LEGAL ISSUES
The common conceit is that all emulation is illegal. This is incorrect and tantamount to corporate
propaganda. Let's have a look at why and how.

Vault Corporation v. Quaid Software (1988)

Software security company, Vault Corporation, had created a copy-protection mechanism called ProLok
for software being released on diskette (pictured). Quaid Software developed a workaround for ProLok-
protected software, called RAMkey, which would fool the computer into thinking ProLok's requirements
had been met, when they had not. It was intended to be used by clients who had mislaid their programme
disks, as one half of the ProLok mechanism was stored on the original disk. Software locked in this manner
wouldn't run unless the application on the computer could verify the fingerprint code on the disk; RAMkey
operated by copying the fingerprint code, which could then be called up on demand, without needing any
disks. Naturally, Vault didn't fancy this idea and sued Quaid Software.
According to the majority opinion, 17 U.S.C. § 117 entitles people who own a copy of software to an
archival (or "backup") copy in a computer file format. Therefore, if you own a copy of Super Mario World
or have owned one at one time, you are entitled to download a Snes9x-readable ROM file of that game,
under no penalty. The FBI can't investigate you, the cops can't arrest you, because you're exercising your
rights as an informed customer. Even if Nintendo are offering Super Mario World for download on NSO
(which they are, of course), you still have your rights. Only in the case that you want to play the game on
your Nintendo Switch are you lawfully required to involve the company in your decision. Otherwise,
you have Vault v. Quaid (1988) on your side. However, if you don't have a copy of Super Mario World
but you still have an archival copy of the ROM, then you are breaking the law.

Furthermore...
Nintendo are intensely selective about the games that they re-release, generally keeping to a core
group of games by them, Rareware, Konami, and Capcom. Consider the scope of Nintendo's back-
catalogue; on the Super NES alone, Nintendo licensed 1,757 games. At the moment, only 72 are being
offered on Switch Online. The substance of another court case, Sega v. Accolade (1992) can be boiled down
to, reverse engineering is permissible so long as the company, individual, or entity engaged in the reverse
engineering does not hinder the original company's ability to profit from their products. To wield a blunt
instrument, Nintendo is never going to re-release 96% of the officially-licensed Super NES games; no
publishing company or game developer is ever going to make money on those games ever again either.
Taking exception to the 72 Super NES games currently available on NSO, there is no company, entity,
or individual currently existing on the planet who has any reasonable expectation of profit from the
remaining 1,685 games in the Super NES's catalogue. Therefore, they qualify as abandonware. While
there is a non-zero chance of someone coming in and claiming they own the rights to one or more of
these games, at which point the games in question would be considered under an active copyright, it just
isn't very likely.

Still Confused?
All of this is very longwinded and technical, so here's a simple flowchart that should answer any
questions you may still have.



| EMULATION PAGE | HOME |

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Copyright © 2003-2022 Tina Rosenthal. The code is pretty basic, but it's mine. Don't get any ideas, now!