By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
darkknightkryta on 21 August 2012
Edit Thread
sethnintendo said:
kain_kusanagi said:

 

Sony sued bleem! for emulating the Playstation on the Dreamcast. They lost every lawsuit because emulation is perfectly legal so long as you own the original game. Backups are also 100% legal. You allowed to make backup copies of all software, videos, music, etc. for your own personal use. That means you can buy Final Fantasy III for the SNES, set it on a shelf, and legally play the ROM on any device you want.

Here's a vid all about Sony and bleem! for Dreamcast.

skip to lawsuit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDQRl2-QaiM&feature=player_detailpage#t=384s

According to Nintendo's policy they state that you can't use a ROM as a back up.

"Can I Download a Nintendo ROM from the Internet if I Already Own the Authentic Game?

There is a good deal of misinformation on the Internet regarding the backup/archival copy exception. It is not a "second copy" rule and is often mistakenly cited for the proposition that if you have one lawful copy of a copyrighted work, you are entitled to have a second copy of the copyrighted work even if that second copy is an infringing copy. The backup/archival copy exception is a very narrow limitation relating to a copy being made by the rightful owner of an authentic game to ensure he or she has one in the event of damage or destruction of the authentic. Therefore, whether you have an authentic game or not, or whether you have possession of a Nintendo ROM for a limited amount of time, i.e. 24 hours, it is illegal to download and play a Nintendo ROM from the Internet."

http://www.nintendo.com/corp/legal.jsp#download_rom

That can't hold up in court.  "You are entitled to a second copy", but even if you get a second copy, it's not a second copy according to Nintendo.  That in itself is a lie, as it's a second copy.  Notice the contradiction?  The only case they can make is if you don't make the copy yourself, but I'm not sure what the current copyrite laws state on whether you can "aquire" a backup copy or not.  Notice how they left that out and say that the law doesn't state whether you can download a backup copy or not therefore you're not entitled to your second copy.  Which again is a contradiction since you're allowed a backup copy.  Someone copy and paste copyrite laws to let me know if I'm talking out of my ass.