Nobody cares. Cops don't crack down on old dead consoles that noone hardly plays anymore.

You should be asking...is it moral? To waste your time sucking up playing that thing when you are missing the beautiful scenery of the car or making out with your lady?

The answer is no, it's certainly not.

Speaking of, Febreeze has 87 harmful chemicals and blatantly lies about the ingredients, and somehow they made (crappy) Dr. Suess movies which completely violated his copyright protections. Somehow that's legal?

Thanks for the replies. I think it is all illegal

I wanted to write a really long reply to all the points Servant of the Lord made, but then decided to just remind you that it's a complicated matter.

@Servant of the Lord: Nice info. I understand and agree with most of your points, but on several occasions you misunderstood my argument or my argument's intent. Just a note on BIOS, that the BIOS can be both reverse engineered itself, and it can be dumped by

Just a note on BIOS, that the BIOS can be both reverse engineered itself, and it is possible to dump your own BIOS file. While I know it's very far fetched and 99% of people will just download the BIOS file from the internet, my point was that it's not "necessarily" illegal. My intent here was to differentiate what is inherently illegal (copyright infringement) to what is legal by itself but is usually coupled with illegal activities (emulation). I have heard many people just say "emulation is illegal" which is a false statement.

You can't simply say this is illegal and this isn't. Every law can be bent or twisted and thats what lawyers are for. Whilst all of the information given above by Servant is correct. The chance of most companies enforcing any of it is slim.

Sony is one of the most litigious companies around but seem to have lost (or privately settled) nearly every copyright case they have ever raised. Anybody remember Bleem! Sony were unable to successfully sue them so they found other ways to force the company into bankruptcy. Likewise when Hotz cracked the PS3 Sony were unable to successfully use the DMCA against him and the case was settled out of court.

Even when a case is cut and dry there is still the chance of a judge throwing out. There have been cases in the UK where the Judge has said that while the case is a good one the fact that the EULA was too many pages meant that nobody was likely to have read it so he refused to accept it in court.

As for using N64 emulation. Even if the CEO of Nintendo personally knew that were using emulated copied roms on a portable device, it is highly unlikely that they would take any legal action against you as an individual.

Keep an eye for agreement terms such as "though shalt not reverse-engineer our console," which would render all emulators of that particular platform illegal.

End user agreements can not override existing laws in a nation.

Yes they can override some existing laws. End user agreements are contracts. Contracts are designed for and permit giving up rights.

For example, a "Non-Disclosure Agreement" is a contract giving up freedom of speech in a specific area for a specific duration of time. And freedom of speech is a core tenent of the constitution, yet NDA's can very much override them - and that override is enforceable in court.

Many contracts are basically saying, "I recognize that law X exists, but I willingly give up my right to that in exchange for Y."

There are government laws that govern what can be in contracts. The primary issue is whether EULAs and TOS's are enforceable as contracts - some courts say yes, some say no, some say it depends on how they are presented. And the government can override contracts (including EULAs and TOS's) saying that they are unfair or overreaching.

AND there are government laws, ignoring contracts entirely, that make reverse engineering legal or illegal, depending on how it is carried out. But all that's an aside, and likely doesn't apply to the OP's situation. Again, in my non-lawyer opinion.

A key part of a contract is that both parties agree. I can't just say "Anyone replying to this post agrees to pay me one million dollars" when it isn't reasonable to assume that said person agreed to that. OTOH if someone clicks to buy something on the Internet, it is in typical cases more reasonable to assume they agreed to enter that contract.

Have there been specific cases about EULs or TOSs regarding emulation? It isn't as simple as a court ruling that all EULs are legal (or if it is, I'm moving there to collect my one million dollars).

Just a note on BIOS, that the BIOS can be both reverse engineered itself, and it is possible to dump your own BIOS file.

About reverse-engineering the BIOS, you then get caught up in patent infringement instead of copyright infringement, depending on which console. The console manufacturers make sure we're stepping on at least one legal landmine whichever route we take.

You're absolutely right about dumping the BIOS yourself - just like dumping the ROMs yourself, that's most likely legit. I should do that sometime, before my Playstation bites the dust. That's probably the only safe way through the minefield if you want to digitize your game collection. At least, as far as I can tell as a non-lawyer.

And yea, there's far too much murkiness and legal ambiguity. Even if you're completely legit, they can still sue and it'd still be a hassle even if you ultimately win.

You can't simply say this is illegal and this isn't. Every law can be bent or twisted and thats what lawyers are for.

Sadly, this is truly the situation.

Sony is one of the most litigious companies around but seem to have lost (or privately settled) nearly every copyright case they have ever raised.

A large company privately settling with an individual or small company often is a "win". Companies like Sony don't want to risk a judge ruling in favor of consumers (and changing the landscape of the law).

Large drawn out lawsuits that cost lots of money and force individuals and smaller companies to settle is how deep-pocketed companies "win".

Even when a case is cut and dry there is still the chance of a judge throwing out. There have been cases in the UK where the Judge has said that while the case is a good one the fact that the EULA was too many pages meant that nobody was likely to have read it so he refused to accept it in court.

Yes, this is what Sony doesn't want to happen. They try to force the smaller guy to settle before the judge gets an opportunity to make a decision. For example, to Oracle and Adobe's horror, a EU case ruled that, despite EULAs, individuals can re-sell digital software licenses.

As for using N64 emulation. Even if the CEO of Nintendo personally knew that were using emulated copied roms on a portable device, it is highly unlikely that they would take any legal action against you as an individual.

Right. Unless you sell your modded console with a bunch of digital copies on it, or otherwise do something to draw attention to yourself, console manufacturers likely won't even know and won't even bother. With downloading ROM files, it's different though - the RIAA has been suing individuals for downloading MP3s and DVDs for awhile now, and more and more ISPs are getting onboard with auto-detecting and auto-demanding payments with threats of lawsuits. I suspect ROMs will get added to that list sooner rather than later.

About reverse-engineering the BIOS, you then get caught up in patent infringement instead of copyright infringement, depending on which console. The console manufacturers make sure we're stepping on at least one legal landmine whichever route we take.

iirc connectix did exactly that for playstation, and ultimately won the case against sony. (though by the time they did they were practically out of business)

@Servant

Be careful with some of those statements.

There is a big difference legally between downloading and uploading.

Morally I agree that you should pay for what you use. But there is nuance in law.

While the various companies want you to believe that downloading unauthorized content is a violation of copyright law, that isn't how the law is actually worded in most of the world.

In the US, copyright law protects five rights (with the last one duplicated with a stupid "on a computer" variant). Note that they cover distributing copies and publicly performing, the do not cover obtaining copies. For other nations, in Canada and in most of the EU that supports the EU Copyright Directive of 2001, there is a specific exemption in the law, a personal copying exemption, that allows making and even acquiring copies for personal noncommercial use. They vary based on nation, but may effectively say if you own it one media format you can download it to achieve a format shift.

This is why most of the copyright groups focus on torrents so much, since the protocol has both a downloading aspect and a distribution aspect. Unauthorized distribution is not allowed in any major nation.

You're right, my statements are too cut and dry, and the law is a big swamp of ambiguity.

I'm not a lawyer, these are my layman interpretations of judges' interpretations of congress's interpretations of laws passed by previous congresses and interpreted by previous judges.

In the US, copyright law protects five rights (with the last one duplicated with a stupid "on a computer" variant). Note that they cover distributing copies and publicly performing, the do not cover obtaining copies.

They cover some distribution (for example, they can't prevent reselling), and some duplication. Obtaining didn't need to be covered in a pre-digital world, because the act of obtaining didn't necessarily involve duplication. And in a digital world, it still doesn't need to be covered, because the act of "obtaining" is actually digitally duplicating as well. Either you are digitally duplicating something you just bought for personal use (and are automatically and instantly discarding the original digital copy you just bought (which never leaves the digital storefront), due to the nature of how computers work), or you are digitally copying from a copy you don't own, and are in violation of the duplication rights.

Suppose there are three copies of the same digital work.
I have a physical CD I bought, that's on my desk. I rip it to my computer. That "copying" is authorized, because it's copying something I already own for personal use.
I go to Amazon.com and buy the same digital album. My purchased album is on their computer. I copy (download) it to my computer. I'm copying, for personal use, what I own. It's authorized copying. Because of the nature of computers, the album I purchased never actually leaves Amazon.com's server, it's just copied to my computer.
I then go to a mp3 pirating site, or whatever, and download the same album from there. I'm copying something from a copy that I don't legitimately have access to. That act of copying is the unauthorized one.

I now have three identical blobs of binary data on my computer. Three identical copies of the same music album. Two were legitimately acquired, and one of them I had to infringe copyright to get. It's not data ownership that's covered by the law, it's data duplication and distribution (and performance and etc...).

For other nations, in Canada and in most of the EU that supports the EU Copyright Directive of 2001, there is a specific exemption in the law, a personal copying exemption, that allows making and even acquiring copies for personal noncommercial use.

I'm pretty sure the USA also has provisions for personal copying - though I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment. I'm not sure if it covers "acquiring" copies.

They vary based on nation, but may effectively say if you own it one media format you can download it to achieve a format shift.

USA also permits format shifting, time shifting, and etc...

However, USA courts have specifically said downloading music is also infringing. I'm not aware of an exception saying, 'unless you already own a copy' - but there might be one, I just never heard of that.

In the Napster lawsuit, the court said:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/239_F3d_1004.htm
We agree that [...] Napster users infringe at least two of the copyright holders’ exclusive rights: the rights of reproduction, and distribution. Napster users who upload file names to the search index for others to copy violate plaintiffs’ distribution rights. Napster users who download files containing copyrighted music violate plaintiffs’ reproduction rights.

They covered both the uploading and the downloading. In the uploading case it wasn't even 'uploading', but opening the door of their computers so other users can retrieve it.

The Napster case references an earlier case from a different court, where users were downloading ROMs for Sega games. The case wasn't about the users, but about the person providing the tools to copy the games and distributing them. However, in that case, the court clearly says that the users downloading the games were also infringing.

http://digital-law-online.info/cases/41PQ2D1705.htm
"The BBS users were encouraged to download games from the BBS in order to avoid having to buy video games cartridges from Sega."

"By utilizing the MAPHIA BBS, users are able to download and distribute one or more copies of Sega video game programs from a single copy of a Sega video game program on the MAPHIA BBS, and thereby obtain unauthorized copies of Sega’s copyrighted video game programs.

This unauthorized copying of Sega video game programs works to decrease Sega’s sales of video game cartridges."

"Even if the users are only playing the games in their own homes and even if there are currently only a limited number of users that have copiers, unrestricted and widespread conduct of this sort would result in a substantial adverse impact on the market for the Sega games."

"By downloading the games from the BBS, users avoid paying for the games. Sherman’s conduct in providing the BBS for uploading and downloading games, and offering for sale the copiers on which to play these unauthorized games, facilitated the users’ conduct. This conduct, if widespread, would adversely impact the market for Sega games."

"He knowingly allowed others to upload and download the Sega games, and expressly solicited others to upload games to his BBS. He offered for sale copiers that play and copy Sega downloaded games from disks. His business, Parsec Trading, sold or planned to sell copiers. Parsec Trading had a policy of giving customers limited free downloads after they had purchased a copier. This evidence shows that Sherman intentionally contributed to the users’ infringement of Sega’s copyright, and that he intended to profit in sales of copiers. Sherman has offered nothing to rebut this evidence. Therefore, the Court finds that Sherman’s contributory copyright infringement was willful."

It seems clear to me that these two courts think that both uploading and downloading constitutes infringement of copyright, though in different ways.

This creates precedent. While not locked in stone, it's fairly safe to assume that other courts will accept and follow the same line of reasoning, unless a higher court decides differently, or unless Congress creates new laws.

In the USA, court decisions are also part of the law - not just the laws passed by congress. The courts are clarifying for the digital age how the courts interpret laws that were passed by Congress. While true that these weren't federal courts, they were district courts, in California, they were interpreting nation-wide law. Unless a higher court comes along and overrules them or clarifies further, or unless congress writes new laws that supersede or repeal the old laws, this is what 'the law' is.

In another case, there was a site called MP3.com, which required users to prove they owned a legitimate copy before streaming downloading/streaming music to them.
It was legally purchased copies that MP3.com purchased, and users themselves had to prove they owned a copy, and even then it was infringing because the downloading was considered "performing". I think this is because the copies they were downloading/streaming weren't the same copies, but I'm not sure. I can't find the actual court decision online, only things talking about it.

I'd very much love to know if you're correct about only-uploading. This subject interests me alot. And again, I think the laws need to be greatly overhauled and clarified.

I just assumed the RIAA is more willing to target uploaders because it's easier to prove they are knowingly ("willfully") infringing, and because they do more damage and are probably easier to track, and less terrible PR-wise (i.e. "they are distributing, not just downloading!").

Unfortunately, we might not be able to have a clear-cut answer.

Right. Unless you sell your modded console with a bunch of digital copies on it, or otherwise do something to draw attention to yourself, console manufacturers likely won't even know and won't even bother. With downloading ROM files, it's different though - the RIAA has been suing individuals for downloading MP3s and DVDs for awhile now, and more and more ISPs are getting onboard with auto-detecting and auto-demanding payments with threats of lawsuits. I suspect ROMs will get added to that list sooner rather than later.

The difference is that you can still buy the MP3s and DVDs in a format that is playable on modern hardware.

Whilst with ROMs it may be that the original hardware is harder to get hold of. Not really the case with the N64 but with Arcade ROMs its a whole different ball game because some of the boards simply suicide if the battery runs out (without emulation or reverse engineering some of these games would already have been lost forever). Also with the Dreamcast and the Amiga CD32 there is a large hardware failure rate so whilst you may still be able to buy a device from eBay, you may not be able to in say 10 years time. Then there are games on magnetic media that simply deteriorate with time. I've bought boxes of thousands of Amiga and Atari disks in the past where only a few dozen still work.

Also whilst there have been high profile cases of the RIAA seeing individuals in the past things have eased up because of changes in the law. Judges have wised up and started to put a cap on the amount of damages they can sue and individual for. Rather than get on board ISPs in the UK have stopped passing on information and actually jumped off instead choosing to self regulate (first strike = warning in the post, second strike = throttling of broadband, third strike = disconnecting). With the whole wiki leaks / snowden thing I can't really see any UK ISP passing on individuals browsing habits unless its part of an existing criminal investigation.