Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by laumars 4037 days ago
Emulators are a tricky one because they often require a BIOS file which does break copyright.
1 comments

No more so than the games, and some emulators have reimplemented BIOSes.
> No more so than the games

It goes without saying that copying games is illegal. Well, bar a few caveats which seldom apply to people who run emulators.

> some emulators have reimplemented BIOSes

I'm sure some do but many don't - hence my point.

> It goes without saying that copying games is illegal. Well, bar a few caveats which seldom apply to people who run emulators.

Obtaining ROMs for games you own may or may not be, depending on your jurisdiction; in any case, it seems entirely ethical to have ROMs for games you own.

Likewise for BIOSes.

I'm just going to play devil's advocate here, just for the sake of discussion, not because I believe it or not, but I think you could argue that obtaining ROMs for games you own is not ethical. The "phase shifting" argument is never one that held much water legally and certainly the industry would argue that if you want to use the content in a different form (i.e. an emulator), that you should pay for that additional right. It is a copy, after all. In the same way that the music industry would argue you can't upgrade all your vinyl records to mp3 without paying again. For example, should I be able to get Photoshop for all available platforms just because I happen to own one copy?

This, of course, brings us into the thorny world of whether copyright even makes sense in the software business. Copying seems to be an essential part of using a computer (copying runtimes into memory, caching web pages to your computer, etc.) so it may be an outmoded way of thinking about protecting IP.

> In the same way that the music industry would argue you can't upgrade all your vinyl records to mp3 without paying again.

The music industry would love it if you had to pay for music multiple times, but you can nonetheless rip your own CDs. Or vinyl records with the right equipment.

>The music industry would love it if you had to pay for music multiple times, but you can nonetheless rip your own CDs. Or vinyl records with the right equipment.

You can, but it's not legal, at least not in the United States. It's never really been litigated, but a reading of law would seem to say it's not legal. There's no "personal use" or "personal backup" clause in the law. It's a copy, and copying is not OK outside of the "fair use" bounderies outlined in section 117 (there's also some provisions for libraries and archives, but those don't apply to individuals).

Legality is really tangential to the point, however. The question is that for any given work, whether that's a book, piece of music, game, etc, do you "own" that work seperate from the physical media you purchased it on. Can you obtain a ROM, a copy of the book or a copy of the record in question legally in perpetuity because you bought it in one form once?

ethics != law