5 ms·

It could also be that I make a game, then a somewhat similar sequal, and I only want to sell the sequel. What right as a consumer do you have to distribute the

It could also be that I make a game, then a somewhat similar sequal, and I only want to sell the sequel. What right as a consumer do you have to distribute the first one for free then?

A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
The question is missing the point the parent is making. Parent is saying that the purpose of IP is to, in the long run, benefit society. As a result, we have collectively agreed ( for various definitions of agreed -- I certainly think they are way too long ) that protecting author's works for a period of time is desirable. As such, after some time has passed, why does it not end up in the same category as old published books ( public domain )?
SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
If the sequel isn't compelling it won't sell. It's a bad game series that relies on the first one being unavailable to sell the second.
feoren 3y ago
We can decide to make laws based on the society that we all want to live in. If our objective is maximizing the amount of creative work available to society, it may make sense to say that creators of those works enjoy monopoly on the reproduction and sale of those works, but do not gain the right to deprive society of the works. Some minimum good-faith effort to actually publish the works is a perfectly reasonable requirement on copyright.
TheRealPomax 3y ago
Is your company still up and running? No rights, unless the company explicitly voids the copyright. Did you go out of business but you didn't sell the copyright? No rights, unless you personally void the copyright. Did you die, but did you have (legal) heirs? No rights, because copyright is inherited. Are you a US citizen and you died without legal heirs? Still no rights, because (and this is the most insane one) your assets become state property and copyright is considered an asset. The only two ways consumers will be free to distribute that first game is either by the clock running out on the copyright, or by whoever is the copyright holder explicitly legally voiding the copyright before then.
Mordisquitos 3y ago
> What right as a consumer do you have to distribute the first one for free then? What rights have you got to stop me from doing it?
DoughnutHole 3y ago
The purpose of copyright and patent law is to promote innovation. If your new IP is so similar that it’s threatened by the mere existence of an older IP then it’s probably not innovative enough to deserve protection anyway.
adrianmonk 3y ago
Solution: bundle a license for the original with purchases of the sequel. Now it is on the market, so it can't be distributed for free. You make money off people who think they just want the original. But you also get a copy of the sequel into their hands, and they might try it and like it. True, it's not absolute freedom to sell things precisely how you want, but it seems like a pretty reasonable compromise to me.
lincon127 3y ago
Well, no legal rights, obviously. But that doesn't mean that's not what ought to be the case. Laws aren't infallible, especially copyright law. If you have to break them to do something, that's hardly a reason not to do it, it's a reason to think about what you're doing. As for the emulation of old games, this article talkes about a pretty commonly understood point, many old games simply can't be played outside emulation. This is importent to the argument as a whole because it changes how we should view these games, as they literally have no value. Art is worthless while it's isolated, it has no meaning to anyone, nothing to provide to anyone. The work of those that made it has essentially been forgotton about, and if it hasn't been forgotten, it will be. Same is true for video games, a video game does not have value until someone knows what it is. Currently these games exist in this state, they have literally no value. You couldn't find people to buy these games outside of speculative reasons because no one gives a flying fuck about these things. So when someone argues that emulation is theft, it's moot in these cases, because there's no value there, nothing to steal. There's also less altruistic arguments for emulation that are valid too, arguments for emulating games that do still have some value. One may do it as a form of protest, they want to edit the game, they want to play it more easily, or they want to put together a comprehensive list of emulated games that everyone can have access to. There are good arguments for all of these, despite the fact that they're often illegal and sometimes may even harm the original creators. Each argument should be considered on its own merits before the action is judged as something that ought not to happen.

It could also be that I make a game, then a somewhat similar sequal, and I only want to sell the sequel. What right as a consumer do you have to distribute the first one for free then?

A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago

The question is missing the point the parent is making. Parent is saying that the purpose of IP is to, in the long run, benefit society. As a result, we have collectively agreed ( for various definitions of agreed -- I certainly think they are way too long ) that protecting author's works for a period of time is desirable. As such, after some time has passed, why does it not end up in the same category as old published books ( public domain )?

SketchySeaBeast 3y ago

If the sequel isn't compelling it won't sell. It's a bad game series that relies on the first one being unavailable to sell the second.

feoren 3y ago

We can decide to make laws based on the society that we all want to live in. If our objective is maximizing the amount of creative work available to society, it may make sense to say that creators of those works enjoy monopoly on the reproduction and sale of those works, but do not gain the right to deprive society of the works. Some minimum good-faith effort to actually publish the works is a perfectly reasonable requirement on copyright.

TheRealPomax 3y ago

Is your company still up and running? No rights, unless the company explicitly voids the copyright. Did you go out of business but you didn't sell the copyright? No rights, unless you personally void the copyright. Did you die, but did you have (legal) heirs? No rights, because copyright is inherited. Are you a US citizen and you died without legal heirs? Still no rights, because (and this is the most insane one) your assets become state property and copyright is considered an asset. The only two ways consumers will be free to distribute that first game is either by the clock running out on the copyright, or by whoever is the copyright holder explicitly legally voiding the copyright before then.

Mordisquitos 3y ago

> What right as a consumer do you have to distribute the first one for free then? What rights have you got to stop me from doing it?

DoughnutHole 3y ago

The purpose of copyright and patent law is to promote innovation. If your new IP is so similar that it’s threatened by the mere existence of an older IP then it’s probably not innovative enough to deserve protection anyway.

adrianmonk 3y ago

Solution: bundle a license for the original with purchases of the sequel. Now it is on the market, so it can't be distributed for free. You make money off people who think they just want the original. But you also get a copy of the sequel into their hands, and they might try it and like it. True, it's not absolute freedom to sell things precisely how you want, but it seems like a pretty reasonable compromise to me.

lincon127 3y ago

Well, no legal rights, obviously. But that doesn't mean that's not what ought to be the case. Laws aren't infallible, especially copyright law. If you have to break them to do something, that's hardly a reason not to do it, it's a reason to think about what you're doing. As for the emulation of old games, this article talkes about a pretty commonly understood point, many old games simply can't be played outside emulation. This is importent to the argument as a whole because it changes how we should view these games, as they literally have no value. Art is worthless while it's isolated, it has no meaning to anyone, nothing to provide to anyone. The work of those that made it has essentially been forgotton about, and if it hasn't been forgotten, it will be. Same is true for video games, a video game does not have value until someone knows what it is. Currently these games exist in this state, they have literally no value. You couldn't find people to buy these games outside of speculative reasons because no one gives a flying fuck about these things. So when someone argues that emulation is theft, it's moot in these cases, because there's no value there, nothing to steal. There's also less altruistic arguments for emulation that are valid too, arguments for emulating games that do still have some value. One may do it as a form of protest, they want to edit the game, they want to play it more easily, or they want to put together a comprehensive list of emulated games that everyone can have access to. There are good arguments for all of these, despite the fact that they're often illegal and sometimes may even harm the original creators. Each argument should be considered on its own merits before the action is judged as something that ought not to happen.