3 ms·

We're lacking a middle ground in copyright law that would allow people to play Mario Bros 3 on the NES for free, but doesn't give everyone the right to use the

We're lacking a middle ground in copyright law that would allow people to play Mario Bros 3 on the NES for free, but doesn't give everyone the right to use the Mario IP, or to resell it en masse. (It's only possible right now because of incomplete law enforcement.) The purpose of copyright is to encourage creation, but rent-seeking on a decades old game is not it. Copyright and patents encourage creation and invention. Trademarks protect consumers. These laws should not do more than this.

unclad5968 1y ago
Why should everyone have the right to play NES games for free?
- ndriscoll 1y ago
  Incorrect question. The correct question is assuming people are willing to share those old games for free (they are), why should we grant someone the right to stop them? Why should we grant people the right to block the creation of derivatives of 40 year old works? These things don't even have economic value. E.g. excitebike was in the top 10 best selling NES games. How much would you pay as an investor today for global distribution rights?
- lesser23 1y ago
  Why shouldn’t old art be permitted into the public domain to encourage improvement and innovation? Draconian Mickey Mouse copyright law has likely stifled more innovation that we could possibly imagine. Much like patent law there should be a strict, non-renewable period where a company can recoup their cost and make profit. Then it is introduced to the public domain. Not “allowing people to play NES games for free” is rent seeking, innovation stifling behavior that extends far beyond simple NES games. Further, why shouldn’t I be allowed to share a game I rightfully own? If I do not own it, then I lease it. If I was not made aware of that then it is fraud. The ethics are simple: When buying is not owning, piracy is not theft. Simple as that.
  - Uvix 1y ago
    The grandparent specifically rejected letting the Mario IP enter the public domain. So whether or not it should, that's a completely different discussion from the one being held here. You can share a game you own even if it is still under copyright.
    - Buttons840 1y ago
      I'm saying there's a middle ground--or could be, if the laws were changed--where companies can keep their IP, but reselling and rent-seeking on decades old creations wouldn't be possible. For example, 20 year old Mario games would be free for all to appreciate and preserve, but Nintendo can still get value out of their exclusive Mario IP, but only if they're making new games--and that's the important part, Nintendo would have to keep making new games, they can't just resell the same decades old games over and over. That's the trade we make as a society. Copyright is a pretty big infringement on true freedom (think, anarchy freedom), but society gives up freedom to copy in exchange for people and companies creating new things. If companies aren't making new things, but are just rent-seeking, then let's end the trade and just let people be free to copy. Because we're not giving up our freedom to copy so you can rent-seek for the next 150 years, we're doing it so you can create new things.
  - tiltowait 1y ago
    Is Mario art? Putting that question aside: why should an artist be required to make their creations free for anyone to use after a certain period of time? Why are their wishes at best secondary? Now, to be clear: I am pro-emulation. If someone is no longer selling a game, I see no ethical problem with pirating it. I don't, however, think anyone has a right to the game simply by virtue of it existing. And you can share your copy of SMB3. You can lend someone your cart or give it away. No one will stop you. No law will punish you. But that's not the same thing as dumping the cart's contents and putting them online for anyone with a computer to download.
    - whatnow37373 1y ago
      I don’t particularly care either way but I can see the argument that any human no matter how brilliant is a product of the society he/she was raised and thus purely personal ownership does not exist. Your work is our work, we just play pretend for a few decades but in the end the pieces return to the box they came from.
- LocalH 1y ago
  Why should copyright last 70/95/120 years after death of the author/publication/creation (depending on the situation)? Extension of copyright is theft from the public domain in a way that non-commercial piracy has never and will never be.
- wiseowise 1y ago
  Because it doesn’t bring money anymore anyway. Nobody wins by it being unavailable anymore. Unless you consider “if they won’t play original, they would want to buy my flashy, shitty copy instead” a sound strategy.
- jrflowers 1y ago
  Why not?
ijk 1y ago
Copyright is pretty broken at this point; the drop to zero cost for duplicating bits broke a lot of assumptions 30-odd years ago and we've been slow walking the consequences ever since. AI kind of punched it in the gut, but it was already wobbling. There's been a bunch of attempts to patch things, but there's a significant shear between the common understanding of copyright law, the actual current caselaw, and what you can get away with as either an individual or a corporation. I think it's going to get worse before it gets better--a lot of people have a lot of money invested on things that are increasingly divorced from the economic and social forces at work--but I anticipate a realignment similar to the post printing-press era. (Which took decades for the consequences to ripple out, so we'll probably be at this a while if that's at all comparable.)
BlueTemplar 1y ago
Scaling back copyright to the initial 14 years, renewable once - would help a lot.
AlienRobot 1y ago
It's impossible to take seriously the argument that copyright is broken because people can't play 1 famous game for free. At least say you want to pay Nintendo to play the game...
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  > At least say you want to pay Nintendo to play the game... They possibly did this 30 years ago but now they can’t play the game - despite the license they purchased - because they are missing the original hardware. For the same reason I would never pay Nintendo (again) to get permission (again) to play Pokemon Red: it doesn’t matter to me (and it never will) that I’m somehow “infringing” because I want to enjoy culture that I grew up on. It just makes copyright law a joke that people will reasonably ignore until it is less farcical. Oh no, boo hoo, they make a little bit less money; I’m over here playing (not a beloved game from my childhood, but) the world’s smallest violin in solidarity for the profits of the largest media conglomerate in the world. Not trying to attack the above commenter but god damn am I sick of hearing how I should be paying money again to enjoy something I “““owned””” in my childhood. Fuck that every day of the week. I do not want to pay Nintendo to play Pokemon Red, I never will, and that is reasonable even if I choose to play it. /rant
  - const_cast 1y ago
    While this is true and a big part of it, we can't deny there's a lot of people right now who would like to play currently active Mario and Zelda games for free. Because they're cheap, or they hate Nintendo, but not enough to not play their games. Nintendo, believe it or not, needs to make money. No money = no mario. And I like mario. And the seven seas likes mario, too. So that's not good for anyone. There's a middle ground here, but in terms of messaging such middle ground is severely lacking.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
      Yes, I agree and appreciate the added nuance which I clearly was not in the mood for with my initial comment. I would not say the same thing about Pokemon Scarlet today, though I probably will be in 30 years. ;)
golemiprague 1y ago
[dead]

unclad5968 1y ago

Why should everyone have the right to play NES games for free?

ndriscoll 1y ago
Incorrect question. The correct question is assuming people are willing to share those old games for free (they are), why should we grant someone the right to stop them? Why should we grant people the right to block the creation of derivatives of 40 year old works? These things don't even have economic value. E.g. excitebike was in the top 10 best selling NES games. How much would you pay as an investor today for global distribution rights?
lesser23 1y ago
Why shouldn’t old art be permitted into the public domain to encourage improvement and innovation? Draconian Mickey Mouse copyright law has likely stifled more innovation that we could possibly imagine. Much like patent law there should be a strict, non-renewable period where a company can recoup their cost and make profit. Then it is introduced to the public domain. Not “allowing people to play NES games for free” is rent seeking, innovation stifling behavior that extends far beyond simple NES games. Further, why shouldn’t I be allowed to share a game I rightfully own? If I do not own it, then I lease it. If I was not made aware of that then it is fraud. The ethics are simple: When buying is not owning, piracy is not theft. Simple as that.
- Uvix 1y ago
  The grandparent specifically rejected letting the Mario IP enter the public domain. So whether or not it should, that's a completely different discussion from the one being held here. You can share a game you own even if it is still under copyright.
  - Buttons840 1y ago
    I'm saying there's a middle ground--or could be, if the laws were changed--where companies can keep their IP, but reselling and rent-seeking on decades old creations wouldn't be possible. For example, 20 year old Mario games would be free for all to appreciate and preserve, but Nintendo can still get value out of their exclusive Mario IP, but only if they're making new games--and that's the important part, Nintendo would have to keep making new games, they can't just resell the same decades old games over and over. That's the trade we make as a society. Copyright is a pretty big infringement on true freedom (think, anarchy freedom), but society gives up freedom to copy in exchange for people and companies creating new things. If companies aren't making new things, but are just rent-seeking, then let's end the trade and just let people be free to copy. Because we're not giving up our freedom to copy so you can rent-seek for the next 150 years, we're doing it so you can create new things.
- tiltowait 1y ago
  Is Mario art? Putting that question aside: why should an artist be required to make their creations free for anyone to use after a certain period of time? Why are their wishes at best secondary? Now, to be clear: I am pro-emulation. If someone is no longer selling a game, I see no ethical problem with pirating it. I don't, however, think anyone has a right to the game simply by virtue of it existing. And you can share your copy of SMB3. You can lend someone your cart or give it away. No one will stop you. No law will punish you. But that's not the same thing as dumping the cart's contents and putting them online for anyone with a computer to download.
  - whatnow37373 1y ago
    I don’t particularly care either way but I can see the argument that any human no matter how brilliant is a product of the society he/she was raised and thus purely personal ownership does not exist. Your work is our work, we just play pretend for a few decades but in the end the pieces return to the box they came from.
LocalH 1y ago
Why should copyright last 70/95/120 years after death of the author/publication/creation (depending on the situation)? Extension of copyright is theft from the public domain in a way that non-commercial piracy has never and will never be.
wiseowise 1y ago
Because it doesn’t bring money anymore anyway. Nobody wins by it being unavailable anymore. Unless you consider “if they won’t play original, they would want to buy my flashy, shitty copy instead” a sound strategy.
jrflowers 1y ago
Why not?

ijk 1y ago

Copyright is pretty broken at this point; the drop to zero cost for duplicating bits broke a lot of assumptions 30-odd years ago and we've been slow walking the consequences ever since. AI kind of punched it in the gut, but it was already wobbling. There's been a bunch of attempts to patch things, but there's a significant shear between the common understanding of copyright law, the actual current caselaw, and what you can get away with as either an individual or a corporation. I think it's going to get worse before it gets better--a lot of people have a lot of money invested on things that are increasingly divorced from the economic and social forces at work--but I anticipate a realignment similar to the post printing-press era. (Which took decades for the consequences to ripple out, so we'll probably be at this a while if that's at all comparable.)

BlueTemplar 1y ago

Scaling back copyright to the initial 14 years, renewable once - would help a lot.

AlienRobot 1y ago

It's impossible to take seriously the argument that copyright is broken because people can't play 1 famous game for free. At least say you want to pay Nintendo to play the game...

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
> At least say you want to pay Nintendo to play the game... They possibly did this 30 years ago but now they can’t play the game - despite the license they purchased - because they are missing the original hardware. For the same reason I would never pay Nintendo (again) to get permission (again) to play Pokemon Red: it doesn’t matter to me (and it never will) that I’m somehow “infringing” because I want to enjoy culture that I grew up on. It just makes copyright law a joke that people will reasonably ignore until it is less farcical. Oh no, boo hoo, they make a little bit less money; I’m over here playing (not a beloved game from my childhood, but) the world’s smallest violin in solidarity for the profits of the largest media conglomerate in the world. Not trying to attack the above commenter but god damn am I sick of hearing how I should be paying money again to enjoy something I “““owned””” in my childhood. Fuck that every day of the week. I do not want to pay Nintendo to play Pokemon Red, I never will, and that is reasonable even if I choose to play it. /rant
- const_cast 1y ago
  While this is true and a big part of it, we can't deny there's a lot of people right now who would like to play currently active Mario and Zelda games for free. Because they're cheap, or they hate Nintendo, but not enough to not play their games. Nintendo, believe it or not, needs to make money. No money = no mario. And I like mario. And the seven seas likes mario, too. So that's not good for anyone. There's a middle ground here, but in terms of messaging such middle ground is severely lacking.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    Yes, I agree and appreciate the added nuance which I clearly was not in the mood for with my initial comment. I would not say the same thing about Pokemon Scarlet today, though I probably will be in 30 years. ;)

golemiprague 1y ago

[dead]