Pretty much, though I think the term has value to differentiate between pirating new shit that can be bought and pirating old shit that can't outside of resale.

I only do the latter. While my piracy views have weakened considerably this year I still have never pirated a new game that can be purchased.

The best possible piracy (although of course legally there is no difference) is to only download abandonware and at the same time to credibly promise to buy the game again for any reasonable price once it comes out again, not only promising but really doing it. That way the damage is minimized and you could argue that the publishers can easily avoid it. Of course almost nobody is doing it that way.

There are a few games that were abandonware that I bought when they came to GOG or elsewhere. Even if I did not have moral reasons to do so convenience would be another reason.

There really is a difference worth noting, hence the abdonware term. We either let these games die or we as a society continue to support them and keep them available. I see the former as the true immoral option.

Games that stay with you.

"Games you fear are near extinction?"

Those old Game & Watch titles. Some of them will probably be kept at some museums and private collections but their numbers are getting fewer by the day. And I would think that many non-Nintendo handheld LCD games from the same period is extinct already.
Good riddance anyway. Keep a few and let the rest fade away. We can't save everything.

How much of the information on the internet is worth saving for the posterity? 0,1%? 0,01%? 0,001%? We human beings aren't meant to last, we aren't irreplaceable. Why should all the information we dispose of be considered so? Most of it is very trivial and unoriginal anyway.

That statement assumes that copyright laws will change to reduce the copyright period - something that I doubt will happen considering that most big companies push for a lengthening of the copyright period (at present typical copyright in the west is 70+ years after the creators death - however it gets more complicated with rights are not held by an individual and are instead held by a trust or company because they don't "die" as such.

That said with the massive move by companies to abuse both copyright and patent laws we might well see some kind of enabler law come in which aims to shift long held but unrealised copyright/patent items into the public sector domain if a company is unwilling to make those items commercially viable (however this is - again - a bit of a dream since its something big companies are greatly opposed to in general).

Everyone should have this policy. *shrugs*

Piracy is piracy, there is absolutely no difference between pirating a new game and an old game not available online. You may be morally ok with it, but don't make it an universal law because it doesn't work like this. It doesn't matter if you download a copy of System Shock 2 or Darksiders 2, it's still piracy in both cases.

I understand the reasons for pirating old games not available anymore (even though i don't support it), but there's no need to sugar coat it.

Piracy is not the white knight in shining armor like some users claim it to be.

Also, it looks like that in this digital age people have forgotten that there are still games being sold in physical copies. Not every old game is as expensive and rare as System Shock 2. In fact, most of them are sold for pennies on ebay and Amazon. The Dungeons and Dragons games (Planescape, BG 1 and 2, Icewind Dale), for example, were already pretty cheap even before GOG got them, because Atari kept re-releasing these games. I also got a physical copy of Thief complete collection for U$10 an year before GOG got them. I bought Hostile Waters a few days ago for less than U$10 at a local store. And i could give plenty of other examples of games that are pretty cheap on the physical market.

In my opinion it's pretty stupid to pirate games just because they are not available in digital versions. This sounds like self-entitlement to me.

Well if you go that way there are a lot games sold on GoG where buying it won't give a single cent to anyone involved in investment or creation either.

But GOG deserves money for resurrecting them.

Indeed. They (and the makers of DOSBOX) went through a lot of trouble getting these games and bonuses in a state where we can actually get them, much less play them.

Of course, but on the other side I don't see why somebody allowing me to obtain a legal copy of a game (be it via Amazon, eBay or whatever) no longer sold anywhere else wouldn't also deserve some of my money.

Because he put no effort in it. He is just passing along a license. I'm not paying GOG for the license ( most of my GOGs I own on disc), I'm paying for the service.

Some schmock who just wants to make a cheap buck isn't really somebody I consider worthy of my money.

It's a specific type of game, therefor the specific term can be useful for distinguishing from other terms. The term "piracy" is far less specific and can apply to many more things. Abandonware, as a term, generally refers to a much more restricted set of stuff.