-
Downloading Retro Video Games For Free
Salam Alaikum,
I’ve been emulating some very old video games by downloading emulators (legal) and their iso/rom files (considered illegal due to copyright etc).
I don’t know if the use of these iso/rom files is a sin because on one hand the copy and distribution of any game you do not own is illegal. But on the other hand these gaming consoles are old, outdated, no longer in production and you can only purchase a hard copy of the game which are expensive and hard to find and I prefer soft copy (the downloadable one) as I can also use memory editors and learn about the game engine etc. Plus there are so many websites which one can easily download these old games from easily and for free. Honestly if I had the choice to pay whatever they are worth now in this era I would but I’m afraid it’s not possible to get a payed for and legal iso/rom file.
Confused over here as to what to do 😕?
-
21 Replies
-
Downloading Retro Video Games For Free
updated 9 months, 1 week ago
3 Members
·
21
Replies
-
From the available limited information, the matter seems to be not of clear violation of any directive of religion since the matter has become somewhat foggy i.e. mushtabihat category, and in such circumstances no clear directive of prohibition can be given but it is advised by the Prophet (sws) to prefer attitude of restrain in such matters.
But if you are satisfied at your end that there is no violation of copyrights any more considering the fact that particular outlet does not exist any more or is not generating revenue from those games anymore or has permanently discontinued that line of video games etc etc. then it would be a much easier choice to make in using those games without any fear of sin at your end.
However, if the production house still considers it a voilation of their copyrights explicitly and has a very specific mode of sale of their vintage games available then one cannot opt for any other means of acquiring those games without their permission and if done so, it would be a sinful act.
-
Yeah for old PC games they still consider it a source of revenue. They have sites like GOG which is a steam like platform for people to buy these old PC games at reasonable prices.
Problem is with outdated consoles like ps2 and Gameboy color/advanced. I don’t intend to play those games on the original console but rather on an emulator so I can dissect the game engines and stuff. Roms for those games are easily downloadable for free from those websites which have ads and timers etc but if there was such a site to pay for for those roms I’d gladly do it (sadly no such exists). Having said that even though the games are copyright I think Sony and Nintendo no longer those games a source of revenue (I could be wrong though) as there are sequels to to games that they sell in their stores etc also, if they did consider old games as still a source of revenue they should offer steam like service for emulator and old games and put a stop to all those websites that are in plain view (just my thought)
-
Update just did more research.
So the development houses were producing these games and offering them for sale until 2018 after which they were taken down from online stores. The expensive hard copies out there for sale all belong to 3rd parties who profit off them as “antique” pieces rather than just the value of the gameplay experience. Furthermore many other independent video game programers have downloaded these roms and heavily modified them to release their own version of the “Hacked game” which falls under fair use and no one sees as problematic. However technically these hacked roms are fabricated using the original copyrighted ROM file too so it’s kind of a weird loophole there.
Given this situation I’ve concluded that it’s fine to get those free roms unless or until the soft copies reappear for sale some time in the future on their official online stores which is when I would have to buy the soft copy for those games before playing them since they will then reconsider them a source of revenue (opinion I’ve reached with my own logic).
-
This seems to be the right conclusion in the light of additonal information.
-
I hate to make things complicated but video games aren’t a need so is it okay to benefit from this loophole? I mean, it can be said for products you need but luxury products? In my knowledge, majority of video games company is against any form of copyright violation of their video games even if they refuse to make them available for purchase on reasonable terms.
Here is an example of a company’s stance on old games:
Isn’t it okay to download Nintendo ROMs for games that are no longer distributed in the stores or commercially exploited? Aren’t they considered “public domain”?
No, the current availability of a game in stores is irrelevant as to its copyright status. Copyrights do not enter the public domain just because they are no longer commercially exploited or widely available. Therefore, the copyrights of games are valid even if the games are not found on store shelves, and using, copying and/or distributing those games violates Nintendo’s intellectual property rights.
-
-
I think it also depends on geography of where one is and the purpose of downloading Roms. The source you sited was Nintendo Australia. I live in Canada and here’s what it says for the law of the land here:-
What countries is pirating games legal?
I do know that in Switzerland downloading copyrighted content for personal use is perfectly legal. Spain too has similar rules. You cannot distribute the content or use it to make profit though. Canada, Mexico and Netherlands are also known to tolerate downloading copyrighted contents for personal use.
-
You are debating legal aspect but the original question is about sin (and I think that’s what we are all interested in really).
@UmerQureshi argued that if the “production house still considers it a violation of copyrights explicitly” then it is considered a sin. So I wanted him to elaborate on this because apparently, regardless of region, almost every company consider pirating as a violation of copyrights explicitly.
I gave the example of what I mean explicitly in the above Source and generally that is a stance of Nintendo overall and generally the same stance is shared by every company that I know of (because obviously a company doesn’t want people to use their product without permission, retro or not) regardless of geography. So what do we do now? My country won’t jail me but what will Allah do?
-
Btw I posted my latest question without realizing that you had responded to my geographic location argument.
Yes so the whole spirit of the issue is that even though these very old retro games are not a revenue source or any other source of tangible benefit to Nintendo despite the whole copyright issue is it still a sin to download and play these roms?
-
-
Also the spirit of this issue is whether this copyright violation of these old unavailable games is a sin or not.
The way I see it is that since everything can now be made available online, Nintendo should make legal copies of those super old games available online if it still considered the old games part or revenue generation (in which case it would technically be stealing).
However since they don’t and these old games are no longer a revenue source, no body is being harmed despite the copyright hence it is not a sin (plz provide counter argument if you think my reasoning is wrong or I’m missing some aspect).
-
The general counter arguments are:
1. Video games are not a need but a luxury product. Therefore if they are not available then using a controversial means of obtaining them is putting yourself unnecessarily in Allah’s eyes because you can’t say that you really need them especially since the video game company are crying about their rights being violated. They are not quiet about it, they do cry a lot about injustice like e.g Nintendo.
2. It is a permission issue generally. If I don’t want you to take a picture of my car then is it immoral to take the picture anyway (even if there is no harm in making a copy of car in picture form)? That’s issue, companies intentionally make older products unavailable just so people can buy new ones. By going against their permissions, many people will not end up buying newer products because people will just get a free substitute (although older/retro). Companies argue that this hurts their “potential” sales and profit.
Now that being said, I’m not sure how scholars generally feel about the 2nd point so I would love to hear an analysis whether hurting potential sales is a violation of rights/sin. @UmerQureshi
-
Yes it’s those 2 points we are essentially concerned about. But I would just like to add some comments and some further questions to those points for the sake of additional perspectives:-
Point number 1:- if copyright violation is such a serious issue to Nintendo, why can’t they just make those old titles available on their online stores to obtain legally? Furthermore I did some more digging online and it’s perfectly legal and not a copyright issue to dump the rom file from a physical game cartridge (with the help of media transfer device etc) to an alternate electronic medium. However if one downloads a rom off a rom sharing site despite owning a legal copy of the game it is still copyright violation according to Nintendo (I thing Sony has a different policy here though). In essence if one is going to use a game for his own personal use only, what moral difference does it make if they download a rom or dump a rom if they own a legal copy?
2.) Going against their consent with the whole copyright is the point of contention with them yes. But then again another reason why newer titles and gaming systems are able to sell and do business is because people have enjoyed the predecessor titles and look forward to newer versions of those old titles they enjoyed. Hence one of the main sellable aspects of newer titles is that people eventually get bored of the old titles and look forward to enjoying the new ones. However If customers dont want to play the newer titles for some reason or another (could be that they think the older title was better) and want to adhere to an older title rather than play a newer version they have every right to. For example Ubisoft can’t stop me from playing assassin’s Creed 1 just because assassin’s Creed 2 is now out there.
-
1. The difference is that one copy that you dump physically is paid for. What Allah expected was done (paying your part of the deal) but downloading the rom without any compensation is not acceptable, at least try to give something to Nintendo. Like how Zakat can be compensated as part of your taxes. I don’t know maybe give some donations to Nintendo lol but they don’t do that so we are out of luck here.
2. While you are giving good advice to Nintendo, it is not an argument. If I don’t want to sell you my car then you better respect my choice. Ubisoft chooses to let you play old games, good for them, but Nintendo doesn’t, their choice. Also funny thing about rights, according to Terms of Service of most game company (including Ubisoft and Nintendo), they can stop you from playing any games without any reason becasue you own a license, not the game itself. So technically, it’s not your right to play Assassin’s Creed 1, it is a privilege given by Ubisoft, Nintendo simply denies this privilege when it comes to older games, you have respect their choice apparently.
I know it sounds a little rough but that’s why people have a problem with current copyright laws, they are unfair because they take away a lot of the right of the consumers but we are not here to debate what should be and what laws are, question is: The law is oppressive, can a Muslim still violate it? Will Allah hold him accountable especially if the product in question is not a basic need?
-
-
The exemptions in religion on ethical and dietary violations are not based on basic needs of a person but on the presence of Iztarar (when something becomes a matter of life and death or under compulsion). Therefore, if something is a clear violation of someone else’s rights then violating those rights would not doubt be a sinful act.
The question here arises whether or not this particular form of copyrights violation is actually a sin because of usurpation of someone’s rights. If a company has a clear policy in this regard then any form of copyrights violation would be a sin as a general principle.
However, legal laws of a country override any company specific policies and every company abides by those laws if they want to operate in that country. It is also an implied understanding that if a company chooses to operate in the particular country, then they would abide by those laws as well even if they contradict the Company’s own policy in this regard. If this is the situation in any country where such copyrights violations are considered legal at an individual level (subject to certain conditions), then the matter downgrades from status of explicit prohibition.
Secondly, matters of a company cannot be equated with examples of usurpation of human rights at an indicidual level, since they both have a different status legally i.e. company is a separate legal entity whose whole process from incorporation to its dissolution is governed by specific laws and all its rights and responsibilities are determined by those laws only.
Therefore, if such conditions exist in any country then the matter belongs to mushtabih category i.e. which is not clearly Haram, and an individual has to decide for himself whether they still want to refrain from using this privilege or not. In all circumstances, the decision should be honest by the individual based on all the available information.
-
That makes sense. I do however need one clarification on this:
“If this is the situation in any country where such copyrights violations are considered legal at an individual level (subject to certain conditions), then the matter downgrades from status of explicit prohibition.”
In most countries, like Canada, piracy for personal use is not considered illegal. But it is still considered a “civil offence” which translate to “someone’s right has been violated but it is their responsibility to hire a lawyer and sue” but because it is difficult for companies to take every individual to court, they don’t bother. Now what do you think about this? Because the individuals is only allowed to do copyright violation because company can’t be bothered to sue everyone and hence legally the individuals can take advantage of this.
-
If it is a civil offence then it should be illegal as well.
I am having trouble understanding this statement that “piracy for personal use is not considered illegal. But it is still considered a “civil offence”“.
If something is not illegal then no civil offence can be brought against it. Civil offence can only be brought against a party when plaintiff claims something illegal has been committed by the defendant. It is my understanding that such civil suits could be brought under some other assumptions e.g. plaintiff would claim that some conditions of fair usage policy were not fulfilled by the defendant or were breached somehow, hence resulting in infringement of their copyrights etc.
__
But if my legal understanding of the matter is wrong and what is mentioned above in your reply is correct then definitely such violation tantamounts to sin (if it is a civil offence).
-
Generally people consider “criminal offence” as strictly illegal because then the country will intervene. But in case of civil offence, companies have a choice to take you to court or not (at least how I seen practically)
One example is that it is against copyright to upload songs on Youtube but you can notice there are many songs on there as well but none of the music producer request them to take down or take anyone to court because they benefit from the public exposure. As long as the owner of copyright doesn’t do anything neither does the state.
But my point was that, it is a civil offence and a lot of time, companies allow it because they can’t be bothered to take everyone to court. But it seems you have concluded it is a sin for the individual because they are only allowed to do it because companies are too weak (time and money constraint) to stop them even when it is within companies’ legal rights to stop them, right?
-
-
Hmm okay how about if I download the Roms which is a copyright violation, and in essence ethically bad as it is using their product for free which otherwise people had once paid for (but arguably justified given that there is no way to compensate the production company) but then if and when those games reappear on the online store I decide to buy them to compensate them for ROM download (does not nullify copyright violation which I think is just unreasonable when it comes to the whole personal use situation, but in essence ethically speaking nullifys me taking those roms for free given the condition that those ROMs are for my own personal use only and I solemnly swear that I won’t distribute them to anyone else)?
Also to add another aspect here, we are not talking about a physical object but rather a computer file which does not really have any intrinsic value as it can be copied as many times with the touch on a button.
-
Having said the whole computer file thing, stuff like copyright policy and end user licence agreements exist due to this very reason.
-
-
How about games considered abandoneware?
There is a website called http://www.myabandonware.com where you can download old computer titles which are no longer in store and lost support from their devs. The thing about this site is that if the devs decide to republish the retro title by bringing it back on gog.com or any other old game service, this site prohibits free download of those particular titles and rather directs people to the gog.com link.
So is it okay to download and use the abandoneware titles from this site until those titles are officially rereleased?
-
I think in terms of abandon-ware, what @UmerQureshi said regarding mushtabihat in first reply would apply here.
It takes 70 years for copyright to end and for anything to enter public domain but in this situation, the owner of the product does not care or no longer exists. So it can’t be entirely prohibited and there is no clear law about this or company policy for these products which is why they end up as abandon-ware. Although there can be an argument of whether the website is being honest or not but that is their burden of being honest, not the one who will download it.
So if you don’t feel anything wrong about it then you may use abandon-ware until it is published. Or avoid it as Prophet PBUH advised in preferring caution in such grey matters.
-
I agree with Saad Aamir Sahab’s take on the matter of abandon-ware.
I would personally use them unless any evidence comes to the contrary.
-
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
