it is their game
It's not their game, it's their copy of the game.
they can sell it at a price they want.
And I can choose to not buy it.
At that same token, you don't see people walking in and stealing items do you?
Theft is a quite different issue, which is why it's covered under completely different laws. No matter how strongly some people believe otherwise, there are intrinsic differences between tangible property and intellectual property.
In that same manner, for those who wish to sell old items, you are taking their rights away.
The original publisher could "take away their rights" too, by reissuing the game at a reasonable price. Would that be immoral? How about if someone else managed to obtain many copies at a very low price and started selling them for $2 each?
Every time you pirate a game like "Radiant Silvergun" you take another persons chance and right to sell it the legal and right way.
How? They can still sell it after I've got my copy.
Otherwise, by your logic, that would give me the right to go steal a car, because when I bought my car it looked cool, but the manufacture discontinued it and all parts for it."
This is not my logic at all. I'm not sure where you got the idea that it is. As I said, theft is a different issue.
ExCyber, Im sure you program often. If anyone should be a strong supporter about protecting intelectual property, it should be you.
At this point I think it's only fair to say that I don't make my living through programming. I also think it's a fallacy to say that one must do so in order to have a valid opinion on the subject of copyright.
I believe that authors should be compensated for their work. I also believe that the current implementation of copyright has serious moral and practical flaws. Believe it or not, these two beliefs are not contradictory.
As far as I know, they still sell new saturn games in asia
I'll keep that in mind for the next time I happen to be in the area.
I also agree with the fact that people who justify copying games because they can't aford them are wrong. Mainly because in the most simple genaric terms that means if one can't afford something, its ok to steal.
But a distinction can (and IMO should) be made. Morality usually isn't in "the most simple generic terms". For example, it's common to believe that killing someone is wrong, but it's also common to believe that it is not wrong (or at least not worthy of punishment) under some conditions. It's common to believe that it's not wrong to kill non-human animals for food. It's even more common to believe that it's not wrong to kill plants for food.
Anyway, others have constructed arguments stating that the current system of copyright is immoral. Here's an example, from infamous anti-copyright guy Richard Stallman:
To get an idea of what it's like to obstruct the use of a program, let's imagine that we had a sandwich, that you could eat, and it wouldn't be consumed. You could eat it, and another person could eat it, the same sandwich, any number of times, and it would always remain just as nourishing as originally.
The best thing to do, the thing that we ought to do with this sandwich is carry it around to the places where there are hungry people; bringing it to as many mouths as possible, so that it feeds as many people as possible. By all means, we should not have a price to eat from this sandwich, because then people would not afford to eat it, and it would be wasted.
The program is like this sandwich, but even more so because it can be in many different places at once being eaten, used by different people one after the other. It is as if this sandwich was enough to feed everyone, everywhere, forever, and that were not allowed to happen, because someone believed he should own it.
This is not to say that I agree with everything Stallman has to say, but I think it's at least worth considering.