I just fail to see how a court decision in the US would have any effect on another country. It's not like OP's situation and access to emulators would have been any different if the decision went Sony's way.
> It's not like OP's situation and access to emulators would have been any different if the decision went Sony's way.
I would respectfully disagree - although it's hard to speculate on alternative histories.
The United States has an outsized impact on the software industry - even for the largest economy in the world (American big-tech dominates the largest companies by market cap).
Preventing or impeding the development of emulation software in the US would definitely impact the rest of the world, simply because fewer people and companies can legally contribute to open-source Emulation software.
People and companies in the US have contributed a whole lot of hours to emulator development, such that it's plausible emulation would not be nearly as good as it is if such development were illegal in the US. Moreover, less effort may have been put into emulator development or emulation-based-product development by foreign companies, if they were legally unable to sell their products in the US, which is a large and rich market. Further, US copyright policy has a tendency to influence international copyright regimes, over the longer term.
The actual mechanism seems pretty straightforward (the US is a big open country, if things can happen here somebody will do it and it’ll spread across the world without many speedbumps).
Their phrasing was a bit awkward though, when they say “Luckily emulation has always been legal…” one would assume they are talking about the jurisdiction they live in, by default at least.
so straightforward that it makes you realize how comically bad some people here in the comment section are at understanding even broad strokes kinda implications about their and others actions.
Well - it depends on the topic really. And, not the fact a law exists in the US. A judgement in the US has no bearing on law in other countries, except where it is used to then set a presidency as others had said.
US law is actually different enough from some other countries that what is legal in the US is outright illegal, and vice versa. If you want some low hanging fruit - anything to do with guns, gender identity, abortion, liable/slander and "free" speech - many countries disagree and actively oppose the US stand point, on both sides of the US position. Another good example is anything granted in the US constitution is not a "God given right" outside of the US (which probably intersects with guns and free speech, maybe other things). US passing a law is not going to change that.
DMCA does not affect other countries - we have our own laws - some of which were put in place in line with the ideas that caused the DMCA, but some of which predate it. Also - "fair use" is a wholly US concept, and might not apply, depending on where you are located.
