Comment by realusername
2 years ago
I would say the opposite, it gives them less of a leg to stand since they cannot say that there's never any justification for emulation anymore like they said in the past.
2 years ago
I would say the opposite, it gives them less of a leg to stand since they cannot say that there's never any justification for emulation anymore like they said in the past.
Usually the justification for emulation is "the company doesn't sell this product anymore, it's abandonware"
Emulation’s legal whether or not some of the software on a platform is abandonware (which doesn’t justify anything legally, anyway)
When you make this kind of claim, please make sure to 1) disclose whether you're a lawyer, and 2) your jurisdiction.
4 replies →
Nintendo historically took a harder stance than that basically saying that emulation destroys the player experience and even copying your own games isn't legal.
Seems like emulation is only fine if they make money out of it.
my justification is that intellectual property is an absolutely ridiculous concept and my actions are driven by my morals and values and not the frequently ridiculous laws of this country
That’s like saying I can’t make photocopies of my own ID because I’ve said in the past that identity thieves shouldn’t make photocopies of my ID.
Except they explicitly said that any emulation is bad. With your analogy it's like claiming ID photocopies are bad and then making your own.
And then emulation isn't stealing anyways.
Why would the owners of the copyright be restricted from selling their copyrighted works in whatever way they want?
In the past they said that there's never any justification for emulation and that it ruins the player experience, seems like it depends on how much money they make out of it.
Nintendo probably doesn’t think their virtual console counts as emulation if that is the case.
Or it’s just different corporate policies at different times being applied inconsistently.
1 reply →