[JoshTriplett]

Recording a film from TV is copying as well, but that was litigated all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that it was legal. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive.... , AKA "Sony v. Betamax".

That seems like a fairly clear precedent.

Also see Sony v. Connectix for a somewhat related case regarding emulation and BIOSes. In that case, Connectix obtained copies of Sony's BIOS as part of reverse-engineering it (though they didn't distribute BIOS images with their emulator), and that was ruled legal.

That seems like an even clearer precedent, specifically discussing emulation, as well as copying, for commercial purposes even.

Now, it is fairly clear that sites hosting ROMs for download are violating copyright law. Then again, so is the Internet Archive, and I'd bet the majority of people on HN agree with what archive.org does.

> 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?

Personal opinion, not based on any particular country's copyright law or precedent (though there is some precedent): personal copying without redistribution should always be OK. It's distribution that copyright should cover.

(That's separate from my opinions on how copyright law ought to be changed.)

[stinkytaco]

I don't think Universal v. Betamax applies. It specifically uses the word "time-shifting", meaning that it was meant simply to record a live program and watch it at a later time. Courts have subsequently rejected "phase-shifting" as an argument (see Napster). I do not believe Universal v. Betamax is sufficient precedent to the wholesale copying of your media for "personal use". I maintain that the specific facts we are discussing have never really been litigated and that the landscape has changed drastically since then, enough that courts would seriously reconsider Universal v. Betamax as precedent.

Down to the next point about obtaining a copy, I think there are two relevant points:

1. If you own it are you allowed to copy it?

To this I would personally argue yes. But I can see how copyright holders argue no. You purchase an item, not its contents. (When I think about the limits put on the aftermarket repair and upgrade market by hardware makers and the outrage that causes, I think there's a reverse logic that applies in this situation.)

2. Should you be able to obtain that ROM or copy because you purchased this item? (ethically, not legally)

This is thornier. Should I be able to download an ebook from a pirate site because I bought a copy of the physical book? What about an old nintendo game I bought many years ago? That to me is a more interesting ethical issue. I certainly did not buy a perpetual license for all forms of that work, but it's not like I can go pick up a copy of a game for my Android either. Of course, if I could pick up a commercial copy (Nintendo resells old games for its new platforms), would it still be OK?

But yes, I also have opinions about changing copyright law, or really reverting it to an older time. I do firmly believe copyright is a good tool to encourage the generation of art, knowledge and entertainment, but I believe that a perpetual monopoly on that content for a lifetime and for your children's lifetime (or companies) is counterproductive to that goal.

[walterbell]

> It's distribution that copyright should cover.

Until the TPP takes effect around 2019.