I disagree with the OP on nearly everything said in regard to the "law. Much of the laws passed to restrict backups and modification of property has yet to be tested in the supreme court. In my opinion all it would take is one lawsuit and the whole debate would be over and we would be able to use and copy our property as we see fit. Besides that most of what the OP said is an interpretation of laws which I believe are unconstitutional.
I have a fundamental right to do anything I want with my property. If I decide to use my DVD movies as coasters for my sodas I can do that. If I want to modify and link my Xbox 360s into a giant super computer to calculate the human genome I can do that. If I want to rip Star Wars Episode I, re-edit it, and screen my superior version to my friends I can do that. The copy protection that my stand in my way is unconstitutional and if it was ever challenged in the supreme court it would get banned outright.
But all that is moot. What matters is if using emulation to play an Atari 2600 game is morally wrong. It's not. There isn't even any question about it. The hardware is so old it's cost prohibitive to keep it running. No publisher manufactures the games and no retailer stocks them. If you do find an original Atari cartridge for sale and buy it the original copyright holder will not see a single red cent. There is nothing morally or ethically wrong with emulating a game that is out of print.
It's wrong to sell copies of anything but public domain stuff, but it's not wrong to give it away or use it. That's real piracy. But that's not what we are talking about
Let me ask you a simple question. Whats the difference between an old out of print Atari game available for download or play online and an old out of print book at the library? Still thinking, well here's the answer: Nothing!
BTW hey OP, where's the Poll answer for? :
"I buy new/used games and rent/barrow them too. I only emulate the unavailable, out of print, and none-domestic games.
