Aha, now we're getting somewhere. I purchase a cartridge copy of Super Mario Bros, and ask Nintendo for a legal copy of the game that can be played on an emulator (perfectly legal option). Nintendo inform me I need to purchase A SECOND LICENSE to play the game on modern hardware. I don't want a second license. I want to play my current license. Nintendo have no options for me. What now? Tough shit? If the option is to purchase a sub-par, unlicensed "Famiclone" console (also perfectly legal, as the patent on that expired a long time ago), why would I do that when open source software exists that offers a far superior and more accurate software emulation experience? There are also good quality FPGA consoles out there, but they cost a fortune. So in cartridge terms, like, someone with a ROM dumper who can dump the ROMs and provide me with a copy? You see where this is heading, right? I'll re-repeat what I said above: I'm not for either extreme. I'm against mass copyright infringement, but I'm also against Nintendo's breech of what I consider fair use. There is a middle ground which I think requires (a) Nintendo to not treat their audiences like complete arseholes and (b) audiences to not take the piss, and pay for what they use fairly. Again, I refer to the GoG model, which shows to me that fans and copyright holders are capable of meeting in the middle on sensible ground, where people get paid for work, and customers get to move things they've paid for around to different platforms without penalty.