[jscd]

First, I agree it's cool that Atari, with all its ability to completely screw small projects over, didn't do that in this case.

But, at the same time, I find it interesting that "emulations and clones" are considered entitlement (in a derogatory sense), but copyright protection is not. Before 1976 in the US, the _maximum_ copyright term was 56 years, and that would require filing for an extension from the default of _only 28 years_.

I think it's easy to forget that copyright as we know it is not set in stone. Historically, after 28 years, most works became public domain and that meant you could do literally whatever you want with it and it would not be legally stealing at all. I think we as a society have forgotten what it means to have a public domain.

[matheusmoreira]

There is in fact legal precedent showing that it is not entitlement.

Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corp.

> The object code of a program may be copyrighted as expression, 17 U.S.C. § 102(a), but it also contains ideas and performs functions that are not entitled to copyright protection. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).

These corporations have actually gone to court over this and lost. It's just that they technically won by bankrupting their opponents via legal costs.

[thaumasiotes]

> Historically, after 28 years, most works became public domain and that meant you could do literally whatever you want with it

Historically, all works were public domain at all times.