I tried to follow the logic but couldn't. Sorry.

To perhaps make myself clear, and you can reply if you disagree or not, in my opinion the societal system should privilege the producer's rights. Caveat emptor and all that...

So if I produce or own something and someone else wants it but I am a greedy/needy/insecure/long term planner/hoarder (give it whatever positive or negative conotation you wish) and don't want to give, share or sell... tough luck.

I can probably think of exceptions, but as a general principle I prefer this to the sort of "might makes right" sense of entitlement I often see expressed.
Only with "ability to digitally reproduce" instead of might. But is that a fundamental difference?

If might makes right, what's to stop the general populace from rising up(beyond the law's ability to handle it.....i.e. a massive uprising either irl or on the net) and taking what you won't share?

Calling something a strawman doesn't really fly when it's a good point and relevant to the debate. My entire reasoning behind supporting abandonware is the preservation of gaming history. Games should not become unplayable and lost to time just because a company no longer exists, no longer has the rights to distribute, never took the DRM off or just plain old ignores the title. If you consider games to be art or culturally important, which I do, then losing them to time is much worse than any possible breach of ancient copyrights could be.

GOG is doing a great job of bringing a lot of games back in a way that can make the old publishers some money, but they will never have a complete catalog. Some publishers will never bother to care about their old games and some games will never be able to be sold again because of license issues. For example Blade Runner will never be sold again unless a miracle happens, but it's a seminal release in adventure game history. It should be preserved and available.

It's pure black and white second level thinking to say the "moral" thing to do is pay a guy on ebay $50 for some cardboard and plastic. That doesn't give anything to developers, publishers, investors or contractors.

They wouldn't. The whole point is to ask: Does a videogame museum imply visitors must be able to play the games?

When I go to an aviation museum I don't fly on anything...

Video games are a medium(imo) best preserved for future generations in a way that such generations can directly interact with such. Just like the best way to preserve a book is in a format where future people can read it and enjoy it. Some things are best preserved in display cases where they can be looked at, and some are meant to be PLAYED(or in the case of books, read.)

Ok, so the preservation angle is the focus for you.

It's an interesting angle. Now I remember Blade Runner, but never really played. It was an adventure game, mostly linear, seminal due to the large reliance on FMV, right?

Without really disagreeing with you on the specifc, let me argue for argument's sake:
1) Is it really necessary to keep Blade Runner in a usable condition? Would a video playthrough be enough for someone in say 50 years to see what the game themes, message, technical innovations were?
2) Even if by some catastrophe Blade Runner would be lost forever, perhaps some other games could represent the progress of FMV usage in videogames' history? Or some other games could represent the theme of movie adaptations to videogames? Or whatever you choose.

I mean think of how many library fires have happened through history. How many books you have to "read" by using microfilm, as the original is too fragile.

In my opinion to use the preservation angle as an excuse to infringe on someone's rights is a tad hyperbolic and we're way to close to the start of videogames to offer definitive judgements on what games are equivalents to Gutenberg's bible or the Mona Lisa.

And just to be clear, I fully agree the GOG approach deserves huge credit from a preservation angle. We just seem to disagree on the moment at which preservation trumps ownership rights. We can agree to disagree on that.

IMO ALL games should be preserved....as everyone's tastes are different and subjective so we can't just throw out to the winds of time the games we dislike and keep all the rest.

Also a playthrough would be fine if the original game either couldn't be upgraded to run on the newer hardware of the time or a copy couldn't be found in working order. Otherwise the genuine article is preferable.

I think that's the ideal. But the costs will climb as the systems become older. Emulation software is a first compromise... total loss of interactivity is just the end of the road.

Anyone knows that total loss of the original copy is inevitable. Everything falls to the ravages of time. But what about rejigging it to work on modern hardware and copying it onto newer and newer forms of data storage? This can mitigate the problem somewhat, as even if you don't have the original game or film/etc anymore on it's original medium(cd/floppy/etc) you still have a copy of a copy of a copy etc which cna possibly be made to work and interact with by future generations.

The ideal solution here would be both. Although just the video format wouldn't be enough, the compatibility issue would have to be addressed. Some kind of virtual "field" would have to be employed, just like DosBox.

That's mostly because storage is the problem, not fragility. This is hardly the same for things that go on digital storage.

Games are an interactive medium. To get the full experience they rely on you being able to play them.

And as for why Blade Runner is special, I would say more the banrching pathways. That's not really what I meant by seminal though, I just meant it was a "big" release. I think EVERY game should be preserved and playable though, I don't think some games are okay to erase from time. Even Daikatana should be kept playable and available.

Books and the Mona Lise are not interactive mediums. Reading or viewing the art is how you appreciate it, the book itself is more an artifact.

When copyright was first envisioned it was meant to last a limited amount of time so the author/artist would be rewarded, then the art would be owned by society. Our modern corporate culture has butchered this to make copyright something that can seemingly last forever, mainly because of intellectual properties that can last lifetimes (Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny, etc.).

Whether that is "right" depends on your perspective, but my argument has less to do with legal specificity than it does morality. I think it's morally fine to download a game for free when there is no way to pay the publisher or developer for it anymore.

I think copyright should be rejigged to allow for exceptions(like cartoon characters still in use) while allowing all other material to fall under the old copyright laws.....i.e. it becomes public domain x years after creator's death.

In regards to preservation of videogames I think we all agree on the principle, and only disagree on the details.

But when you (this is a rethorical you) start arguing about the price being too high, you are yourselves saying that the preservation ideal is not so strong as to deserve that price.

In such a situation I say: You don't deserve to preserve this product, if you don't put your money where your mouth is.

You seriously argue that you will invest in emulation or in maintenance of hardware, but you won't pay 50 or 150 $ for a legit copy of the software?

This goes back to what I think is the core of the debate: sense of entitlement to another's product. You can dress it in very fancy clothes, but at the end of the day, you just don't want to pay the price being asked because you feel yourself entitled to a lower price.

Why exactly is that?

A few items I must list but I assure you they will tie together in the end....I hope.

1. There's a big difference between buying a game from an IP holder/distributer and an eBayer. In the former case the ip holder gets money, in the latter they do not(most times anyways).

2. We're not talking about not paying fair prices for new games here(or even slightly old ones being reprinted) & supporting the developers or IP holders, but about being oversoaked and gouged on old games by said eBayers/etc.

3. It's not a sense of entitlement to another's product as in most cases the eBayer in question didn't create that product. They merely have copies up for sale. They didn't make it, but usually they are the only ones selling it, and they try to take advantage of this(some, not all.)

In the end, buying eBay/etc copies doesn't net the IP holder any money and downloading a copy doesn't net the IP holder any money. So why buy from the eBayer if you want to buy the game AND support the developers?