DMCA / Cease and Desist email triggers a workflow which takes down the website, sleeps for 1 day, creates a new shell company buys a new domain uploads the same content and posts it on hacker news

I don't know. You're not asking for donations to keep maintaining a product you don't own. You're asking for donations as someone who put their services to work.

Consider a tricky grey area: you have a patreon for your youtube channel and expect most people to be donating so you can keep making videos (you get maybe, $50 a month). You also make random mods on the side. One of your mods blows up, and you get a bunch of attention. Which includes donators giving you hundreds thanking you for the mod. Are you now taking "blood money" because your tip jar for youtube content now has financial incentives to make more gaming mods?

I personally treat the tip jar as such. As long as you're not saying "pay me this much and I'll make X mod", I'm donating to a person, not a potentially morally grey cause. Maybe the Nintendo lawyer disagree with me, but that feeling has always been mutual.

Emulators are legally protected and asking for donations is just fine, the fly in the ointment for emulation of modern consoles is that they require firmware and decryption keys extracted from real consoles to actually do their advertised function, the emulator might tell you that it is your responsibility to extract the required files from your own console to protect itself but just like game "backups" it's much easier to download the required files someone else has ripped and uploaded to the internet.

The stupid part was paywalling the latest version of the emulator behind a Patreon subscription which opened them up to being taken down by Nintendo, although it was likely they would have been taken down anyway just because the Switch 2 was nearing launch and they didn't want Switch emulator developers to get started on the Switch 2.

The movie ripper scene in particular doesn't need any love for the game, because anyone with the balls to do so can walk into a cinema and set up a telesync. Breaking copyright protection on a game is something that required an enormous skillset that was unachievable for most people before AI. In particular stuff like Denuvo is a constant battle of wits with the DRM people.

It's rightfully romanticized when companies fail to make their products easily available for purchase and usable far into the future.

Will EA sell me Need for Speed Underground 2? Nope! They won't even acknowledge it exists on their website:

https://www.ea.com/games/need-for-speed

Just look under the "Need for Speed Games" menu. It's not even there in the sense of "we're proud of our heritage, look at a history of our old games."

I think this is what makes movie piracy a lot less romanticized. For the most part, Universal Studios is willing to sell me an old movie for a fair price. I bought the 4K remaster of Lawrence of Arabia for $5 on the Apple TV Store recently, and that's a very fair price. It's mostly the software and especially the game industry that is hostile to this idea.

I think copyright law should be modified to have more consideration for the rights holder's commercial abandonment. I would change it to add these parameters:

If a copyrighted work was sold to the general public at any point, and the rights-holder no longer sells that product in a way that a reasonable person would purchase and consume that work, or is no longer for sale in a manner reasonably consistent with its original form of sale (e.g., they used to sell Need for Speed Underground 2 as a one-time purchase but now it's only available as a subscription, or the price has been changed from $50 to $3,000), people are then free to copy and redistribute that work for non-commercial purposes, although they may collect donations for the purposes of covering distribution cost so long as they don't make those donations a prerequisite for the end consumer's access of the copyrighted work. The redistributor would also not be allowed to represent themselves as the rights-holder or do anything that would confuse people into thinking they were the original source of the work.

CyberLeek with the GTA6 fiasco is a great example.

They started with a mission "for the gamers" to preserve consumer rights and force Rockstar to publish physical copies of the game, and it ended with them streaming nudes of the main character to pump their meme-coin.

Yeah. We created a culture encouraging people to monetize any and every aspect of our lives. We can't foster that, actively make cost of living worse, and not expect people to to follow suit. Especially on an entrepreneur site like YCombinator.

You want more people doing it for the love of the game? Make sure they don't need to count pennies to pay rent.

you're confusing pirate consumers and pirate providers

Yeah but that will not lead to spontanious $5 donation. And i bet, based on the project itself, that the person did not think it through at all. So he would need to buy the server anonomous and the domain too.