I think we’ve come to an impasse where your definition of piracy and emulation are dissimilar to my own. I see emulation as an act of preservation, while piracy is an act of theft. The thing is already preserved, you are stealing it because you don’t want to access its method of preservation.
Where this becomes morally gray- which, despite the tendency to shout “**** nuance,” is a thing that does exist- is how that preservation is taking place. I suppose it has something to do with ownership, as well. I know disclaimers on software exist, and that they state that illegal copying and redistribution of a product can land you in legal trouble. The law of man is a self-fabricated one, however, and I think it would be better to have a discussion about what constitutes illegal redistribution, because no, I don’t think an individual distributing game that is no longer accessible on the Nintendo 3DS eShop for the purposes of emulation is piracy because you can no longer reasonably purchase that software, but yes, an individual distributing Tears of the Kingdom a week after it was released for the purposes of emulation is piracy.
If you have some counter to this mentality, I’d genuinely be curious about your reasoning, because I’m open to a discussion and I am not going to insult you for disagreeing with my interpretation.
I guess my views are (for AAA piracy) pirating and emulating old games you cannot buy (subscriptions don't count, because I cannot own my purchases, they will be taken away as soon as I stop paying) is morally ok. Pirating current gen AAA games (or old games made accessible for a fair price aka not full price for a port and not a remake) is not morally clear, but I'm unsympathetic to nintendo and big companies generally.
The World Economic Forum wants us all to "own nothing, rent everything, no privacy, eat bugs, live in pods". Combine this with ai and robots probably replacing almost all human jobs in the next few decades, and I don't have a lot of sympathy left for big companies.
Recent Posts
