I have been playing Sly Cooper on a PlayStation emulator, I never owned a console in my youth and now I have a pretty solid PC. Getting my setup working took a bit but now I'm all ready jump back into a totally different era of game design (an era I think did more right than wrong). However in getting my emulator and USB controller setup I ran into a bunch of articles and things about how the companies are against emulators.
I don't understand it. They aren't making new copies of old games or hardware so it's not like they are losing money. They aren't making these old titles available on modern gear either. To me, emulators are like digital libraries and it's open-source. I mean to say if I checkout a book from the library (especially an older out of print one) the book publisher isn't making any money because they already made their money. Maybe a better analogy would be used goods stores in general, but again emulators are open-source and are more concerned about the sharing of this information for free. Real-ass hacker ethos.
Could someone explain why companies think emulators are bad? I don't even understand the "this is piracy" angle, as they aren't steal anything that's available. There a few companies like CAPCOM (as a random example) who release their classic catalog on digital storefronts so maybe I get that, but for the most part old games can't be played through "proper" channels so why the hell do MEGACORPS care about emulators? Is it an IP thing?
I'm by no means a legal expert, but I think current IP laws mean you cannot allow ROMs of your games to spread without also legally giving up the IP itself. This is a realm of madness we're descending into and it is wrong for this legal system to exist at all, but my understanding is this:
There is no one to sign a contract with. They might actually want to give away some old games for free if they don't have a way to make more money from them planned, but they can't do that without just letting go of the property itself. I think. There actually are games being given out for free when there is someone to sign a contract with. At least the Epic Games store - maybe others too, I don't actually keep up with this news - has a few games free every week, usually I think when the developers are about to release something new. Those are pretty much always much more recent titles than old SNES/PS1 games, so I cannot imagine they would not be willing to give up some old games that they are never planning on selling again just for publicity. But they still demand control, so unless there is some central ROM service, they will maintain that it is illegal piracy, even if - as I think will often be the case - they actually wnat you to download and play their old games.
FYI there is no such requirement, it is a common mistake this requirement is for patents not copyright.
It is not for patents either. Patent trolls rely on the concept of 'submarine patents' to wait for companies to develop 'infringing' technology and reap parasitic income. The only ways patents are eliminated are expiration, or demonstrating prior art.
"If you don't use it, you lose it" is how trademarks work. If you don't jealously defend your trademark, people can begin calling generic copy machines 'xerox machines' without being held liable.
That said, all IP law should be abolished with the possible exception of a heavily reformed trademark system which eliminates vendor lock-in and solely ensures people can verify their products are manufactured by a specific organization.