this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2024
938 points (99.8% liked)
RetroGaming
19812 readers
573 users here now
Vintage gaming community.
Rules:
- Be kind.
- No spam or soliciting for money.
- No racism or other bigotry allowed.
- Obviously nothing illegal.
If you see these please report them.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Patent law is 20 years. Copyright should be no different.
US copyright was originally for 14 years, with the option to extend it for another 14 years. It kept getting extended over the years. I think it's life of the author plus 70 years now.
Isn't that Disney's fault (and their government lapdogs) with their efforts to hang on to Mickey Mouse as long as they can?
Yes
It's the fault of a political system that allows private companies to lobby for oppressive laws.
The current iteration is, yes, which was created in the 90s. Copyright lawyers sneeringly called it the 'Mickey Mouse Act' due to just how involved they were in writing it.
But before that in the 1970s there was another major rewrite that gave them the original extension. Without that law in the 70s Mickey and Minnie Mouse would have entered full public domain in... 1984!
Can you imagine a world where the most recognized cartoon characters have been in public domain for over 40 years? If that law didn't it, the entire original Disney cast (Mickey, Minnie, Pluto, Donald Duck, Goofy, et al) would have been public domain, and ditto for Warner Bros characters like Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck and others. They all would have entered public domain in the 80s to the first half of the 2000s.
Comic book superheroes like Spiderman would have entered public domain in 2016! Can you imagine what the cinematic and comic landscape would be if anyone can publish their take on the majority of superhero comics?
To be clear, only the original versions would have been in public domain for over 40 years. Every time they change something about the character, it creates a new copyright for the new version.
Basically, Steamboat Willie Pete (released in 1928) would have been in the public domain decades ago, but Kingdom Hearts 2 Pete (released in late 2005/early 2006) would have only recently entered the public domain a few years ago.
There are even conspiracy theories that this is why Disney has been so focused on creating awful live action remakes of all of their old works; It resets the copyright timer on the new versions. Disney has historically used copyright as a cudgel to bully smaller content creators, because they took all of the old fairy tales (which were in the public domain) and slapped copyrights on them with their movies.
The conspiracy theory is that the awful live action remakes are simply a way to maintain copyright claims over those original fairy tales. They don’t care if the movies are successful; They just want to prevent anyone in the foreseeable future from ever making a Snow White/Sleeping Beauty/etc film based on the same fairy tales. Because even if a smaller content creator’s work is only based on the original fairy tale, Disney’s army of lawyers can claim that it is based on the Disney version. And the smaller content creators (who can’t afford a long drawn-out legal battle) will be bullied in court and forced to concede.
copyright should also expire when something goes out of print or, if its hardware locked, when the hardware is no longer available.
I've been collecting abandonware since 2000. I lost good chunk of my collection due to a harddrive crash some years ago, but I recovered it and expanded upon it. My logic has been the same. It isn't about wanting to play it (I don't play the majority of the games I download) it is entirely about perserving them. Maybe one day I'll make my collection a torrent for all to share.
Copyright should belong to the lifetime of the person who is creator or 20 years from the original creation if transfered or created by a non-person entity.
Nah, even an artist should lose monopoly after 20 years. What is their incentive to make new stuff otherwise?
Their incentive is.... making art is fun and a passion. Holding copyrignt allows artists to earn a living while freely pursuing their passion. Artists already struggle to get paid well for their work... and you want to strip away their rights to their work? Do you also pay your artists in impressions?
This is a mistaken take driven by corporations. Artists and creators generally don't own their own copyrights. It's the first thing they're forced to sign away to get any kind of contract, publishing deal, or other form of access from the big players who hold the keys to the kingdom. Nobody is making even a million dollars let alone more without going through them, and they don't agree unless they own those rights.
Small time creators can own their own work, but even then you have countless examples of creators who wouldn't play ball so the bigger companies just plagiarized them and they don't have the money to fight it. You need the backing of a big company to even enforce your claim against the other big companies that threaten it if it's actually lucrative. And, again, they won't unless they're the ones that own it because you signed it away.
Copyright does not protect creators in the slightest. It's a tool by and for large business used to legally steal from creators.
Exactly why i said copyright should be limited by non-person entities.
An artist isnt stripped of anything, they can still work on an old IP. Fans will likely follow if they're actually good. They just would lose the ability to stop anyone else from profiting off it. I happen to be a content creator and aspiring writer myself, and have every intention on placing my works in the creative commons