6 ms·

I think there needs to be more nuance to it. Copyright is intended to ensure that the creators of works of art are able to profit from their work. Perhaps som

I think there needs to be more nuance to it. Copyright is intended to ensure that the creators of works of art are able to profit from their work. Perhaps some modification that if a copyrighted product is offered for sale, and then some time later is withdrawn from sale/no longer generally available - then the copyrights in that work should revert to the public domain after some period of time. We have a similar problem with books, movies and music - things that were once available have become not. Certainly it was a genuine excuse previously that the costs were too high to keep every book/movie/album in-print, but now that digital copies are incredibly cheap that excuse is going away.

EvanAnderson 7y ago
In the US Constitution, at least, the purpose of limited-time monopolies is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts...", not to ensure that creators of works are able to profit. Granting limited-time monopolies is a way to create profit for the creators, but as I read it, the goal was to promote progress for all of society, not for the creators.
- chrismcb 7y ago
  In this case it is to promote useful art. One way to do that is to allow the creators to profit off they work. It gives them the incentive to create, plus it gives them the ability to create.
  - EvanAnderson 7y ago
    The growth of the public domain is a method to promote the useful arts. Particularly in the realm of patents. The eventual guarantee that patented inventions become public knowledge means that more innovation is prevented from remaining in the realm of trade secrets forever.
TylerE 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights
- paranoidrobot 7y ago
  I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Moral rights are quite distinct from copy rights.
  - TylerE 7y ago
    Fundamental to moral rights is control over over how the work is marketed or presented. My OP did not make any claims at all WRT to copyright.
    - paranoidrobot 7y ago
      "I'd argue that pirating games that aren't available anywhere should not be illegal. " The only reason that I can see that this would be illegal would be due to copyrights. I don't think they're arguing that the original author/publisher shouldn't recieve attribution and credit for the original work. If someone was originally selling a product openly, and they now no longer choose to do so - then they're effectively abandoning their interest in those copyrights. Sharing those abandoned items shouldn't be illegal.

EvanAnderson 7y ago

In the US Constitution, at least, the purpose of limited-time monopolies is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts...", not to ensure that creators of works are able to profit. Granting limited-time monopolies is a way to create profit for the creators, but as I read it, the goal was to promote progress for all of society, not for the creators.

chrismcb 7y ago
In this case it is to promote useful art. One way to do that is to allow the creators to profit off they work. It gives them the incentive to create, plus it gives them the ability to create.
- EvanAnderson 7y ago
  The growth of the public domain is a method to promote the useful arts. Particularly in the realm of patents. The eventual guarantee that patented inventions become public knowledge means that more innovation is prevented from remaining in the realm of trade secrets forever.

TylerE 7y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights

paranoidrobot 7y ago
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Moral rights are quite distinct from copy rights.
- TylerE 7y ago
  Fundamental to moral rights is control over over how the work is marketed or presented. My OP did not make any claims at all WRT to copyright.
  - paranoidrobot 7y ago
    "I'd argue that pirating games that aren't available anywhere should not be illegal. " The only reason that I can see that this would be illegal would be due to copyrights. I don't think they're arguing that the original author/publisher shouldn't recieve attribution and credit for the original work. If someone was originally selling a product openly, and they now no longer choose to do so - then they're effectively abandoning their interest in those copyrights. Sharing those abandoned items shouldn't be illegal.