Let's talk about how we think copyright should work

[Specter Von Baren]

Inspired by a thread on a different site. It's clear that the way copyright works for games (and in general) is inadequate for preservation. With games in particular, the time required for a copyright to run out is far and away too long for anyone to record or preserve if done how the law intends because of hardware degredation and incompatibility.

Now, this is not a new topic for us, but I haven't seen it discussed much what kind of system could be adopted that allows preservation while also still protecting creators of creative works. Any ideas?

 

[immortalfrieza]

10 years. IP and Copyright law should be limited to 10 years maximum and then it enters public domain. If you've created something and you can't make good enough movies/games/books/etc. in a decade to be rich off of it, your idea is either not good in the first place or other people could make use of it better than you. If you did make tons of money on it, the 10 years pass, and you still want to make more, then you have to step up your game as competition appears to get people to keep buying your version while they would have to do the same, thus improving works as a whole and ensuring an IP just don't sit in limbo forever or get sold to a company that has no idea what they're doing with the IP and don't care anyway, resulting in garbage. It would also stop the monopolies that copyright and IP law generates by allowing others to make and distribute that content after a point, causing prices to plummet.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Copyright should make it profitable for an artist to create something. Not the creator's far-flung descendants, and not a corporation. The original terms of copyright in the US (one 14-year period; one chance to renew for another 14 years) were perfectly reasonable, but corporations started pushing for longer and longer terms, until good ol' Disney- desperate to keep Mickey Mouse out of our hands forever- paid off Congress to extend it to "the life of the author plus 70 years".

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Inspired by a thread on a different site. It's clear that the way copyright works for games (and in general) is inadequate for preservation. With games in particular, the time required for a copyright to run out is far and away too long for anyone to record or preserve if done how the law intends because of hardware degredation and incompatibility.

Now, this is not a new topic for us, but I haven't seen it discussed much what kind of system could be adopted that allows preservation while also still protecting creators of creative works. Any ideas?

When software is old enough to fall into a “legacy” status (ie the originally designated methods of playing it are no longer available for retail purchase), it should be eligible for protection under a newly formed “software preservation act” or whatever title is decided upon. It should be pretty simple if enough people can be bothered to care.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Copyright should make it profitable for an artist to create something. Not the creator's far-flung descendants, and not a corporation. The original terms of copyright in the US (one 14-year period; one chance to renew for another 14 years) were perfectly reasonable, but corporations started pushing for longer and longer terms, until good ol' Disney- desperate to keep Mickey Mouse out of our hands forever- paid off Congress to extend it to "the life of the author plus 70 years".

On that note, if someone created something they should actually own it, not use technicalities to steal it out from under them, and this includes when they created it while working at a corporation at the time. Nor should the creator be able to sell it. Copyright and IP law is pointless if the creator can create something and then lose it or sell it off. If they created it then it should belong to them for a reasonable amount of time or end up in the public domain for everyone to use, not be passed around from corporation to corporation until the heat death of universe.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

On that note, if someone created something they should actually own it, not use technicalities to steal it out from under them, and this includes when they created it while working at a corporation at the time. Nor should the creator be able to sell it. Copyright and IP law is pointless if the creator can create something and then lose it or sell it off. If they created it then it should belong to them for a reasonable amount of time or end up in the public domain for everyone to use, not be passed around from corporation to corporation until the heat death of universe.

Honestly, most of that shit stems from originally *sane* attempts to keep collaborative efforts from turning into huge legal shitfights... yes, even Work For Hire contracts (as fucked up and evil as they can get).

IP law is a fucking trainwreck now, though. Winding it all back to your "10 years, no excuses, then it's a free for all" would be the best idea... and no grandfathering for shitheels like Disney...

Also, only let Trademarks and Tradebrands be renewable... last thing consumers need is every scumfuck to be able to copy the name and packaging of the actual product they want.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Honestly, most of that shit stems from originally *sane* attempts to keep collaborative efforts from turning into huge legal shitfights... yes, even Work For Hire contracts (as fucked up and evil as they can get).

IP law is a fucking trainwreck now, though. Winding it all back to your "10 years, no excuses, then it's a free for all" would be the best idea... and no grandfathering for shitheels like Disney...

Also, only let Trademarks and Tradebrands be renewable... last thing consumers need is every scumfuck to be able to copy the name and packaging of the actual product they want.

I think 15 years would be better. 15 years seems to be about the shelf life of most series anyway.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I think 15 years would be better. 15 years seems to be about the shelf life of most series anyway.

The actual span of time isn't the issue so much as implementing definite and reasonable time limits on IP.

I'd also tighten up the laws regarding speculative patents and trademarking common words... also ban software patents outright.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

The actual span of time isn't the issue so much as implementing definite and reasonable time limits on IP.

I'd also tighten up the laws regarding speculative patents and trademarking common words... also ban software patents outright.

I think a complication is, what has what on what? What would the limit be on an IP vs a product, for example. If I make a story about a character, Kelly the Kobold, do I only have a limit on how long I can use the character or would I also have a limit on how long I own the story she first appears in?

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I think a complication is, what has what on what? What would the limit be on an IP vs a product, for example. If I make a story about a character, Kelly the Kobold, do I only have a limit on how long I can use the character or would I also have a limit on how long I own the story she first appears in?

It'd be both... and yes, that means later works could still have a few years of IP protection left when the original characters and first story go public domain.

 

[09philj]

Works should enter the public domain once the creator or creators are dead. Also if a work goes for several years without being sold commercially, it should be placed under a license that permits free distribution until it fully enters the public domain on the death of the creator.

 

[bluegate]

What's the problem that's being addressed exactly?

Last I checked there's ROM sites a plenty, fan projects a plenty.

 

[09philj]

What's the problem that's being addressed exactly?

Last I checked there's ROM sites a plenty, fan projects a plenty.

Those things are currently illegal.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Works should enter the public domain once the creator or creators are dead.

But when a big game has a zillion people working at the studio in various roles, does that mean you have to wait til the Junior Assistant Third Class dies?

Also if a work goes for several years without being sold commercially, it should be placed under a license that permits free distribution until it fully enters the public domain on the death of the creator.

Yeah, I don't mind people keeping the rights to the setting and characters, but giving away old games that feature them. Though, if that can't be done by legislation, there are lots of games available for free because the IP holders don't care anymore, but care enough to say they don't care anymore and let people have them.

 

[Satinavian]

On that note, if someone created something they should actually own it, not use technicalities to steal it out from under them, and this includes when they created it while working at a corporation at the time. Nor should the creator be able to sell it. Copyright and IP law is pointless if the creator can create something and then lose it or sell it off. If they created it then it should belong to them for a reasonable amount of time or end up in the public domain for everyone to use, not be passed around from corporation to corporation until the heat death of universe.

That is kinda like it works in Germany. Creators can't really lose or sell their rights. They can basically only sell use licences.

Also if a work goes for several years without being sold commercially, it should be placed under a license that permits free distribution until it fully enters the public domain on the death of the creator.

Germany has a limited version of that as well. If something isn't available legally for a long time, you might be allowed to make a private copy. But there is no loss of licence or entering ito public domain. The right holder could still make it available again and prevent any further legal free copies. Also there are some hoops to jump through to use this.

 

[Thaluikhain]

That is kinda like it works in Germany. Creators can't really lose or sell their rights. They can basically only sell use licences.

Germany has a limited version of that as well. If something is available legally for a long time, you might be allowed to make a private copy. But there is no loss of licence or entering ito public domain. The right holder could still make it available again and prevent any further legal free copies. Also there are some hoops to jump through to use this.

IIRC, GW made up some stuff they never got round to making models for (mycetic spores and a 'nid monster), and under German copyright laws, lost the rights to someone else who did. Not sure about the details.

 

[immortalfrieza]

I think 15 years would be better. 15 years seems to be about the shelf life of most series anyway.

If that's true then 10 years should definitely be the cutoff. Then it's got at least 5 more years of shelf life while in the public domain to run off of. Of course, the only reason an IP only has so long a shelf life in the first place is because no one else is allowed to make something worthwhile of them when the holders can't do it anymore.

I think a complication is, what has what on what? What would the limit be on an IP vs a product, for example. If I make a story about a character, Kelly the Kobold, do I only have a limit on how long I can use the character or would I also have a limit on how long I own the story she first appears in?

You would have control of the character for exactly 10 years after first instance and the story for 10 years after you made the specific story. If you made Kelly the Kobold and a story called Kelly the Kobold and Friends in 2020, you'd have the characters from the story until 2030 and the story until 2030. If you made Kelly the Kobold and Friends part 2 in 2021, you'd have the story until 2031, but the characters made for the story would be considered part of the Kelly the Kobold IP and you'd have them until 2030. Probably also add that everything published by a creator during a specific year is considered to be made on January 1st of that year for simplicity of tracking this stuff. This would likely result in a crapton of stuff being released in the last couple years to capitalize on the IP, but those would quickly have to compete once the IP in general is out to public domain.

The only issue I could see with this would be what would constitute an original work, but we've got the same problem with the system as it is now anyway.

But when a big game has a zillion people working at the studio in various roles, does that mean you have to wait til the Junior Assistant Third Class dies?

Not to mention that people in general are living longer and longer these days so it really doesn't help anything. It's best to have a blanket and reasonable period of time for IP in general that's plenty of time to make something worthwhile out of an IP yet short enough that most everyone alive at the time the IP is created will live to see it enter the public domain.

 

[Silvanus]

What's the problem that's being addressed exactly?

Last I checked there's ROM sites a plenty, fan projects a plenty.

Those get shut down frequently, sometimes with the makers incurring enormous costs for copyright "infringement". And then on the flip side of that horrible coin, we have IPs sitting completely unused by their holders, just to stop anyone else making use of them (like Silent Hill).

OT: copyright should last for the lifetime of the creator. I'm inclined to think maybe the creator should be able to licence it out for a limited time, but not fully sell it. Someone else then holds it for an agreed period, then it defaults back to the creator.

If the creator really wants nothing more to do with it, maybe they can license it for the remainder of their lifetime. But I don't think they should be able to hand it to a company and then that company holds it forever.

When the time elapses, if the creator is no longer around, perhaps it defaults to either the public domain, or to a designated non-profit trust.

---

Also, companies should never be able to claim to hold the copyright for something an employee creates. No more of that exploitative bullshit. The employee can license it to them with a time limit as per above if they want.

Oh, and fair use should be massively expanded and protected.

 

[Worgen]

I think it depends on what is being copywritten. Games should probably just be like 10 years since past that, getting the hardware to run them starts getting harder. Character IPs should be longer, I like the idea of 15 years with the ability to renew... maybe indefinitely but the cost of renewal goes up more and more each time its done. Something like a book that is always accessible should be more like 25 years with the ability to renew, same with a movie, but works that are seen as significate can be made public domain for a tax writeoff or something.

 

[I can't enter my old name]

Public domain doesn't fix game preservation. It's a bigger problem now with more games being sold on online stores that come with periodic checks. There's nothing to compel the publisher to remove DRM, and there's nothing preventing them from shutting down the authentication server or taking your licenses away.

Of course you can crack the game without any legal repercussions now, but there's only a few people in the world who can do so and fewer who are interested. There is the trend of DRM becoming more sophisticated, so a possible outcome is you have huge libraries of free games to share and download, but never run.

The hardware issue is similar. An authentic experience with a refurbished console is not feasible due to the upfront cost of chip fabrication. That leaves only emulation, but there's nothing to compel console manufacturers to release source code or divulge trade secrets. There's the trend of console emulation becoming more difficult, so you may end up with emulation projects that never go anywhere.