The first sale doctrine would beg to differ. Which is modulo regional/national regulations and restrictions on certain kinds of products… basically globally rec

The first sale doctrine would beg to differ. Which is modulo regional/national regulations and restrictions on certain kinds of products… basically globally recognised. As would the legal recognition of format shifting in multiple jurisdictions around the world… I bought it and the hardware stops working… I still have the legal right to do what I want with the data on that disk. If I’m a legitimate customer and you sold not licensed me the software… fuck you Nintendo I have the right to emulate your hardware (which I also own thus providing a right to whatever software was sold on that device, so that angle isn’t a solid argument either.) The only question that should be legally argued over is do the documented infringement cases of people recording themselves doing this on streams, have a legal defence for the allegations Nintendo could level at them. They are innocent until proven guilty by law and it would be more effort for Nintendo to bring charges… So they took the morally reprehensible cheaper action of going after the legal emulator software rather to save themselves time and money attacking developers not in a position to fight back because while they are standing firmly in legal territory making the software, you would have to be very optimistic to think the arguments Nintendo could make with their expensive lawyers about “facilitating crime” wouldn’t be persuasive.