Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mywittyname 2375 days ago
Could you imagine how great these services would be if copyrighted works fell into the public domain after 28 years instead of the nearly 100 years they are now?
2 comments

I think being not available through legal means should be a defense (something like fair-use) for any copyright infringement claim.
Unfortunately this either makes law or the notion of private property meaningless.
I think the OP is only taking about media which was created for the purpose of being sold to people, and is easily copyable.

IMHO there are fundamental differences between that and something that was purchased to satisfy the needs of yourself or your close associates.

There's also a world of difference between a new paperback copy of The Fellowship of the Ring for $10, and a movie from some old company that went out of business in the '70s and whichever company bought up all the scraps never bothered to capitalize on the IP, and the movie can't be purchased (new) for any price anywhere. If it's been ten years since your media was commercially available, it should be at least temporarily public domain. If you want to assert that copyright, start selling it, then you can have exclusive access to selling it again.

It's dumb how much of 20th century history has been lost because of the march of ever dumber copyright laws.

Do the existing fair use defenses also make those concepts meaningless?
Sure, but in that case most current films would never have been made... or at least I got that distinct impression from MPAA.
It is in their benefit to claim that, regardless of the truth of the statement. Why would one trust a biased party such as MPAA?
I believe they were being sarcastic. No one would take the MPAA's word on something like this, they have an obvious bias.
Which films exactly took 28 years to turn a profit?
Given Hollywood accounting and the topic of piracy I would be surprised if any films made a profit since the dawn of the MPAA.
That's not the point.

Valve turned a huge profit on Portal 2. Yet they refuse to make Portal 3. Why? Because compared to Steam, Portal 2 generates a tiny ROI by comparison.

Option A: invest $1 in Steam and get $10 back

Option B: invest $1 in Portal 3 and get $2 back

which do you do?

Same goes for movie industry. A movie promises returns for decades as it is milked and re-released in various formats. If the movie can only make money for 20-ish years, ROI goes down significantly. Read: "The Disney Vault" [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Vault

May I offer an alternative reason why Valve did not make Portal 3? It's because when you rehash the same game, people get sick of it. Sometimes a product needs to stand on it's own. Why harm the Portal franchise by being to quick to release, release, release?

Seems like hollywood is already on board with this. What do they need Ghostbusters to have a 100 year copyright on when they could just release a new Ghostbusters every 30-40 years like they're pretty much already doing.

If you don't plan on making Portal 3, don't tease Portal 3 with easter eggs like the Borealis.
Like I made mention before, just because they don't want to release it now doesn't mean they won't want to do another one in 20-30 years after technologies and ideas have had enough time to mature to put a new twist on things.
I always thought Portal 3 never came out because nobody at Valve wanted to work on it.
Well, the entire movie industry doesn't even exist any more, because it was killed by the videotape, according to the MPAA. Remember, Jack Valenti of the MPAA asserted before Congress in the 1980s that videotape recorders would destroy the movie industry. So none of this should even be an issue now.
The MPAA is full of it on this one. Most investments happen with a payoff expected within a few years. In general,.investors don't care about what money they can make in 30 years.