• limitedduck@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      There’s no simple answer to that since games become inaccessible in different ways and with different severities. It’ll always be an argument you have to make.

    • Chozo@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think we all know the “preservation” argument is bullshit. I don’t know why we keep pretending. 99% of people copying games are not “preserving” them, they’re playing games they didn’t pay for.

      Whether or not you think it’s wrong to do so is another argument. But can we just start being honest with ourselves? You’re not opening a museum, and you know it.

      • limitedduck@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 months ago

        Personal preservation is perfectly valid and doesn’t automatically mean sharing aka piracy. If killing emulation prevents a legit owner from playing their game you’re diminishing the authority of that ownership. Now I’m not arguing all claims of personal preservation are always ok since some games give you a limited license to play and are not owned, but that just means it’s important to see the nuance

      • mycodesucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        That is completely irrelevant. Piracy is already illegal. If you pirate software you can be jailed and/or sued.

        Emulation development, however, is completely legal and protected by law and precedent.