# Shorter Copyright Terms for Entertainment Software? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 2, 2010, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shorter-copyright-terms-for-entertainment-software/541612 "2010-06-02T06:05:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shorter-copyright-terms-for-entertainment-software/541612/21 "2010-06-02T22:18:49Z")
Well, that’s the problem with shitty contracts. They make such a thing possible. For most books (which I realize are now almost a special case—being swamped by the numbers of movies, recordings, videogames, etc.—even though they originally were the main portion of things being copyrighted), you have terms in your contract that revert the rights to the creator if the book goes out of print for a given period of time. Then, the creator can go try to find another publisher who’s interested in printing it, or publish it herself, or sell it in perpetuity as an e-book, or simply declare it to be public domain. The case is obviously more complicated for things like movies, which are such a huge production and are much less the work of any single creator. Your article also points out another issue: That copyright is a patchwork of various legacy systems, with utterly different rules applying to works created before and after certain dates. But I’m not sure that there’s a solution to it… how far back in time would we have to rewrite old contracts? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shorter-copyright-terms-for-entertainment-software/541612/22 "2010-06-02T22:56:41Z")
> [@toadspittle](#): > > Your article also points out another issue: That copyright is a patchwork of various legacy systems, with utterly different rules applying to works created before and after certain dates. But I’m not sure that there’s a solution to it… how far back in time would we have to rewrite old contracts? My new rules would apply to everything. The contracts would dictate who holds the copyright (if it’s not expired), and if it’s been sold we can start tracking from the date of the first sale. If this means that some contracts are meaningless because they speak of copyrights that have already slipped into the public domain, well too bad for them. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shorter-copyright-terms-for-entertainment-software/541612/23 "2010-06-02T23:16:28Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > If this means that some contracts are meaningless because they speak of copyrights that have already slipped into the public domain, well too bad for them. Can you re-state the purpose of your re-jiggering of copyright? I’m curious if its benefits outweigh the inevitable damage to the multi-billion-dollar revenues of the entertainment industry, which makes plans and investments based on its current contracts, and has a business model based around specific timelines for exploiting properties. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shorter-copyright-terms-for-entertainment-software/541612/24 "2010-06-02T23:22:55Z")
> [@toadspittle](#): > > Can you re-state the purpose of your re-jiggering of copyright? I’m curious if its benefits outweigh the inevitable damage to the multi-billion-dollar revenues of the entertainment industry, which makes plans and investments based on its current contracts, and has a business model based around specific timelines for exploiting properties. > [@begbert2](#): > > There are two problems with copyright as it stands, in my opinion. 1) corporations can be eternal so things _never_ end up in the public domain, and 2) copyrighted stuff can drop off the market and become completely unavailable until the copyright expires. The purpose of my re-jiggering of copyright would be to correct these problems. By the way, how much of those multi-billion dollar revenues are based on contracts that are over twenty years old? I thought that the kittens the recording industry was emitting were primarily due to _new_ stuff being pirated. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shorter-copyright-terms-for-entertainment-software/541612/25 "2010-06-02T23:31:53Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > I’m sure the issue has been debated here before, but I thought it would make a nice, non-Political Debate… so, here we are. 🙂 I vote no. Your proposal is very generous with other people’s money/property. You seek to deprive them of what is rightfully theirs, for your own convenience, and give them nothing in return. If I create something, it is mine. I get to decide how, when, and even if you may buy/license it. Maybe I decide to sell 100 copies per year. Maybe I decide to sell as many as I can. Maybe I sell it only during football season, or only during the weeks following a Saints victory. Maybe I refuse to sell it at all as long as democrats control congress. The right to decide belongs to me, and it is unfair to take that right from me. If you don’t like my terms, tough. Create your own product. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shorter-copyright-terms-for-entertainment-software/541612/26 "2010-06-03T02:18:31Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Shortening the length it last for software is an idea. Another idea that I’ve thought might be good is some sort of “use it or lose it” addition to the law; a lot of old games and music and such are unavailable because the copyright owner is just sitting on the copyright. Copyright is supposed to give people an incentive to create and spread such things; not to keep them inaccessible. A requirement for periodic re-registration at reasonable intervals would solve this problem (most copyright holders aren’t going to bother with the paperwork, much less pay a fee, for something they have no intention of republishing). It would also solve the problem of orphaned works (some things could be irretrievably lost because they’re in obsolete formats and nobody can ever track down who they need to ask for permission to adapt/update them for archival purposes). ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shorter-copyright-terms-for-entertainment-software/541612/27 "2010-06-03T03:04:45Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Shortening the length it last for software is an idea. Another idea that I’ve thought might be good is some sort of “use it or lose it” addition to the law; a lot of old games and music and such are unavailable because the copyright owner is just sitting on the copyright. Copyright is supposed to give people an incentive to create and spread such things; not to keep them inaccessible. Yeah, I don’t mind trademarks in use being held for decades so much as trademarks being held to prevent their use. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shorter-copyright-terms-for-entertainment-software/541612/28 "2010-06-03T03:14:18Z")
> [@toadspittle](#): > > The other part of this is that exploiting your rights in order to make money off of them can take a LONG time. You write a book? Great. Now, it might be 15 or 20 years—or more—before that book is finally made into a movie. Say your copyright has expired on the book by that time. Who is now making a mint off of reprints of your public-domain book to tie in with the movie? Publishing houses? B&N and Amazon? Wal-Mart? Maybe… but not you, the one person who came up with that idea in the first place. You might be working at Wal-Mart by that point, ringing up copies of the book you wrote and not seeing a dime. > > When we’re talking about copyright protection nowadays, we’re not just talking about the Founders’ ideas of it as something that we hope will foster the arts and sciences. Rather, we’re talking about people’s perceptions of fairness. > > When we hear of some aging artist (of any stripe) who is penniless, our heart goes out to him—especially if his work is extremely well known. This happens a lot in music, where many artists don’t own their publishing due to shady contracts, or in comics, where most artists have historically engaged in work-for-hire and don’t own a share in the characters, etc., that they invented for a company. Now imagine if this became the norm for ALL creative works. I think you’d see a new public outcry to help protect these now old and penniless creators, and give them their “fair share.” It’s true that Disney et al have distorted the copyright law for their own purposes, but I don’t think that lifetime rights are too far away from the public sense of what’s fair, one you get right down to it. If I’m understanding you correct, isn’t that just one of possibly many exploitations? No reason why Wal-Mart or the publishing house of, say, Batman, can’t lose their copyright as well. The artist wouldn’t be the only one losing out, nobody would have a right to it. Warner Bros, Paramount, Universal, and Sony could all make Batman movies and people would flock to the better one. The original creator could still continue in the employ of a publisher like DC and push for his version to be the “official” version. Sure, creators might lose out, but the argument is that everyone benefits by having such a property be free and without restrictions. Just for the record though, I don’t think that just because the founding fathers wanted copyright to be for promoting creative works, it should stay that way. Let’s face it, money’s king. I want a law that allows me to profit from my creations as much as possible. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shorter-copyright-terms-for-entertainment-software/541612/29 "2010-06-03T03:36:47Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Sure, creators might lose out, but the argument is that everyone benefits by having such a property be free and without restrictions. And the counter argument is that doing so removes the incentive to create. Fuck everyone. Let them write their own books/games/whatever. If they want mine, they get it on my terms. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shorter-copyright-terms-for-entertainment-software/541612/30 "2010-06-03T06:05:49Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > And the counter argument is that doing so removes the incentive to create. Fuck everyone. Let them write their own books/games/whatever. If they want mine, they get it on my terms. Thing is, there’s no real point in creating them in the first place if you aren’t going to let anyone else use them. And yet, before copyright, people still produced creative works. It seems logical to me that we try to find the least expensive way to encourage people to write. Instead, we seem to constantly increasing the amount of time before something can be used again. I also find it funny that it is the conservative argument that says we should let the government have more power to enforce copyrights. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shorter-copyright-terms-for-entertainment-software/541612/31 "2010-06-03T06:16:38Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Thing is, there’s no real point in creating them in the first place if you aren’t going to let anyone else use them. Maybe it pleases me to create stuff. Maybe it pleases me to create stuff and say you can’t have it, cuz it’s mine. Maybe it pleases me to create albums, and not sell single tracks. Such is my right. > [@BigT](#): > > I also find it funny that it is the conservative argument that says we should let the government have more power to enforce copyrights. Huh? This conservative is pretty loudly trumpeting the right of the individual property owner over the free world. Don’t think they’re gonna kick me out of the Evil Conservative Alliance for that. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shorter-copyright-terms-for-entertainment-software/541612/32 "2010-06-03T07:06:29Z")
The reason I was focusing on Computer/Video Games was because of the odd situation where the rights to a game have been transferred through so many hands that in many cases no-one has _any_ idea who owns the rights, and even if they can be tracked down, it’s likely to be a huge company (like Electronic Arts or Ubisoft) who really have no interest in republishing or updating the game. So I definitely agree with the idea of “Use it or lose it” clauses in copyright laws, though-if you don’t want people using the intellectual property you hold the rights to after years of inactivity, then don’t release the work (or buy the rights to it) in the first place. The idea behind copyrights should be to make sure creators are properly compensated for their work and ideas, not so they can stop people from enjoying it a decade later. And with something like computer games, they have a limited “shelf life” due to technology changes anyway- a book released in 1921 is still just as readable today as it was when it was released, but a Sega Master System Game released on Cartridge in 1989 is more or less useless today, unless you have a Master System lying about. If the publishers haven’t decided the game is worth re-publishing on the Wii or Steam or as a Flash game, then there shouldn’t be any harm in letting someone else decide they’ll do it instead and allowing them to do so. I agree with **YogSosoth** that there would be nothing stopping the “Original” publishers of a lapsed-right work continuing to publish “Official” entries in the franchise- but it would also mean that other people can have a go at it too. Bear in mind we’re still talking about a 15-25 year copyright period in the first place. I don’t think anyone is seriously advocating removal of all copyright in this thread- we’re talking about acknowledging that in Entertainment Software terms, there’s a certain point after which allowing the copyright on a game on an obsolete system to continue is pointless, since there’s no more money to be made on the product. NES games may be the exception in some cases, but the current selection of (legally) available NES games is a tiny, tiny percentage of video games that were released on now-obsolete/unavailable consoles. There is, in short, no real disadvantage for anyone in allowing “Abandonware” to be considered “Public Domain” IMHO, and I think it’s definitely something that merits more serious discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shorter-copyright-terms-for-entertainment-software/541612/33 "2010-06-03T07:59:06Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > There is, in short, no real disadvantage for anyone in allowing “Abandonware” to be considered “Public Domain” IMHO, and I think it’s definitely something that merits more serious discussion. Yeah, there is. The author deserves to control the distribution of his work. He gets to decide if it should be updated or released in new formats. Not you. If he feels his artistic vision reached perfection as released for a tape drive on a Vic-20, he has no obligation to change it. If you want the product updated, you are certainly free to offer him financial or other incentive to do so. Maybe he’s willing to do it for cookies. Or a hot meal. Maybe not. But it’s his call to make. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shorter-copyright-terms-for-entertainment-software/541612/34 "2010-06-03T08:35:49Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Yeah, there is. The author deserves to control the distribution of his work. He gets to decide if it should be updated or released in new formats. Not you. If he feels his artistic vision reached perfection as released for a tape drive on a Vic-20, he has no obligation to change it. If you want the product updated, you are certainly free to offer him financial or other incentive to do so. Maybe he’s willing to do it for cookies. Or a hot meal. Maybe not. But it’s his call to make. That’s all well and good for something like a book or a movie where there’s a specific individual (or well-known, long-established company) who can be IDed as the author/director/creator 20+ years down the track. But, as has been mentioned, computer games (which was the intended focus of the thread) are a different kettle of fish. Let’s say there’s a (all names and examples intended to be fictional) hit game called _Widget Master_ made 1995 by the GameMaker Company, with Fred Bloggs as the head designer. _Widget Master_ is a huge hit but due to other financial problems and several of the design team going to work for a competing company offering more money and company Porsches, GameMaker Company nearly bankrupts and is brought out by the larger Digital Fun Games Ltd, who manage to release an updated version called _Widget Master Gold_ in late 1996. They plan to develop _Widget Master 3D_ for release in 1997 or early 1998, but in the meantime their game _Smiley Happy Teddy Bears_ attracts rave reviews and Digital Fun Games Ltd gets brought out by a Canadian company, Maple Leaf Electronica, who aren’t happy with the direction of _Widget Master 3D_ and decide to restart production from scratch to take advantage of new technology, anticipated release at the end of 1999. The game is released and is also a huge hit, winning several “Game of the Year” awards and raking in the cash for Maple Leaf Electronica, who expand into the UK. They announce plans for _Widget Master Turbo Tournament_, but in 2002 the Canadian arm is brought out by the huge American company Combine Computer Entertainment, and the UK arm of Maple Leaf splits off to become Maple Leaf UK Ltd, later changing their name to Shepherd’s Pie Interactive and releasing a number of sleeper hits such as _Escape From Buckingham Palace_ and _Mini Racing Madness_. In 2005 they buy a smaller developer and rename themselves _again_ to Empire Games, expanding in size as they acquire other small developers and producing many popular games, staying in business to the present day and making oodles of cash in the process. Meanwhile, back in North America, Combine Computer Entertainment decided in 2006 that buying Maple Leaf wasn’t a great investment after all, and have decided to sell it off to a smaller Los Angeles based company, Pine Tree Games. Unfortunately, despite a promising start, Pine Tree Games goes out of business later that year when their game _Box-Storage Warehouse Shootout_ is a critical and commercial disaster. Some of the staff form a new but separate and unaffiliated company called Springboard Software, who release the popular _Kitten Emperor_ games, before acquiring a struggling Japanese developer to release JRPG games into the Western market, and as we reach the present day they are in talks to form a merger with the Australian gaming company Craft Brewed Games. And someone at the new company thinks it’s time they made _Widget Master Unlimited_… if only they could work out who actually held the rights to it. The above is slightly exaggerated (but not as much as you’d think) and gives (or so I hope) some illumination as to why Entertainment Software copyright issues are a hell of a lot more complicated than for a book or a movie- hence the discussion. Edit: I should also add that I’m a published writer and have been working as such for many, many years. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shorter-copyright-terms-for-entertainment-software/541612/35 "2010-06-03T08:48:35Z")
I’d also like to point out that the actual creators of the game make little or no personal profit from it, have no control, and at no point have the copyright to it. So **Oakminister** ’s attempt to make this a matter of the creator’s moral right to his/her work is moot; the creators aren’t involved and have no such rights. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shorter-copyright-terms-for-entertainment-software/541612/36 "2010-06-03T08:50:50Z")
OK…here’s what I’d be willing to accept to solve that problem for future works: All works created after the effective date of the new law shall be registered in the usual way, but in order to retain protected status, the owner must maintain either current contact information, or the name/address of a registered agent on file with the copyright office. Folks that wish to update the games must serve notice on the owner or registered agent, and weight some specified period for a response. Say 90 days, to pick a figure at random. If no response is filed within the specified time, then the owner is no longer entitled to full protected status. You can update the game for commercial purposes, but must deposit statutory royalties in a federally insured, interest bearing trust account for the owner’s benefit for some period of years. If the money isn’t claimed in the time allowed, then you get it plus accumulated interest. I’m gonna hold the line on works created prior to the effective date of that new law, though. The guys that created that stuff had no notice of it when they were in the creation process, and I don’t like changing rules after the game starts. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shorter-copyright-terms-for-entertainment-software/541612/37 "2010-06-03T08:55:53Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > I’d also like to point out that the actual creators of the game make little or no personal profit from it, have no control, and at no point have the copyright to it. So **Oakminister** ’s attempt to make this a matter of the creator’s moral right to his/her work is moot; the creators aren’t involved and have no such rights. Yeah? Tell that to Adam Ryland at [Grey dog Software](http://www.greydogsoftware.com/home.php). And, I’d like to point out, that the creator can choose to sell or assign his rights. Some do, some don’t. Again, the choice belongs to them, and not the consumer. The copyright vests in the creator when the work is created in fixed form, iirc. That right may be transferred by contract. And then there’s works for hire, which are different. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 9:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shorter-copyright-terms-for-entertainment-software/541612/38 "2010-06-03T09:13:17Z")
The issue with that is that, as **Der Trihs** points out, the _individuals_ who made the games have generally never held the copyright to the game and were (likely) simply being paid a salary when they were making it- they’re not entitled to royalties. Obviously there are exceptions, but generally the game makers (the people doing the gruntwork, not the “Leads”) have no stake in the game, in much the same way that the caterer on a popular and successful movie doesn’t get points in the film and the guy who researches trivia questions for quiz shows doesn’t get a cut of the advertising revenue from the programme. So your proposed alternative basically involves paying royalties to companies which no longer exist or have been bought out by massive games development companies who A) Don’t actually need (or, depending on your point of view, deserve) the money B) Had _nothing_ to do with the game in the first place anyway, and C) Have no financial interest in the game as it is either. Also, computer game “Creators” aren’t as comparable to famous directors as they used to be. Sid Meier, Will Wright, John Romero, and Peter Molyneux were (and still are, to many) household names in gaming circles. They had a personal touch to the games, and their work could be clearly seen as “Theirs”, in the same way that _Citizen Kane_ is an “Orson Welles Film” despite the fact there were also cameramen, sound guys, extras, and countless other people involved as well. But (without looking it up!) who was the “Creator” of _FarCry_? Of _Battlefield 1942_? Of _Oblivion_? You’d likely know the name of the developer company and the publisher company, but the person who “Created” it? No idea, in most cases. Computer games are generally no longer an “Individual” work; they’re made by large companies with lots of staff, and 20 years down the track they’ll either be successful and no longer care about one of their earlier offerings from the 16-bit era, or they’ll be out of business (or incorporated into a larger company) and in the same position. The mere cents that the royalties would bring in render the whole point of maintaining the copyright on a defunct title decades later pointless and un-necessary, as I’ve said. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shorter-copyright-terms-for-entertainment-software/541612/39 "2010-06-03T15:23:26Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > So your proposed alternative basically involves paying royalties to companies which no longer exist or have been bought out by massive games development companies who A) Don’t actually need (or, depending on your point of view, deserve) the money B) Had _nothing_ to do with the game in the first place anyway, and C) Have no financial interest in the game as it is either. You do not get to decide what the lawful owners of intellectual property “need” or “deserve”. There is a bundle of rights associated with each game (or other work). Some entity owns those rights. My proposal would allow you to identify that entity and approach them for negotiations. They can say “No, we are not interested.” If they do, that’s it. Game over, until the copyright expires. The work for hire discussion is a red herring here. Yes, the individuals involved have contracted away their IP rights in certain works. In exchange, they get a steady paycheck, possibly with benefits–insurance, retirement, etc. The “creator” of those works is effectively the copyright owner, and he or it “created” the work in the sense that they paid people to do it they way they wanted it done. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shorter-copyright-terms-for-entertainment-software/541612/40 "2010-06-03T15:50:35Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > This conservative is pretty loudly trumpeting the right of the individual property owner Well, there is the fundamental error from which all else flows. Copyright is a privilege created by government, not a natural property right. The latter is derived from natural laws governing physical possession of objects; the former is ultimately derived from the old custom of the king passing out local monopolies on playing cards or corn grinding or whatever to his cronies and sending his men-at-arms to soundly thwack other producers of such goods and services. > [@Oakminster](#): > > I don’t like changing rules after the game starts. Oh, then you reject all post-creation extension of copyright, then? :dubious: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shorter-copyright-terms-for-entertainment-software/541612.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shorter-copyright-terms-for-entertainment-software/541612.md?page=3)