[jimbob45]

We don't know the revenue Nintendo derives from virtual console sales, but you can be assured that virtually none of it is making it to the creators which is who copyright is designed to protect.

An advocate for the devil would claim that those creators were compensated upfront rather than over the lifetime of the product. Therefore, the company is rightfully collecting the revenue that the creator left to them that they already paid for.

[eyelidlessness]

You’re both essentially saying the same thing: this copyright dynamic is a vehicle for investment capitalism. And I’m not pointing this out to be glib, just recognizing that this particular line of advocacy is somewhere along the spectrum between “the thing you observe is working as designed” and “that’s good, actually”.

Which is a view you’re welcome to hold, but I’d certainly prefer a system designed for people who engage in creative work to have a greater share of what they create, and for the economics of creative work to not be so deeply entrenched in wealth consolidation for its own sake.

Disclaimer: the sum total I’ve been paid for purely creative work is approximately $11 from my share of ticket sales and a couple of drinks on the house. Which is $11 dollars more than I ever sought out, because I realized making a living as an artist had dim prospects before I even got a chance to try.

[pbhjpbhj]

Wouldn't such an argument strongly favour the company (Nintendo's) copyright expiring early--as they were compensated up front by the first raft of sales--and so suggest we, the public, should limit their copyright as that won't inhibit new development and will enrich the public domain.