy people wanting $200 for their copy of an ultra-rare title).  The DS is obviously still performing well, and PSP games are moving over to the Vita, though perhaps not many.  It'll be many years before I feel comfortable with Rom sites offering these titles.

So, where do you guys draw the line morally?  Is there one for you?

Thank you for your time.

Me, I think the line applies once the profits from purchasing the game/system no longer goes to the original developers. For example, Pokemon Ruby is no longer being produced in new copies. The only ones that you can find are used a Gamestop. Since buying it there won't help Nintendo in any way, only Gamestop who is literally doing nothing and making a profit, I say it's fine in that case.

An interesting way to put it, Someone, though I've certainly no trouble with buying used at the ol' Gamestop as long as its not something stupidly expensive (No joke, the one by my house had this copy of Marvel VS Capcom 2 for PS2 that they were trying to sell for $80 for YEARS before the XBLA/PSN version came out).  Though at that point, that just comes down to preference (I love having the real thing when possible, just something about slapping a cart into a system) .  However, as I'd be flabbergasted if Nintendo ever re-released Pokémon Ruby, I'd probably think that's a fine one to get on emulators... Though at this point, I'm not sure I could find those old Pokémon games. *Laughs*  So yeah, you've got yourself a good drawing line I think, Someone.  I just wish more people thought like you.

I would have never thought that Gamestop could be a making a profit on older games, and not the companies who made them, until Someone70 mentioned it. Although I am inclined to agree with her, I am still concerned. A physical copy of the game will still have some value if a company can sell it, but when should ROM sites have near-free reign to distribute? Obviously they should not be making a profit off of them, but I think ROM sites should have some freedom to distribute when companies like Gamestop will no longer buy back games in exchange for store credit. The reason being is that physical copies of such games would be much less likely to sell to customers in the first place. In my opinion, the people most likely to buy them would be collectors.

I do believe there has to be an obligation to removing games that companies do not want websites to host. It is rather easy to understand this if you look back on some of the requests David had to comply with in the past. Sega requested for a specific emulator to be taken down due to licensing --and they did not say anything about the games themselves. Atari came and asked David to remove 52 games (I think it was for the Atari 2600) because the company (Atari) was hosting the games on their own website. As much as these games seem to hold little monetary value, the companies are still the owners of the intellectual property --we only purchase the right to play the game, nothing more.

Wow.  AuraBlaze just said it better than I could.  Bravo!

The point id say its ok is when the licensing expires and they dont renew it, making it abandon ware, equaly if theyve simply discontinued it theres little harm in snatching it up