Shorter Copyright Terms for Entertainment Software?

[Oakminster]

@Martini_Enfield

Look at it this way: In many places, if you find an abandoned house, and move in, and treat it as your own (fix it up, paint it, etc) you can, after a certain period of time (many years) invoke “Squatter’s Rights” (also known as Adverse Possession) and apply to have the property legally transferred to you.

If it can be done with long-abandoned/neglected real estate, I fail to see why entertainment software should be any different. If the game has gone 20-odd years without a reissue or any active interest on the part of the copyright holder, then I honestly feel that the copyright on it should lapse and it should enter the public domain.

That’s an interesting argument. The squatter has to meet several elements to qualify. Law school was a long time ago, but I think those elements include:

1. adversity–the occupation/use of the property must not be by permission of the owner
2. Open and Notorious–ya got to act like you own the place.
3. Must be continuously used/occupied for entire statutory period–which I think is usually 10-20 years or so.
4. Claim of Right–the squatter must claim the land as his own (I don’t remember if he has to have some arguable basis for that claim or not).

During the statutory period, the squatter is trespassing, and fully liable for all legal remedies, should the owner act to enforce his ownership rights.

If we try to apply something like this to abandoned games, someone is still going to have to risk openly and obviously taking over the intellectual property, and as you point out, if they make serious money doing it, potential litigants will be lining up to sue for a piece of the pie.

[toadspittle]

@Der_Trihs

No, he’s saying that they would have to pay. You just couldn’t tell them not to copy or modify it.

Actually, this means only the FIRST buyer would have to pay. Then that buyer, who paid $50, could make a million copies and sell them all for $0.01, undercutting the creator and ensuring that no one buys any more copies from the creator.

[Steve_MB]

@Oakminster

How is it less arbitrary than, say, the right to free expression?

In a state of nature, you can say whatever you want unless someone physically stops you. In a state of nature, other people can listen to what you say and repeat it verbatim unless you physically stop them. Ergo, free expression is a natural right; exclusive control of a given expression can only exist as an artificially created privilege.

It may be, and probably is, socially beneficial to create such a privilege, but the fact that it is a created privilege rather than a natural right leaves it much more open to utilitarian arguments as to the extent to which the privilege should be granted.

[Oakminster]

@Steve_MB

In a state of nature, you can say whatever you want unless someone physically stops you. In a state of nature, other people can listen to what you say and repeat it verbatim unless you physically stop them. Ergo, free expression is a natural right; exclusive control of a given expression can only exist as an artificially created privilege.

But what you say is not protected by copyright, I don’t think. Admittedly, I’m not an IP guy, but if I remember correctly, copyright does not exist unless and until a work is created in a fixed form. You need to write it down, or record it somehow, in order to claim copyright. If someone then takes the “fixed form”, whatever it may be, without your consent, then they have stolen your property.

[begbert2]

@Steve_MB

In a state of nature, you can say whatever you want unless someone physically stops you. In a state of nature, other people can listen to what you say and repeat it verbatim unless you physically stop them. Ergo, free expression is a natural right; exclusive control of a given expression can only exist as an artificially created privilege.

It may be, and probably is, socially beneficial to create such a privilege, but the fact that it is a created privilege rather than a natural right leaves it much more open to utilitarian arguments as to the extent to which the privilege should be granted.

Being able to bludgeon you to death with a two by four is also a ‘natural right’ then, right? I presume you’re equally opposed to assault and battery being a crime, if you think that this ‘natural right’ stuff has any weight at all.

[Der_Trihs]

@toadspittle

Actually, this means only the FIRST buyer would have to pay. Then that buyer, who paid $50, could make a million copies and sell them all for $0.01, undercutting the creator and ensuring that no one buys any more copies from the creator.

Um, no, he clearly didn’t mean that. He meant that if you wanted to print those million copies, you’d still owe him $50 for each. The difference between now and his system is that you couldn’t tell him “No, you can’t reprint that”.

[CutterJohn]

@toadspittle

Actually, this means only the FIRST buyer would have to pay. Then that buyer, who paid $50, could make a million copies and sell them all for $0.01, undercutting the creator and ensuring that no one buys any more copies from the creator.

@CutterJohn

If they sell program X for $50, and I bundle that in with some other software in a package I sell, then i owe them $50.

So if i made a million copies and sold them for $0.01, I would have made $10,000, and would owe them $50,000,000 for 1 million licenses at $50 each.

Not a very sound business decision.

The end result would be the only way I could sell it is if it were more than they sold it for, so it would be quite dumb to do so for something they still sold, since they could beat me on price every time.

So you’d end up with 2 reasons for publishing it if you weren’t the original copyright holder.

1. Its no longer available for sale anywhere.
2. Its still being sold, but you wanted to improve upon it/modify it, and sell this version with improved functionality or additional content. New missions/vehicles for a game, a translation, a new format, etc.

In both cases you would still owe the owner their fair share. In #1, this wouldn’t be much, since they weren’t selling it anymore. In #2, you would have added additional value, so its reasonable that you could justify selling it for more money than the original, so that you can afford to pay the owner their share, and receive money yourself for your own work.

[Buck_Godot]

I’m liking the idea of a nominal fee/paperwork required to renew copyright every several years. The duration between required renewal might change depending on the work (more for books than for software). This would allow creators who are actively interested in retaining control of their work to do so, while allowing forgotten or works that the author doesn’t care enough about to renew to enter the public domain.

The question is how large the nominal fee should be. You would want it small enough so that a private citizen could afford it, but large enough so that Disney doesn’t automatically renew all its copyrights just for the heck of it. Perhaps it could be related to a maximum licensing fee for the work, or to the liability of a copyright infringer. Thus if you pay $50 you can sue for up to $1000 dollars, but if you pay $1000 you can sue for up to $100,000.

[begbert2]

@Der_Trihs

Um, no, he clearly didn’t mean that. He meant that if you wanted to print those million copies, you’d still owe him $50 for each. The difference between now and his system is that you couldn’t tell him “No, you can’t reprint that”.

“I bought the game at a super-discount sale at GameStop! They were eating the loss to clear out inventory, but now nostolgia has kicked and I only owe Interplay $5 per copy on a game they MSRP’d for $50!”

“We’re going jack the price an extra $10 and do aggressive marketing to make up for the high price. If anybody else wants to sell this thing, they’ll have to do their own aggressive marketing to make up the difference, and then give the profits to us!”

“What do you mean, the game is twenty years old and obsolete, and greatly outclassed by everything else on the market? We charged $50 when it was cutting edge, and by god you’ll pay us $50 for it now, or nobody gets a copy!”

“Sure we charged $60 for it, but it included an inch thick professionally bound manual and a three month paid subscription to our server. You say you just want to distribute the CD and a pdf? Too bad - the price stands.”
I like the idea of compulsory liscencing for merchandise that’s not being sold anymore, but there has got to be a better model for pricing than the full price it was originally sold for. And personally I don’t think it’s really necessary to allow bootlegging while the original owner is still making sales.

[not_alice]

@Oakminster

Yes, they are. They are losing the right to control the distribution of their intellectual property.

Well there is the crux of the fault in your argument.

Not that I am ccmfortable with any of the proposals in this thread, but the US Constitution is quite clear that a limited monopoly is granted, as with patents.

The issue is not if there are limits, only what they should be. We are haggling over the details, while you seem to be asserting that there ought be no limits at all, which would require an Amendment in itself.

BTW, the details of the limits have been changed multiple times in the lifetimes of everyone on this board, so they are not exactly carved in stone either.

They can and do change, the reason for the debate al tall is because some have a sense the pendulum has swing too far. That folks like you - and you are not alone - assert a kind of moral, perpetual right to distribute is evidence itself that the pendulum has indeed swung too far.

And for that matter, so is begbert2’s fear that his works would be used in ways he doesn’t want to see while he is alive. If a more permissive copyright, say with shorter terms whatever they may be were common, he would get used to it, and see the greater value to society due to advancement of the useful arts to him and others, and he would likely jump in and create. If he doesn’t, that might happen, but many many others would, and so teh arts would indeed be promoted overall.

Like I said, haggle over the details, but copyright never was and in fact is not perpetual even now. It is not as though it is a tangible property with title to it, it is a grant of a limited monopoly. You can assert otherwise, but only at the risk of sounding foolish.

[Oakminster]

@not_alice

Like I said, haggle over the details, but copyright never was and in fact is not perpetual even now. It is not as though it is a tangible property with title to it, it is a grant of a limited monopoly. You can assert otherwise, but only at the risk of sounding foolish.

It boils down to philosophical differences. I place a high value on individual rights and private property.

[Steve_MB]

@Oakminster

It boils down to philosophical differences. I place a high value on individual rights and private property.

Neither of which has any relevance to a government-created privilege.

[Dumbguy]

@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.

In video games the creator is pretty much never the owner. I agree with the argument that creators should be able to protect their creations, but that ship sailed decades ago.

[Oakminster]

@Steve_MB

Neither of which has any relevance to a government-created privilege.

I’d call it more of a government recognized right. Notions of copyright obviously existed prior to the drafting of the Constitution. The Framers included it, along with other rights they deemed important.

[Steve_MB]

@Oakminster

I’d call it more of a government recognized right. Notions of copyright obviously existed prior to the drafting of the Constitution. The Framers included it, along with other rights they deemed important.

That is manifestly not the case. Both the placement (grouped with statements of Congressional authority in Article 8, rather than with statements of individual rights in Article 9 or the Bill of Rights) and the language (a positive statement of Congressional power, rather than a negative statement prohibiting infringement of a right) indicate that the Patents and Copyrights Clause is a statement of Congress’ power to give a monopoly for the stated public-good purpose (“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”), not a statement that there is some sort of right to possess such a monopoly.

[Oakminster]

@Steve_MB

That is manifestly not the case. Both the placement (grouped with statements of Congressional authority in Article 8, rather than with statements of individual rights in Article 9 or the Bill of Rights) and the language (a positive statement of Congressional power, rather than a negative statement prohibiting infringement of a right) indicate that the Patents and Copyrights Clause is a statement of Congress’ power to give a monopoly for the stated public-good purpose (“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”), not a statement that there is some sort of right to possess such a monopoly.

So you are claiming an author/creator has no right to control the distribution of his own work? That’s ridiculous. If I build a fence in my back yard, it’s my fence. You can’t take it away. If I write a book, song, or computer game, it is also mine. You can’t have it without my consent.

[begbert2]

@Oakminster

So you are claiming an author/creator has no right to control the distribution of his own work? That’s ridiculous. If I build a fence in my back yard, it’s my fence. You can’t take it away. If I write a book, song, or computer game, it is also mine. You can’t have it without my consent.

He’s claiming that the constitution doesn’t admit such a right - it’s just something they let you do. They also let you appeal lower court decisions to a higher court, but that’s not a right you had before they gave to you.

[Oakminster]

@begbert2

He’s claiming that the constitution doesn’t admit such a right - it’s just something they let you do. They also let you appeal lower court decisions to a higher court, but that’s not a right you had before they gave to you.

Let the record reflect that I am not the first in this thread to invoke natural law, but it seems self evident to me that if you create something, it is yours, to do with as you will.

[begbert2]

@Oakminster

Let the record reflect that I am not the first in this thread to invoke natural law, but it seems self evident to me that if you create something, it is yours, to do with as you will.

Your assertion has been so noted in the record. Let it also be noted that there are those who consider me to have abrogated my right of control over my creations the minute somebody else catches wind of my idea and feels the urge to write bondage porn. And let it also be noted that many (including me) feel that a person does not have the right to 1) indiscriminately sell information to the public without selectivity, and then 2) declare that the information distribution will cease solely because the original distributor sees no further profit for itself in the continued distribution. (This results in an artificial, pointless, and unintended unfairness in distribution against those willing to pay who missed the deadline.)

The record having been so modified with all these contradictory opinions, we move to briefly recess, after which the issue will be resolved in the only democratic manner - all the persons who disagree with me can stuff it, and my opinions will prevail.

[Oakminster]

@begbert2

The record having been so modified with all these contradictory opinions, we move to briefly recess, after which the issue will be resolved in the only democratic manner - all the persons who disagree with me can stuff it, and my opinions will prevail.

Ok, thanks for that. Made me LOL.