Please be aware that this document is no longer being actively maintained and it very likely no longer represents the views of Gordon Worley. I will not fix errors in it, discuss it with you, or generally even respond to e-mail about it. Having been warned, I'd rather you read this document from me rather than a cache or mirror somewhere, so I'm not going to delete it. I hope you understand and proceed with appropriate caution.
With recent events in the world of emulation, certain parties have been calling more and more for a boycott on console systems. The intent is that if game makers start seeing their profits grow a little less quickly, or actually drop, they will decide to lay off of emulation and purchasing will resume. The bad news is that if such a boycott takes place, the emulation scene will instead be crushed by companies for the fear of lost profits to emulators running pirated games.
All of the controversy that arises between console makers and emulator developers concerns patent and copyright infringement. Game companies claim that emulators violate their copyrights because they include code that is based on proprietary systems used in the consoles. They also say that patents are encroached upon because emulators acts the same as the original hardware. Both of these arguments can be understood, but usually do not apply. Most emulators are developed by programmers with a knowledge of assembly languages who work in 'clean room' situations, where no information other than that released to the general public is known about the hardware to be emulated. The first SNES emulator obviously did not meet these requirements, being developed by anonymous exNintedo employees, but further developments have been clean reverse engineerings. Since a few emulators over the years have broken the laws and used copyrighted and patented code, console makers have decided that all emulators must have been developed like that. After all, no one could be as smart as their programmers. ;-)
Although emulators and their programmers disputes with the console makers usually make it into the news, this is only a small part of the war against emulation. Most game developers are IDSA members, who offers some benefits to them, like looking out for their member's copyrights. The result is a heavy crackdown on sites offering ROM images of copyrighted games. The bad news is that in this case the IDSA is rightful to ask these sites to either shut down or face suit because most games contain a message in their documentation which makes it illegal to even make back up copies. There is nothing against loading the ROMs into a computers RAM, as consoles do the exact same thing, but persistent versions are obviously copies, albeit they are intangible. What is really sad, though, is that the IDSA seems to have a particular interest in ROMs for older games that are no longer being produced. The only way around this issue is for either the laws to change regarding the length of copyrights or for game companies to become friendlier to gamers wishing to play old games.
Clearing up legality issues is important before boycotting can be discussed. The IDSA has engaged in a propaganda war to make it appear that emulators are just as illegal as warez are, leading to confusion among even the most adamant emulation fans. Emulation can exist inside the law, but only if its participants are well informed about where they stand with the console makers.
Under pressure from the IDSA, disgruntled emulation fans have decided that they will stop supporting the companies they feel pitted against by no longer spending their money on their products. Their reasoning is sound, but in this situation a boycott would instead backfire, leading to a tighter grip around emulation's proverbial neck.
Historically, boycotts have been extremely effective. As companies see their profits dwindling, they suddenly decide that they would rather compromise and do what the consumers want than see the company fold. The major issue that hinders boycotts is support. Convincing people to no longer buy something that they enjoy using can be difficult, especially when companies retaliate with insanely better products. Getting the word out, too, is difficult because of expense and disdain from could be promoters. Despite all this, boycotts serve as the best method for consumers to make their dissatisfaction heard.
Boycotts are also powerful because they pull on the strength of the community. Although loosely formed, the emulation community is strong both in numbers and in willingness of its members to voice their opinions. For instance, when developers of an emulator decide to abandon it, almost immediately someone else will swoop down to rescue the project from the jaws of frozen development. Also, the number of mirrors for almost any emulator is unimaginable. If the IDSA decided that the developers of an emulator were violating the law, it would be almost impossible to silence their work because of the shear number of copies available Online. Just as in Conway's Game of Life, each person involved in emulation may be doing their own thing, but the total work of all these individuals combined forms a strong Internet community.
On paper (or on screen as the case may be), a boycott may look like the answer to stopping the IDSA's strong arm tactics. Fighting fire with fire may work most of the time, but when it comes to emulators, the combination will only increase the magnitude of the inferno.
Combatting the IDSA is not as simple as boycotting its member companies games and systems. The process is more complicated than that, because it involves doing the exact opposite of the original proposition: increased spending on entertainment. Supplying the opponents of emulation with money and resources may not seem like a good idea, but the end result is that emulation will be allowed to flourish while companies continue to make profits from selling games.
The reason that the IDSA and its member companies are so fearful of emulation is the prospect of lost profits. They think that if emulation is able to gain hold in the main stream, sales of systems will plummet and profits will be lost. In reality, though, the amount of net profit is almost always negative because of the cost of research and development, emulators or not. While the console makers may produce some in-house games, work is usually either outsourced to or left up to third parties, resulting in a lucrative licensing business. Emulators do not make an impact on bottom lines as the IDSA would like to believe because of the minimal returns that come directly from the sale of systems. In a boycott, though, lost profits would be blamed on lackluster sales due to emulators.
Even if the console makers realize this, they come up with another reason to oppose emulation: illegal ROMs. Unfortunately, they do have evidence to support this fear. Some Web sites host ROMs for games that are yet to be released in the US with translation patches, giving gamers using emulators the chance to play games before anyone else. Those having played such games with Web sites or other means of publication could then leak information about the upcoming games, affecting the initial anticipation and hype that surrounds big game releases. In addition, the profits lost to people who download a pirated ROM over the Internet instead of buying the game in a store could potentially become overwhelming. Therefore, companies have decided that by making the ROMs illegal they will not have to worry about such circumstances. The solution is a self imposed Emulation Ethic to eliminate the losses that a company could incur from the free distribution of ROMs (more on this later).
There is no perfect answer to this issue. The best defense for the emulation community at this point in time, though, is to continue to make purchases from the game developers. As their profits continue to grow, there will be little incentive to attack emulation in favor of keeping good relation with their customers. A 'successful' boycott with a loss of profits to console makers would simple make them want to crack down on emulation more so to ensure that their profits are not being taken away by people breaking copyright laws.
The Emulation Ethic I propose basically boils down to only playing games that are no longer in production. While copyrights will still be infringed upon, the intention is to minimize the effects felt by the game makers. Obviously remakes of old games may suffer, but this just means that developers will have to work harder at improving upon old classics to produce better products. A little competition (even if it is with yourself) never hurt anyone.
The idea consist of a couple of general rules that govern how ROM images are used with emulators. For games still in production, their ROMs should only be downloaded if you own the game. This does not mean that you owned the game at one time but have lost it, but that you can prove in a court of law that you possess that game. For games which have ceased production (meaning that the publisher will no longer refurbish retailers' stocks), their ROMs may be distributed freely, regardless of physical ownership, assuming that the original copyright is mentioned to give proper credit to the authors when it is not displayed in the game. These two simple rules would eliminate the reasons for most complaints from game makers.
The first rule protects the game developers. Their games will be available for play on emulators, while making sure that they earn their profits. This is not to say that games still being produced cannot be posted on the Internet, but that they can only be downloaded if you physically possess the game. Should something like the Emulation Ethic become law, such a measure would keep the game makers happy.
The second rule makes it okay to play games that can no longer be purchased from the publisher by retailers. At this point, the developer has made their money, and store sales should be able to finish off the leftover stock within a reasonable amount of time. There is still the issue of remakes, but this should be inconsequential as I mentioned before. The second time around, changes are always made. Otherwise, the original might as well be rereleased.
Following a simple ethical code like this should help to improve the bad reputation that some people, particularly the game companies, try to give to the emulation community.
Emulation may never come into the mainstream and may always be opposed by some game developers and console makers. By helping to boost sales and following the Emulation Ethic or some similar creed, the game companies will no longer see emulation as a threat to their business. Only when emulation no longer strikes fear in the hearts of IDSA members will the field be free to grow and develop from an underground to a full niche of the gaming world.