[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.