When did I say I never do anything wrong? I try not to, but I'm as human as anyone else. That doesn't change my answer though.

@the original poster: you appear to be in the US, don't you live somewhere near a flea market?? I am sure you can pick up a decent copy of Win95 for relatively cheap. Or maybe from a pawn shop. Or maybe you have a friend who has a copy??

Doesn't that make you a hypocrite then? Saying something is wrong and yet doing it!
If something you believe is wrong DON'T do it then.

I think he qualified that with "I'm as human as anyone else". One can understand their own actions as ethically wrong without becoming a hypocrite.
That said, I think equating laws with ethics is absurd. Laws are societies best attempt to make rules out of our morality but in some cases ethics have nothing to do with it. Pirating a copy of Windows 95 if you genuinely can't purchase it from the copyright holder is completely ethically neutral.

I have never done (in last decade at least) a thing which i knew was wrong or immoral. sure... i did wrong things, never on purpose, never intentionally.
So please don't give me the crap: I am only human!
That being said I agree with you on second part. Law is law, it is not some absolute moral compass.
Microsoft will not gain or lose a single cent from his purchase/piracy of windows 95. So...his decision is ethically neutral.
The flea market is a good idea tough. solves any dilemmas for few bucks!

Ethically neutral, morally wrong, practically right.

But how are you to know if a copyright holder doesn't have any interest in enforcing their copyright anymore? An individual with fewer resources (no army of lawyers) might have a harder time enforcing their copyright than a large company even if the individual's copyright is much newer.

Well, aren't you a little angel.

I don't think that invalidates his or my point. You could simply do less wrong than others or have a different opinion as to what's right and wrong. It doesn't change the argument.
Why is it morally wrong?

Well, if you don't have the ability to ask someone (by attempting to contact them), there a couple of ways to make a logical decision. If a company is selling something, you can reasonably assume that they don't want other people selling it. If they are providing tech support or hosting servers, you can reasonably assume that they only want legitimate purchasers participating. But if they haven't sold something in a long time, cannot be contacted for comment, and are no longer supporting a community, then it is reasonable to assume that they have lost interest.
The way abandonware sites handle it is by saying "We believe this work to be abandoned. If you are the copyright owner and you object to us distributing your work, please send us an email and we will take it down immediately." That is of course, ethically grey, because it depends on "getting caught". (Though they generally make no effort to "hide".) IMO, that should only be the approach if there is an honest belief that the work really is abandoned.
At that point, it's a personal ethical decision on the part of the person copying it.

It sounds like he's trying. Which IMO is what separates the "good" people from the "bad" people. The good people are trying to do what's right. I don't think it's fair to mock him for that.

After he responded to my answer with ad hominems, called me a hypocrite, and then declared his own record of right intentions for the past decade, I believe my response was quite restrained. What I mock is not his intention to do right, but his presumption to judge me.

Research into a copyright holder's actions is still all based on assumptions which do not make it legal.
If an abandonware site is distributing material that is still under copyright then it is illegal. It doesn't only become illegal when the copyright owner tells them to take it down, it was always illegal.
I personally don't have a problem with most abandonware sites, but that doesn't change the legality of it.

I just don't like people who tell others that something is wrong yet they do it themselves.
If you cannot uphold your believes yourself then you don't have the right to tell others whats wrong or not.

Again, what is the practical significance of that?
Copyright is a legislative monopoly. It's like any other monopoly. Like the monopoly granted to your utility company to keep others from selling utility service. If they were to quit providing service, would people say "They were granted a monopoly, and we must not break the law, therefore we'll just have to do without electricity." (It is assumed that in that particular example, their monopoly grant includes an obligation to provide service. But you can still see the point of the example.) Copyright is not some criminal law enforced by the state against the people. It's a grant to a particular copyright holder to be the only one to distribute their work.
If the copyright holder no longer has any interest in his copyright, what exactly are you infringing? It's really all nebulous and theoretical at that point.

For one, I'm not convinced that's what he was doing. Two, it's quite possible to be aware of what's right and wrong without being a saint. People fuck up from time to time and do bad shit, just because they're aware of it doesn't mean they're preachy or hypocritical for being aware of others' wrongs too.