[derstander]

It’ll never happen, but I think codifying a concept similar to “abandonware” in law would be a huge step forward. If a person can’t buy or rent a piece of media, then it should be able to be freely shared.

Maybe add a short time-out period in case there are momentary hiccups with a creator.

Make it apply not just to videogames, but books, movies, music, etc.

After all, if you can’t buy it, you’re not depriving the creator of revenue.

Actually, looking back at what I wrote, I think maybe I’m just describing the Copyright system as it was originally envisioned before times were extended to such ridiculous lengths. Whoops.

[kmeisthax]

> After all, if you can’t buy it, you’re not depriving the creator of revenue.

A good chunk of the history of copyright law is publishers finding creative ways to front-run their own authors. Publishers would agree to publish your book in, say, the US - where they'd be bound by US copyright law - and then abscond with it in a country where US copyright didn't apply, and therefore the translations would be a new work wholly divorced from the author's ownership. Modern copyright law is written with the assumption that any unauthorized sale is a lost one, because nobody is going to buy the same work twice unless we take away the one that wasn't paid for correctly.

After copyright law was maximized in this way, publishers pivoted to demanding total control up-front. This created the modern creative industry with hordes of "creative working class"/"below the talent line" professions that wouldn't exist if control were atomized to individual creators negotiating licensing agreements for everything. One quirk of this new business model is that certain legacy rights became far more lucrative. Publishers realized that they could take works off the market and then bring them back to profit off FOMO, or sell 'better' versions of the same work twice anyway.

You still come to the same conclusion I have, though, which is that the problem is term length. Instead of carving out new loopholes, variable term lengths, etc... just make them smaller overall. The publishers won't negotiate with us, why negotiate with them?

[derstander]

One of the reasons I was thinking this way is that there is a lot of media (certainly video games, but even movies and books) that are already lost. I think being able to share them freely earlier in their lifecycle will prevent some of that.

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/21/1189450157/the-classic-video-...

[autoexec]

> After all, if you can’t buy it, you’re not depriving the creator of revenue.

Once the copyright for most media stopped being owned by artists and started being owned by corporations there was a lot of value in keeping artistic works locked up by copyright and legally inaccessible to the pubic.

Mostly, it means that companies don't have to worry about old things competing for the time/attention of the people they want spending money on their new things. It also lets them amass huge catalogues of out of print media that can be sold or traded.

It's just one more way that our modern copyright system has been corrupted to work against its original goals, all so that corporations with vast fortunes can get even richer by robbing us of our own culture.

[bluSCALE4]

They should have a window for companies to liquidate their inventory and then release a patch to remove any modding restriction. Nintendo has done the opposite.

[fennecfoxy]

Because a large part of their business is their customers crying out for rereleases/nostalgia. Whenever N rereleases or remasters stuff on Switch it sells like hotcakes, because people haven't been able to buy often for more than a decade, since the original release.

Pretty sure Nintendo is internally opposed to the idea of secondhand games and would stop it if they could without a massive outcry.

[innocenat]

I am not sure how that would work. "Artificial Intelligence a Modern Approach" 1st Edition is no longer available. Should it be allowed to be freely shared when 4th edition is still on sale? The changes aren't that minor, either.

[derstander]

If the changes aren’t that minor, then people would certainly gain extra value from buying the 4th edition instead of freely getting the 1st.

If the changes were minor, then maybe it would stop, say, a textbook company from releasing a zillion versions of the same book with minor changes or the question ordering switched in order to extract money out of the next class of students instead of simply allowing them to buy the previous edition used. ;)

[smoldesu]

> Should it be allowed to be freely shared when 4th edition is still on sale?

I think so, even though the context around it might be more confusing/less modern or relevant.

For books and research, you can argue a lot of trivialities. For games and art, I think it's a necessary preservation requirement. For example, the other day I wanted to play Armored Core 4/4A. Digital copies can't be bought now that the servers are dead, and secondhand physical copies run well over $400. Your only convenient option for experiencing AC4/4A is emulation or piracy, which is absurd (but also the inconvenient truth).

Unless we'd rather these old and seemingly irrelevant works fall off the face of the earth, legalizing their preservation and archival should be urgent.

[skeaker]

A new edition from an author indicates that they believe there is enough new information to justify selling you a whole separate book. If that is the case they should agree that the 1st edition is fair game since it won't have the same information. If they protest, well... Was the 4th edition ever necessary to begin with if the 1st edition is just as good? In cases like that I still support this idea because editions like this absolutely are used to gouge students at times, and this would stop that dead in its tracks.

[LaundroMat]

The Video Game History Foundation is working to "get expanded exemptions for libraries and organizations preserving video games, which are currently far more limited than their ability to preserve books, movies, audio, etc."

They recently did a study to counter the industry's claims to the copyright office that they're already doing enough to preserve its history. Turns out 87% of classic (ie old) games are unavailable.

See https://gamehistory.org/87percent/.

[phendrenad2]

I've suggested that if a book/software/song/movie has not been sold by the copyright holder for > 25 years, it should lose copyright and DMCA protections (but not trademark protections). But the more I think about it, the less I think it could actually work. If something hasn't been sold for N years, chances are the copyright holder doesn't consider it valuable, and won't go after pirates. For example, Nintendo, before they realized that people like old games.

[ibejoeb]

Hmm. I don't think I agree with the philosophy of it, even if the outcome is good for consumers. For one, just because something is not available for purchase does not mean that the creator is not deprived of the would-be revenue. An existing owner of a copy of the media should have access to it for the duration, but I can't get to why it should become freely shareable. Secondly, that puts an unfair burden on creators. If I do a run of of my book, and it sells out, I don't think it becomes open season on duplicating it digitally, and I shouldn't have to always carry excess inventory just in case it's a hit.

Beyond that, as you say, it'll never happen, because entities like Disney are not going to forego their ability to drum up demand by "vaulting" their properties.

[_aavaa_]

> An existing owner of a copy of the media should have access to it for the duration, but I can't get to why it should become freely shareable.

Because copyright laws (in the US at least) are (supposed to) provide to creators a limited time monopoly on their work in order to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

Getting the right to squat on a piece of art that you claimed copyright over but not doing anything with is counter to that whole purpose of providing copyright in the first place.

> Secondly, that puts an unfair burden on creators. If I do a run of of my book, and it sells out, I don't think it becomes open season on duplicating it digitally, and I shouldn't have to always carry excess inventory just in case it's a hit.

This is a strawman interpretation. There is a lot of room between "I ran out of stock today" and "this game hasn't been on sale for 3 decades".

[spondylosaurus]

Plus, when a game is out of print, any third-party resales don't benefit the original copyright holder anyway. Nintendo doesn't profit off those $120 SoulSilver cartridges for sale on eBay.

[_aavaa_]

Well they've got that covered by now selling you non-transferable licenses to games instead, so the second-hand market simply can't exist anymore...

[RajT88]

That is one of the major reasons the game industry wants to push consumers to all-digital.

Another reason is that costs are far lower with digital distribution as is time to market.

[mrguyorama]

Another reason is that retail traditionally took like 30% but if you buy off of PSN or the eShop, now the game company gets that sweet sweet free money, while actual businesses normal human beings can run can't function anymore.

[ibejoeb]

I'm just describing a potential disincentive. It's not a straw man.

That's why the notion of expiring copyright works out. I didn't suggest removing that. And sure, there's plenty of room in between there. What would call for, then? If there is any demand, the owner of the work needs to front the expense to fulfill it, otherwise lose the rights to the work? There are lots of ways for this to go wrong.

Anyway, copyright is already a mess, and it will only get worse over the next decade. It's worth talking about it.

[_aavaa_]

> If there is any demand, the owner of the work needs to front the expense to fulfill it, otherwise lose the rights to the work?

This discussion started with the topic of video games, and this thread is about digitally distributed video games.

The upfront work needed to host an executable online is essentially zero, especially when there are platforms like HumbleBundle, GoG, and Steam which will do the hosting for you in exchange for a cut of sales.

[ibejoeb]

> This discussion started with the topic of video games

not really

>> Make it apply not just to videogames, but books, movies, music, etc.

[_aavaa_]

> Make it apply not just to videogames, but books, movies, music, etc.

The pedantic point being that this started with video games and then was extended to other works. But fine let's talk about everything else too.

Everything on that list can be sold digitally.

Even physical works can, to a large degree, be made to order and drop shipped.

But again this is beside the point. These are the technicalities of how it would be implemented and beside the real point: if you have not been selling a copyrighted work for some length of time (between 1 minute and 3 decades) you should no longer have the right to that government granted monopoly since you are no longer using it for the reason it was given to you.

[derstander]

> but I can't get to why it should become freely shareable.

A side effect of this would be to encourage the creator or company to continue making it available.

> Secondly, that puts an unfair burden on creators. If I do a run of of my book, and it sells out, I don't think it becomes open season on duplicating it digitally, and I shouldn't have to always carry excess inventory just in case it's a hit.

That’s why I explicitly included a short time period to account for such hiccups. And, for example, if you’re talking about books then print on demand is certainly a way to satisfy the for sale criteria.

[adra]

I think vaulting was relevant in the 90s-00s when physical movie sale revenues were relevant, but the business model of movies has changed... a lot. I wouldn't be surprised if all their back catalog are on Disney+ now or released slowly in a few years whenever new content production hits droughts.

[josephcsible]

> If I do a run of of my book, and it sells out, I don't think it becomes open season on duplicating it digitally

Nobody is asking for that. We only want it to become open season on duplicating it digitally if you choose not to do any further runs of it.

[sumtechguy]

One instance I recently saw in the eXo project was them trying to figure out who owned a magazine. First guy 'i sold it to second guy' second guy 'i sold it to thrid guy' third guy 'never owned it first one always owned it'. Basically one of those 3 own it but do not even care anymore about it other than 'not mine'. There are a lot of instances of 'lost ownership'.

[realusername]

> For one, just because something is not available for purchase does not mean that the creator is not deprived of the would-be revenue.

That's what the large conglomerates keep saying, although they haven't been able to produce any study proving that.

Since there's no proof of it, the loss of revenue is some urban legend.

[fennecfoxy]

But wouldn't that then make contracts such as "periods of exclusivity" or for example the contracts that allow a company like Netflix to have the rights to something for a certain duration impossible to have? Wouldn't that make it impossible to "rent" stuff to people?

I think the thing that most people misunderstand is that Nintendo is "renting" this stuff to you. They certainly don't shout it out but that is the case.

Tbf I'd love if laws were changed so that exclusivity was illegal - it's the reason Netflix wen't from being "oh, this is cool I'll pay rather than pirate" to the absolute hellscape that it is now, Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, Crunchyroll, Funimation, Amazon Prime Video, etc, etc (seems to be a new one every month). It should be illegal to withhold content based on company or region. No more greedy suit & ties shaking their grubby paws for exclusivity on x show for y streaming platform for z months in j region.

But that'll never happen. Same thing as price controls on Hollywood, etc. Why does the movie cost 300 million to make? Oh yeah cause we're paying the main actors & actresses 50 million, 45 million and 30 million. WHY? Because capitalism, movie studios can just offer more than "the other guys", but of course this cost, instigated by greedy businessmen, gets pushed onto us the consumers. "Oh but making a movie is a risk, it might not do well" would it would certainly be less of a fucking risk if it was capped so that budgets were more in the 50 million range. But just like ridding the world of tax havens and other nonsense, it'll never happen.

Capitalism is proving to be more and more anti-consumer.

[12907835202]

But the value of something is often its scarcity...

The owner of Once Upon a Time in Shaolin by Wu Tang would be pretty mad if it was freely shared because it couldn't be bought or rented.

Context from Wikipedia for those who don't know it: "Once Upon a Time in Shaolin is the seventh studio album by the American hip hop group Wu-Tang Clan. Only one physical copy of the album was created, with no ability to download or stream it digitally. Purchased directly from the Wu-Tang Clan in 2015, it became the most expensive work of music ever sold."

You'd have to have special categories whereby quantities could be intentionally limited.

But then Nintendo would presumably argue that they intended there to be a limited number of Wii's or Pokémon Red or whatever.

[kmeisthax]

Further context: Once Upon a Time in Shaolin was bought by Martin Shkreli, who then got arrested, and the album fell into US custody. It's probably been auctioned off since.

Wu-Tang Clan intended this to be a weird kind of performance art, so I won't judge them for this. However, this kind of artificial scarcity is absolute bullshit. The whole reason why we have copyright law is so that creative works are created and made widely available, not to create new asset classes for the ten-figures class to park money in.

Nintendo's argument wouldn't be that they only intended to make so many Wiis. Their argument would be that copyright is about control, they're entitled to control, and if you don't like it you can go fuck yourself[0]. To them, Once Upon a Time in Shaolin is just copyright maximalist extremism: yes, if we think we'll make more money selling one copy and denying the rest of the world access to the work, then it's our right, and anything less than our right is equivalent to setting loose a home-invading rapist[1].

[0] This is rhetorical, I do not actually intend for any commenters on HN to do that.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Valenti#Valenti_on_new_te...

[_aavaa_]

> But the value of something is often its scarcity...

But the value to who. We have copyright laws (ostensibly) for the benefit of society as a whole by allowing creators to have a limited time monopoly on selling their ideas.

> then Nintendo would presumably argue that they intended there to be a limited number of Wii's or Pokémon Red or whatever.

Them arguing it doesn't make them right. Any more than it makes sense to allow Disney to keep extending copyright decade after decade simply because they're greedy.

[derstander]

> You'd have to have special categories whereby quantities could be intentionally limited.

This is artificial scarcity, especially when applied to things that can be distributed digitally. I don’t particularly see a reason to encourage it. It’s not like 1s and 0s are in short supply compared to, say, precious metals.

And omitting that carve out will explicitly prevent Nintendo and other companies from making that argument.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

By what meaning of value?

The speculative gains such a person hopes to receive aren't a good measure of value.

If something increases pleasure via entertainment, this is objectively quantifiable. Every pair of ears that hears it increases its value. Preventing it from being heard drives that value down near zero (to 1, presumably). Even if we posit that each person who would listen would be willing to pay a different amount for that privilege, then the person who is hoarding it is driving that price down below whatever paltry price the million listeners might each pay individually.

I see no reason why copyright policy should be driven by the needs of lame publicity stunts.

[makapuf]

> The owner of Once Upon a Time in Shaolin by Wu Tang would be pretty mad if it was freely shared because it couldn't be bought or rented.

Indeed. And? If you say that in that case it would never have been produced, well this does not change much for the N-1 current and future humans.

In the other hand, yes sometimes you might want to limit diffusion somehow, it's your right and it might be complicated. Better to have full copyright, but for 20 years. (That would mean Wii games out of copyright in 3 years), LGTM.

[skeaker]

Let him be mad, then. I don't know why you think the masses should care if one greedy guy gets upset.

[gjsman-1000]

I don't know if this would work. Right now, Winnie the Pooh has gone public domain, and if you've seen the reaction to "Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey" or a new video game called "Winnie's Hole"... most people really, really do not like that Winnie the Pooh is being expanded in the horror direction. Some are even calling for copyright to be eternal because the public is showing that it cannot handle public domain responsibly. There's even a growing argument that copyright actually prevents unoriginal ripoffs and shock content more than it stifles creativity.

Emotionally, I do understand the sentiment. Especially when more content like Mickey Mouse or The Hobbit (in Canada, just the books, next year) go public domain - I wouldn't be shocked if we get calls to just abandon the concept of public domain from how companies are using it.

Let me be clear: I still support Public Domain. I also think people who make slasher films using childhood characters are the most perfect method you could devise, if you were a corporation, to make people mad at Public Domain's existence. If I were Disney and somehow capable of sending money anonymously, I'd pay for the creation of as much awful Winnie the Pooh content as possible; then send a letter to a local senator asking for Congress to investigate restrictions.

[frostiness]

Is that really the fault of the public domain or a reaction to the fact that Winnie the Pooh was copyrighted for so long? The appeal of horror Winnie the Pooh in almost every single instance has been due to the novelty that it's even possible to do legally, and somewhat as an act of rebellion against the company arguably responsible for holding it hostage for so long.

[gjsman-1000]

I don't think so. The appeal is in spoiling childhood innocence and not getting sued for it. Case in point: Peppa the Pig had problems with exploitative knockoff videos being uploaded for years, that were deliberately designed to be offensive and shocking.

If Mario went public domain tomorrow, I absolutely guarantee you that 90% of what goes online or gets made will be content intended to shock, traumatize, or offend. And that, for better or worse, can and will make people increasingly skeptical about the merits of public domain and copyright expiration.

[bentley]

You’re extrapolating a huge amount of shock content from just one or two examples, but no strong evidence. Sure, I’ve heard of Blood and Honey, but that’s the only nasty Pooh derivative that’s made its way to my consciousness. Comparing to other public domain properties is instructive: I also remember when Pride and Prejudice and Zombies came out, but I don’t remember any other gory Jane Austen adaptations, and Zombies is rather low‐profile compared to the more popular adaptations such as the BBC series, the 2005 film, or Bridget Jones’s Diary. Or compare to Sherlock Holmes, which despite the Doyle estate desperately holding onto every shred of copyright to the last, has had many good “unauthorized” adaptations in recent years.

And even if 90% of public domain adaptations were crap (a reasonable number for copyrighted content as well, if we believe Sturgeon†), I think a single unconstrained Mari0 (https://stabyourself.net/mari0/) is worth ten gross Mario fanfics that I’ll never see without looking for them.

† Sturgeon’s Law: “90% of everything is crap.”

[derstander]

> The appeal is in spoiling childhood innocence and not getting sued for it.

Unfortunately this happens under the current system. See E.g., Star Wars. I’m not super invested in the franchise but entries after the original trilogy have been polarizing, as probably the vast majority of us here have been made aware.

[gjsman-1000]

True. But the reason why we talk about Public Domain so positively is that we view it as there being so much creativity that is contained for 70+ years for no reason.

It's starting to turn out, and I fear the perception is getting set, that almost all of that creativity is garbage, or at least perceived as such by a growing percentage of people.

Seriously though, if I was Disney, I'd bankroll secretly as much garbage public domain content about Winnie the Pooh and Mickey Mouse as possible. I'd then lobby Congress for infinitely renewable copyright. I then get to frame every Senator opposed as supporting horror content for kids. Fun.

[kelnos]

> almost all of that creativity is garbage

Almost all creativity -- regardless of its source -- is garbage[0]. This sort of creativity that you don't like -- Winnie the Pooh horror and porn -- is prominent because the media has seized upon it. And the reason they've done that is precisely because of how unusual it is for big media properties to have their copyrights expire.

I just don't see the problem here. If you don't want to read Winnie the Pooh horror stories, then don't read them.

[0] Someone else here mentioned Sturgeon's Law, "90% of everything is crap", and I think that applies quite well here.

[smoldesu]

> It's starting to turn out, and I fear the perception is getting set, that almost all of that creativity is garbage,

I'd argue the bar for releasing and consuming creative work just got lowered to non-existence. If you spend your life scrolling the "Latest" feed of TikTok or Twitter, your faith in humanity will rapidly approach rock-bottom. There is no limit to how hollow, vapid or disgusting that content can get.

The diametric opposite of that feed is not official, commercial content though. It's a misconception that I don't think even a jaded congress member would fall for. Disgusting fan-works and vapid original content is likely protected under Fair Use. Throwing your fanbase under the bus as a scapegoat for better copyright protections would never work, oh ye of little faith in the US Justice System...

[derstander]

> It's starting to turn out, and I fear the perception is getting set, that almost all of that creativity is garbage, or at least perceived as such by a growing percentage of people.

I think this might be an accurate perception of creativity that we need to accept instead of fear.

Yes, the majority of creative works are not going to be like Beethoven’s 9th, for example. The majority of them are going to be much closer to my attempt at writing a symphony (not very good, to be clear).

But if just one work out of a million that wouldn’t otherwise exist is great, isn’t that enough? I mean, we’re not forcing people, Clockwork Orange-style, to consume all this bad media!

And that is leaving aside the subjectivity of value in media. Some people even enjoy “bad” media (“so bad it’s good”).

[smoldesu]

Copyright be damned, I have many photos of Mario that would shock, traumatize and potentially offend you. Please email me if you'd like a copy.

[makapuf]

Uh ... I don't like what Disney made of Cinderella, pinocchio or pocahontas. Commercial reuse handle copyright miserably.

Anyway, people having fun with Winnie ? Who will care in 2 years? Do you often see shock content of cinderella ? Or xxx content of beauty and the beast?

[kelnos]

> Do you often see shock content of cinderella ? Or xxx content of beauty and the beast

And I guarantee you that, if you want to find this stuff, you can find it, regardless of the copyright status. Rule 34 exists for a reason.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

> Some are even calling for copyright to be eternal because the public is showing that it cannot handle public domain responsibly.

If someone is saying "public domain is bad because the people who want to control works they don't and can't really own can no longer control these works they absolutely do not own"... They're really missing the point.

[wnoise]

> most people really, really do not like that Winnie the Pooh is being expanded in the horror direction.

Fascinating. I have not actually seen that reaction in my filter bubble. Much the opposite, actually.

[otikik]

One of the most physical jobs I have ever taken as a student involved emptying a Warehouse full to the brim with Winnie the Pooh VHS tapes.

We had to put the things in boxes, then pallets, wrap the pallets in plastic, label them, and then someone would come with a machine and take them away. It was more than a week of dusk-to-dawn physical work, lost a lot of weight.

In my mind, turning Winnie the Pooh into an horror story makes a lot of sense.

[fennecfoxy]

I mean Disney has blatantly started using the "steamboat Mickey" as their "logo" for a while now as they KNOW the copyright is going to expire soon, so I believe they're going to try to pursue it as "but it's our trademark, see?" now.

[omgmajk]

Not that Blood and Honey was particularly good as a movie but you do miss the fact that even if "most people really, really do not like" it, some people, including me really, really do. The concept of it. And this for me personally is winning and I wish it was done more.

I would Love to see more horror on weird stuff, especially Disney stuff.

[autoexec]

> most people really, really do not like that Winnie the Pooh is being expanded in the horror direction.

Those people can make the choice not to buy or consume those kinds of works. That's their right, but it does not and must not infringe on the rights of others who don't share their delicate sensibilities.

> Some are even calling for copyright to be eternal because the public is showing that it cannot handle public domain responsibly.

There is nothing at all irresponsible about artistic works that appeal to some people but not others. Outside of legal constraints, there is no one person or group dictating to the world which art is or isn't responsible and I'm so glad the decision of where those lines are drawn and when they should be crossed is largely left up to the artists when creating and to the audience when consuming. Artists and audiences self-censor all the time and it isn't a problem.

By way of example, when Gaiman was writing Neverwhere he thought it originally made running away and joining a underworld society of homeless people seem fun and magical, and he worried that making homelessness a bit too cool might inspire young readers to make poor choices. He made changes to his story until he felt comfortable with what he was putting out into the world. I think I'd have liked to read his original version, but I fully respect that he felt it would be irresponsible. Not every writer would have made that choice, and certainly not every writer should be forced to.

Every author should be free to decide for themselves if they're comfortable or not with their own words. Audiences should be free to walk away from things that make them too uncomfortable, and free to stay and enjoy what the artist created otherwise. The absolute worst case scenario would be one where the only art we ever have access to is a bunch of watered down, homogenized, G-rated content that doesn't confront or challenge anyone at all.

> There's even a growing argument that copyright actually prevents unoriginal ripoffs and shock content more than it stifles creativity.

I have no doubt that it does, at times, prevent some "ripoffs" or shock content, but I fail to see how censoring art to avoid those things is in any way preferable. The harm to society caused by censorship far outweighs the harm caused by "things exist that I don't like". It simply isn't worth the loss of our freedom to prevent "bad" art.

Worse, even perpetual copyright wouldn't eliminate those things entirely. Shock content, especially those created based on 'wholesome' artistic works has always been with us, and not even copyright has been able to stop it. For just about every franchise you can imagine illegal artistic works created to satisfy 'Rule 34' exist and illegal fan fiction can be found filled with sex and gore. None of it has caused society to collapse. It won't destroy society when that art can be legally made and sold either.