3 ms·

Right, your example got me thinking about Dwarf Fortress, which was initially released on 2006 (according to Wikipedia). By GP's assessment they would have to

Right, your example got me thinking about Dwarf Fortress, which was initially released on 2006 (according to Wikipedia). By GP's assessment they would have to pay $100,000 a year to preserve their copyright? Seems a bit harsh, I think.

ncallaway 3y ago
$100,000 for 5 years (though, again, my specific numeric suggestions were mostly an example placeholder, not the result of considered thinking about what exact values make the most economic sense). It's also not clear to me that continued updates wouldn't reset the term. So, if they wanted to maintain a copyright on the 2006 version of DF (v0.21.93.19a, released August 2006), they would need to pay $500 in 2011, and $5,000 in 2016, and $100k in 2021, for a total payment to the unitd sates treasury of $105,500. However, even if they paid nothing the latest release (50.09, released June 28, 2023) would remain under copyright automatically and for free until June 28, 2028. So they _could_ choose to let the community have access to the oldest versions of DF under public domain, while retaining copyright on the most recent versions. Or they could choose to pay to keep even the initial versions locked up. I'd also probably want to make sure that the legislative language ensured that you didn't have to pay the copyright registration on each patch release. So, if the DF team paid for the initial version to remain under copyright, _all_ the patch versions would retain that same copyright status without needing to be individually paid for. That seems like an implementation detail for the legislation that would be important to get right, but I didn't feel it was important to specify in the proposal.
- Ajedi32 3y ago
  > I'd also probably want to make sure that the legislative language ensured that you didn't have to pay the copyright registration on each patch release Does that actually matter? Updated versions are derivative works of the original so as long as the original remains copyrighted who cares whether the patches are or not? Unless you're trying to monetize updates individually separate from the main product in which case why not register them?
  - ncallaway 3y ago
    > Does that actually matter? Maybe? It's why I think it's something that if you got the far the legislative process would need to consider. It's a detail that I could see being important to address in the actual law, or (as you note) it might be that everything falls out pretty naturally without needing to be addressed. I think my point is: "if this ever got to the point where it was being drafted into draft legislation, the drafter should make sure this part works sensibly instead of being crazy".
natural219 3y ago
I don't think anyone is trying to fork Dwarf Fortress and sell it on a different platform. Actually, even if they did, they would likely have proved the market to the founders earlier; maybe lighting a fire under their feet to monetize quicker. The current renaissance of DF via the Steam release could have happened five years earlier -- inspiring five more years' worth of other business-focused indie developers... You catch the drift. I like the OP's system hah.
Supermancho 3y ago
While it seems harsh for someone who is well-regarded today, the system itself discourages abuse of the intent of copyright. I think the tradeoff is warranted.
rcxdude 3y ago
well, dwarf fortress was for most of that time a freely available game with no DRM and sustained by donations, so it's hard to see how copyright was really benefitting them much. If as mentioned new updates would get a new copyright (and only older versions would lose it), I don't really see what incentive they would have to renew it much at all.

ncallaway 3y ago

$100,000 for 5 years (though, again, my specific numeric suggestions were mostly an example placeholder, not the result of considered thinking about what exact values make the most economic sense). It's also not clear to me that continued updates wouldn't reset the term. So, if they wanted to maintain a copyright on the 2006 version of DF (v0.21.93.19a, released August 2006), they would need to pay $500 in 2011, and $5,000 in 2016, and $100k in 2021, for a total payment to the unitd sates treasury of $105,500. However, even if they paid nothing the latest release (50.09, released June 28, 2023) would remain under copyright automatically and for free until June 28, 2028. So they _could_ choose to let the community have access to the oldest versions of DF under public domain, while retaining copyright on the most recent versions. Or they could choose to pay to keep even the initial versions locked up. I'd also probably want to make sure that the legislative language ensured that you didn't have to pay the copyright registration on each patch release. So, if the DF team paid for the initial version to remain under copyright, _all_ the patch versions would retain that same copyright status without needing to be individually paid for. That seems like an implementation detail for the legislation that would be important to get right, but I didn't feel it was important to specify in the proposal.

Ajedi32 3y ago
> I'd also probably want to make sure that the legislative language ensured that you didn't have to pay the copyright registration on each patch release Does that actually matter? Updated versions are derivative works of the original so as long as the original remains copyrighted who cares whether the patches are or not? Unless you're trying to monetize updates individually separate from the main product in which case why not register them?
- ncallaway 3y ago
  > Does that actually matter? Maybe? It's why I think it's something that if you got the far the legislative process would need to consider. It's a detail that I could see being important to address in the actual law, or (as you note) it might be that everything falls out pretty naturally without needing to be addressed. I think my point is: "if this ever got to the point where it was being drafted into draft legislation, the drafter should make sure this part works sensibly instead of being crazy".

natural219 3y ago

I don't think anyone is trying to fork Dwarf Fortress and sell it on a different platform. Actually, even if they did, they would likely have proved the market to the founders earlier; maybe lighting a fire under their feet to monetize quicker. The current renaissance of DF via the Steam release could have happened five years earlier -- inspiring five more years' worth of other business-focused indie developers... You catch the drift. I like the OP's system hah.

Supermancho 3y ago

While it seems harsh for someone who is well-regarded today, the system itself discourages abuse of the intent of copyright. I think the tradeoff is warranted.

rcxdude 3y ago

well, dwarf fortress was for most of that time a freely available game with no DRM and sustained by donations, so it's hard to see how copyright was really benefitting them much. If as mentioned new updates would get a new copyright (and only older versions would lose it), I don't really see what incentive they would have to renew it much at all.