The criminal proceedings currently pending against Italian content creator Francesco Salicini, alias Once Were Nerd, have drawn notable attention within the legal-tech and intellectual property domains. Salicini’s online activity consists primarily in the production of audiovisual material reviewing and demonstrating both newly released video games and vintage titles from the 1970s through the 1990s. His channel has also included presentations of handheld gaming devices operating on Android-based systems, manufactured by entities such as Powkiddy, TrimUI and Anbernic, many of which incorporate emulators replicating legacy gaming platforms including the Nintendo 64, PlayStation Portable and various Sega systems.
In April, the Guardia di Finanza executed the seizure of thirty handheld consoles from Salicini, on allegations of serious copyright infringement. The investigation originates from a published review in which Salicini demonstrated an Anbernic console preloaded with multiple ROM files of vintage video games—several belonging to the Sony and Nintendo catalogues—without the requisite authorisation from the respective rights holders. According to the prosecuting authorities, the conduct in question extended beyond the mere display of infringing content, encompassing: (i) the dissemination of detailed technical instructions enabling the configuration of emulators with unauthorised software; (ii) the provision of hyperlinks to online repositories of pirated ROMs; and (iii) the organisation of sales and auctions of such consoles through private Telegram groups.
Cumulatively, these actions have been interpreted as escalating the matter from a potential civil infringement to conduct capable of constituting a criminal offense under applicable law.
The Italian legal framework and the scope of article 171-ter
The Once Were Nerd case underscores the inherent complexity of copyright enforcement in the retro gaming sector. Under Italian law, the conduct alleged falls within the scope of Article 171-ter of the Copyright Law (Law No. 633 of 22 April 1941). This provision criminalizes, when carried out for profit and not for private use, the duplication, distribution, public communication, or facilitation of unauthorized use of copyrighted works. Crucially, Article 171-ter also captures indirect forms of promotion, extending liability to those who, even without direct distribution, enhance the visibility or accessibility of infringing content in a manner that generates economic benefit.
The legal framework is notably stringent. Penalties under Article 171-ter include imprisonment from six months to three years, alongside fines ranging from €2,500 to €15,000. The provision also provides that any act contributing to the public dissemination of infringing works, including digital content monetized through platforms such as YouTube, may constitute an indirect facilitation sufficient to trigger criminal liability. This interpretive approach has been invoked by the prosecution in the present case, given the combination of demonstration, technical instruction, and commercial linkage.
Beyond Article 171-ter, Italian copyright law interacts with multiple layers of intellectual property protection. Video games are protected both as autonomous audiovisual works and through the distinct protection of constituent elements such as source code, graphic interfaces, and musical compositions. Game titles may also be registered as trademarks, conferring exclusive rights over commercial exploitation, while technological innovations—such as control mechanisms, interactive systems, or unique hardware features—may qualify for patent protection. Consequently, a single act of infringement may implicate multiple rights and enforcement pathways, each subject to distinct procedural and substantive rules.
Commercial exploitation without authorisation
The central legal question is whether the commercial exploitation of copyrighted software may occur without the express consent of the rights holders. Italian law provides a clear answer in the negative. However, practical enforcement faces structural obstacles in the retro gaming market. Content depicting unauthorized software can indirectly facilitate alternative distribution channels for pirated ROMs, driving demand for non-compliant devices and generating quantifiable economic harm to legitimate rights holders.
A core doctrinal challenge is the distinction between legitimate cultural commentary, review, or educational use—which may fall under the scope of fair dealing, quotation, or research exceptions—and conduct that crosses the threshold into active facilitation of infringement. In the present proceedings, the prosecutorial argument is that the combination of demonstration, technical guidance, and monetization renders the content a conduit for piracy, exceeding permissible limits of lawful use.
Preservation of video game heritage
This case brings to the forefront a critical policy debate about the preservation of digital cultural heritage. Many vintage video games are no longer legally accessible because the original hardware has been discontinued and there are no authorized digital re-releases. Under such circumstances, emulation often becomes the only practical means of experiencing these works, despite its frequent association with piracy.
Universities, museums, and non-profit organizations—including the Video Game History Foundation—contend that controlled emulation serves a legitimate archival purpose. They argue that, like classic films and literary works, video games are integral to our cultural heritage and should be preserved to ensure enduring public access. This perspective aligns with broader cultural policy principles that regard the preservation of obsolete media formats as a public good.
Once Were Nerd highlights the tension between the need for robust enforcement of intellectual property rights and the imperative to preserve digital cultural assets. Legal and policy responses should aim to achieve balance: for instance, by establishing licensing frameworks for legacy titles, expanding statutory exceptions to allow accredited institutions to preserve obsolete works, and bolstering international cooperation to close jurisdictional loopholes that enable non-compliant manufacturers to operate with impunity.
A coherent approach must reconcile the economic interests of rights holders with society’s legitimate interest in maintaining access to historically and culturally significant works. This is especially vital in the digital age, characterized by rapid obsolescence, global distribution channels, and increasing acknowledgment of interactive media’s cultural value by legal systems and cultural institutions.
The Once Were Nerd proceedings have the potential to become a landmark precedent in applying criminal copyright law within the digital entertainment sector, illustrating the enduring tension between the legal imperative to protect intellectual property and the cultural imperative to preserve works no longer available commercially. For legal practitioners, industry stakeholders, and policymakers, the clear lesson is that copyright law must evolve to address both enforcement challenges and the safeguarding of digital cultural heritage—making innovation and preservation complementary pillars of a modern intellectual property regime.
