This argument extends to any purchased media, to any program.
I was thinking they were metaphorical.
Again: ianal. But this is kind of a fundamental right. If you own something, it's yours to do with privately as you wish. If you don't own the copyright, then you can't redistribute.
I don't see much point in making the theoretical argument of "nothing is unhackable". The point of protection isn't to make some absolute defense, it's to mitigate low effort thieves. Any house can bypass a lock by using a cheap hammer on a window, but I'd still call a house lock a "lock".
the issue at play here would be whether the emulator publishers/developers have the right to publish what is almost certainly an infringing piece of software, which courts have repeatedly determined they do not.
Adding in the DMCAs anti-circumvention provisions and the fact that you have to violate them to emulate a modern console, the whole thing becomes very nuanced and tightly linked to copyright infringement despite not directly infringing.
At least until Nintendo manages to overturn Sony v. Connectix, given recent SCOTUS trends.
That merely explains why Nintendo doesn't like them, not why anyone should care that they don't like them.
Cars may be used to commit bank robberies, yet banks have no rights over cars.
I don't think it has been tested in courts yet but the general idea is that you have to violate the DMCA to use a switch emulator, so people making switch emulators are making tools to help people circumvent the switch's copy protection.
Which is also a violation of the DMCA.
Like I said, it is nuanced.
> Cars may be used to commit bank robberies, yet banks have no rights over cars
Sure, but if said car had specific bank-robbing help built in, like say some magic device that immediately opens a bank safe, then the bank probably could sue.