@wawrzon
Most of time when i argue about legal matters, it is because i am interested in legal matters and find it fun. Not necessarily because the issue might have something to do with me directly (like this one had). Hence my main point wasnt to argue that my copy is (well, was) legal, but simply argue about legal matter.
I also find it beneficial for exercise to argue/think of these matters. As example this time since the matter happened to have something directly to do with me.
My first thought was the comparison with car theft, and i was thinking my copy was legal. Then i started thinking about the spirit behind these laws, of why were they put there in the first place etc. and i came to conclusion that Ralph Schmidt should have right to decide in this case wether i can keep it or not (after which i deleted it, since i couldnt contact him, and i decided that basically he had said no by forbidding the selling). At this point I was however still thinking that would this be in court, judge would rule in my favor of keeping the ROM. Although I doubt no sane mind would go to court for a case like this.
But after giving even more consideration, i actually came to conclusion that even Judge would rule for not letting me keep the ROM file without Ralphs permission.
For thing is, the principle behind (to my understand in most countries, but i could be wrong) getting to keep the stolen car, the idea is that people need to be able to trust official car dealer companies. That we cant demand regular people to find out if their newly bought car from car dealer shop is stolen, if all the papers etc. seem okay.
If there would happen lots of these cases, then people would be afraid of buying cars anymore in the end.
Naturally if stolen item is something unique. Say you in good faith thought you bought copy of Mona Lisa, and it appears it is actually the real one. You wouldnt get to keep it, but it would be returned to real owner.
Personally I think each car theft should be treated as their own case. For example, lets say you have a car you use for work. It gets stolen, you cant afford new one, and hence it becomes impossible for you to work. Suppose the legal buyer later on is then a millionaire who just buys that car to sit in his endless car garage. In my opinion, you should get the car back, and then millionaire would have the claim for money from the thief (or the seller).
Similarly, if it was stolen from same millionaire, and buyer is someone who used every last penny of his to buy it to be able to use it for his work. Once again, millionaire can afford it, that other guys livelihood depends on it. Hence I once again would think it is better that dispute is put between millionaire and theft, instead of the poor chap.
But another example of this principle, lets take example of you are selling Illegal copy of Madonnas newest Cd release.
You have sold it directly to 10 000 people in shops and markets. Then you are sued about it and have to withdraw it from market.
It is not realistic to think that you can contact all those 10 000 people who have already bought that CD from various sources. For example, someone bought it from shop with cash. There is no way to trace that one. Hence to my understanding law basically lets people keep those cds instead of forcing them to destroy it.
However, not we come to this ROM file case. This is different from that principle. Since by default, those who bought the ROM file, are so said actively using indiego, hence it is possible to inform them that ROM files are not legal after all, since they are all tracable through their user accounts.
Hence I would imagine that even a judges ruling would be that each one who bought rom files would need to delete them, as it is reasonably possible to arrange and there is no big harm for anyone.
And just to point out. That I wrote this long with all these examples only because I found it fun to write about legal matters. And also, that I am no lawyer, and this is one of the tricky cases in law, hence I am not sure it really would go like this, just to my understanding this is about the principle how it generally goes and basis for it, but it varies from country to country. Especially since, as i already mentioned, its a tricky case.
