There is a lot of argument on emulation and if it's legal. I have different theory's on this topic and would like to share them.

First off Nintendo made a page about emulation stating it is illegal. I can only partly agree with there statements.
Nintendo first off says that even if you own a valid copy doesn't give you the right to own two, like a dumped one.
Nintendo also states that copyrights wont expire until 75 years.
They claim the department emulators are threatening are gaining over 15 billion. This right here is something I want to say. If emulators are threatening that income then how are they still making it?


Vote "Copyrights and trademarks of games are corporate assets. If these vintage titles are available far and wide, it undermines the value of this intellectual property and adversely affects the right owner. In addition, the assumption that the games involved are vintage or nostalgia games is incorrect. Nintendo is famous for bringing back to life its popular characters for its newer systems, for example, Mario and Donkey Kong have enjoyed their adventures on all Nintendo platforms, going from coin-op machines to our latest hardware platforms. As a copyright owner, and creator of such famous characters, only Nintendo has the right to benefit from such valuable assets."

They are right about bringing Mario and Donkey Kong back... But we are emulating the classics... The ones that you don't make anymore profit on (Other then 3DS) and refuse to release on websites and mobile phones? Mario Galaxy is nearly impossible to emulate, so you make profit off of your main source. And we haven't even gotten that good of a Donkey Kong for a while.

Quote: " The emulator promotes the play of illegal ROMs , NOT authentic games. Thus, not only does it not lead to more sales, it has the opposite effect and purpose."

Yeah... But I didn't have enough money for Fester's Quest... oh wait it's 2012 YOU DON'T SELL THE D*M* GAME!

Quote: " How Come Nintendo Does Not Take Steps Towards Legitimizing Nintendo Emulators?

Emulators developed to play illegally copied Nintendo software promote piracy. That's like asking why doesn't Nintendo legitimize piracy. It doesn't make any business sense. It's that simple and not open to debate."

So it's effecting an income of 15 billion but legitimizing doesn't make sence... huh?


Now to my other side
When we emulate... We aren't emulating just the console, but the controller. PS2 controllers have different models so how can you know your emulating YOUR controller. Same with a N64 expansion pack. It come with the emulator and some emulators don't have the option to disable it. Same with emulating multiple controllers or say if your emulating a gold Ocarina of Time or a grey one.

But is it legal if you dumped it all your self and built the emulator to your own personal use?

What is your opinion on this?

I apologize for any typos or mistakes in grammar. I used a phone to type this out.

Read the page here: http://www.nintendo.com/corp/legal.jsp

Edit:

I do think it is okay to emulate games as long as there isn't a solid profit or a main source. Like up to date games.

I think emulating directly off a valid disk is okay even if the disk is up to date.

I do not encourage pirating.

Melancholy : It seems that you are kind of confused on what an "Emulator" is and what a "Rom" is.

Let me start off by saying that I understand that emulation is illegal but I often own many of these games because I am an avid Video game/console collector. I also am willing to face whatever consequences I might face for playing them. Honestly as long as I'm not profiting off their platforms, I am not too worried. Honestly on the other hand

An Emulator is a software application that imitates the platform it is supposed to run. Therefore a Super Nintendo emulator is built to work exactly like a Super Nintendo. Rather than depending on hardware, it is depending on software to do this imitation. So this is EXACTLY copying something that was made by someone else...

A ROM file, is a computer file which contains a copy of the data from a read-only memory chip, often from a video game cartridge. Read only meaning it was not supposed to be copied. Now I understand that this is a simplified interpretation but I'm just making my point that again, it was not intended to be copied. Just like a VHS tape or a CD was not intended to be copied.

Event though a lot of these games are 20 years old, they are still hugely popular and thus generate money for the companies that own the games. Companies like Nintendo are smart though because they know that sometimes emulators HELP their sales to generate interest in some ways although in others it hurt them. They know though that they will never eliminate this form of "piracy" as some would call it.

Can't delete post... this is supposed to be a reply.

I know the difference between emulation and ROMs. I may have gotten mixed up because like I said I am on a phone so proof reading is a pain. Nintendo is specifically referring to Video game computer system emulation. If they gain income of emulation then why do they want it to stop?

Melancholy : I wouldn't say they "Gain money" from emulation because really they lose money by people being able to play their classics for free. I was saying that they know there are certain advantages of emulation though because it gets people interested in their old games when they might not normally be.

For example I believe that Emulation caused a huge influx of "Retro" gamers that grew to love the games because they found an emulator back in the early 2000's thus when they started releasing games on the Wii shop people were willing to purchase them

What I figure is that if I wouldn't buy a game, then I'm not cheating anyone out of money if I download a free version. HOWEVER, if I am downloading a game that is available to me for purchase and I would buy it normally, but I choose not to buy it since I can get the rom for free, then yes, I would say that is wrong, as it would be cheating them out of money. As far as that goes, would it not be equally wrong to purchase a system and games from another person, like on ebay, or even a good old fashioned yard sale? There really is no way to make an argument that purchasing a system or games second hand is legal, at least not in my opinion (I'm not always right though). If you're willing to buy it from a person, I think you should buy it from the company, since they're the ones that sales money should go to.




As for backup copies, I see no harm in them, or downloading a rom of a game that I own. I fail to see why I should have to buy a second copy of a game that I legally purchased, just because it's damaged somehow.




Again, this is all an opinion, and not neccesarily the best.

Eirinn : Just for arguments sake, do you think there is a problem with companies like Gamestop that make billions buying and selling used games where the studio that made the game makes little or nothing?

Personally? I would say yes, there is a problem with businesses selling games that someone else worked on and payed to produce, if that company (that made it) is not making a portion of the profit, as it reduces their sales. I'd never really thought about it before, though I'd asked that about businesses reselling c.d.s. But by the principle I set forth earlier, I would have to say you made a valid point. Would you agree?

Eirinn : Yeah I know they are different arguments. I just wanted to hear what you had to say about the issue based on your previous post.

Honestly I think that I can see both sides of the story. a person should be able to sell their games at a garage sale without legal ramifications but a company making millions or even BILLIONS off of someone elses product is wrong. Completely wrong. I totally understand why developers would be pissed that someone is making so much off of their product.

So can I. So would I be correct in assuming that you think it is wrong to buy games from said companies?

I wouldn't have some of the systems I own if I could only buy them from the brand. I also tend to stay away from GameStop since they pay crap and resell for more then double (on some occasions) and the stores employes most likely have been raised by monkeys.

Also the majority of there sales come from stores like Walmart buying off of them. It's rare to buy a game straight from a company. So I doubt reselling effects them dramatically.

Melancholy : Reselling affects the developers greatly? It takes away from sales that they would normally be profiting from. Besides, Walmart does not purchase used items from gamestop nor do they resell them. Gamestop makes the majority of their money from Used game sales. The margins are way higher. Hence the horrible prices they give you for trades.

Jordanv78 : I had meant Walmart buys them new.

Is this intended to be a discussion about the law and if it's legal or not, or if it's morally correct to use an emulator?
Either way, I seriously doubt emulators effect the companies incomes in the slightest. Even someone outright stealing a game using an emulator wasn't going to purchase the game if emulators didn't exist. Furthermore, it takes a computer several times the power to emulate something than to actually by the original system - meaning newer (ie, games actually earning profits) are seldom emulated within playability. Buying an old SNES cart from eBay earns the game developers the same as emulating the game - zero.