[myHNAccount123]

Lot to unpack in your comment. 1). This group of modders was planning on profiting from their hack. 2). Copyright exists and generally must be enforced lest the holder wishes to lose their rights. 3). "worse than disney" -> that's subjective. 4). Emulator writers don't get sued, providing the required binary file is the illegal part.

Most of your comments are opinion and borderline bad faith representations of their situation.

[kemayo]

> 2). Copyright exists and generally must be enforced lest the holder wishes to lose their rights.

You're thinking of trademarks. Copyright isn't affected by enforcement in the same way.

[aerostable_slug]

A bit OT, but my favorite use-it-or-lose-it trademark example: the Standard Oil gas station on Van Ness in SF (it looks almost exactly like a Chevron station).

[delroth]

> 1). This group of modders was planning on profiting from their hack

That's wrong, or at least unsourced and unsupported by current facts.

> 2). Copyright exists and generally must be enforced lest the holder wishes to lose their rights.

That's also wrong.

[bitwize]

> Copyright exists and generally must be enforced lest the holder wishes to lose their rights.

That's not how copyright works. It's how trademarks work, but you don't lose copyright if you don't actively enforce it.

> Emulator writers don't get sued

Remember, Jack Valenti went to his grave still believing that the VCR was to Hollywood what the Boston Strangler was to the woman home alone.

To Nintendo, emulation is a crime. (Except when they do it, because they own or license the rights to the platforms in question.) As soon as their legal team thinks they can get a ruling that will overturn Sony v. Connectix, they will be on that like white on rice. Failing that, harassment, intimidation, and threats will do.

[kemonocode]

You're conflating copyright with trademarks, they're not the same thing.