Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

blog.zarfhome.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 163 posts

Re: Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

#141

Post by johnnyanmac »

robertlagrant wrote: post #113
johnnyanmac wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, your app is making use of either scraping or using an API that's not yours. You may own the app but there's not much of value you can copyright. I wouldn't feel entitled to royalties becsuse you're not getting royalties to begin with. But for BOTD: tech workers tend to get paid well to deliver one specific project so the industry doesn't have as strong demand for royalties as art. Especially since tech isn't…

> tech workers tend to get paid well to deliver one specific project so the industry doesn't have as strong demand for royalties as art It's not exactly that; a builder doesn't get well paid, but still delivers one specific project. That builder won't get royalties from all the transactions that happen from building a shop building. We've just decided that we'll special-case art so people can live off the proceeds fo…

At the end of the day, yes. It's all arbitrary and art's monetization came from diferent historical contexts. There could be a timeline where artists are highly respected and well compensated positions while tech is just some nerdy hobby being used for exposure.

But I feel it's more interesting to understand why and how we came to those contexts. e.g. for tech, the big money came from the explosion of tech in the U.S. during the 90's and the vast amounts of money being invested into up and coming companies to take advantage of it. Getting to a point where the biggest companies would give the biggest money to the biggest talent simply to keep them away from competition, or from becoming future competitors themselves. Companies paid for labor and time, so compensation worked accordingly.

I don't have an intimate history in art but I imagine a part of its monetization history comes from the fact that the primary delivery doesn't make that much money on its own; i.e. you don't become rich broadcasting Mickey Mouse on public cable to millions. You get rich selling Mickey Mouse merch and making deals to slap Mickey Mouse on whatever wants the advertising boost. So how do you determine how much to pay the creator in that case, which may make $100 or 1 billion? some sort of rev/profit sharing system makes sense. If it fails they get a pittance and if it becomes huge success the creator retires for life while the IP holder still gets the bulk of the money.

Re: Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

#142

Post by johnnyanmac »

amelius wrote: post #106
ChicagoDave wrote: post #13

We all know Microsoft bought Activision _for_ the Infocom IP. It’s clearly the most valuable asset.

I had to look it up: > Infocom games are text adventures where users direct the action by entering short strings of words to give commands when prompted Sounds to me these games will soon be made irrelevant by upcoming LLM tech. Am I missing something?

>Sounds to me these games will soon be made irrelevant by upcoming LLM tech.

On the contrary, this is exactly how they will sell LLM tech to the greybeads. Look at what Square enix tried to pull off this year with the Portpotia Serial Murder Case's "remake".

Interactive Ficion in the 2020's is the niche of niches, but they've been trying for decades to produce what ChatGPT is seemingly making possible. If/when MS pursues why not use one of the OG IP's to sell such an experiment?

Re: Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

#143

Post by piaste »

growingkittens wrote: post #128
sbuttgereit wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which harms the originator since a potential buyer can't realize as much value for the purchase of the IP. If the originator isn't in a position to exploit their creation directly, their ability to offer it to someone who can is reduced. So the extended time an originator could hold on to it would only serve larger originators; smaller creators would see their work devalued.

I think you misunderstand what I mean by originator: the actual creator of the work. There are no large or small originators because an originator can only be an individual. If a company or different individual hires someone to create work for them, the work would transfer from the originator to the company or individual, thus putting it on the faster track automatically.

So, if I create art and sell it online directly to customer, I get the longer protection, but once I register as a one-person LLC, my copyright becomes shorter? Or am I still the originator, and it only shortens once I hire another person? Or do I keep the longer protection as long as the company is 100% originator-owned, and only lose it after someone else buys a share?

Re: Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

#144

Post by ethbr1 »

dagw wrote: post #101
ethbr1 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an unexplored (to my knowledge) middleground where copyright expires more rapidly with regards to derivative works, but not the original. E.g. At x+10 anyone could make a new sequel to Zork, but the rights to the published Zork are retained for x+25 That feels fair.

At x+10 anyone could make a new sequel to Zork Would the copyright holders of Zork get royalties in this scenario, like with cover versions of songs? The other problem is that in this scenario people will just be slapping the names of things that were popular x+10 years ago on literally anything. People will just make the lowest effort loot box laden pay-to-win mobile games you can get onto the App Store, and adverti…

> royalties

Debatable. Some sort of FRAND-level payment, for a limited period, seems fair? Not enough to torpedo the economics of anyone using a property. But enough so an originator has a revenue stream for wildly-popular IP.

> slapping popular names

Would this be that bad? If there were Harry Potter crap... how would that be different? Expect there'd be more stuff out there.

Re: Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

#145

Post by growingkittens »

piaste wrote: post #143
growingkittens wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you misunderstand what I mean by originator: the actual creator of the work. There are no large or small originators because an originator can only be an individual. If a company or different individual hires someone to create work for them, the work would transfer from the originator to the company or individual, thus putting it on the faster track automatically.

So, if I create art and sell it online directly to customer, I get the longer protection, but once I register as a one-person LLC, my copyright becomes shorter? Or am I still the originator, and it only shortens once I hire another person? Or do I keep the longer protection as long as the company is 100% originator-owned, and only lose it after someone else buys a share?

Originator sells online to customer without transferring copyright: originator gets the longest protection.

Originator sells online to customer and transfers copyright: shorter protection applies, since the originator no longer owns it.

Originator transfers work to LLC: shorter protection applies. You gain LLC benefits for a shorter copyright term.

Re: Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

#146

Post by growingkittens »

93po wrote: post #139
growingkittens wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An originator could lease their work, but only as long as they own the rights to it. Perpetual leases wouldn't be possible. When an originator dies before their copyright does, for instance, the work is transferred to a separate entity and thus has a defined time limit.

Wouldn't everyone just create a corporation and assign all their work to that from conception? Corporations never die.

Corporations cannot be originators.

If you assign work to a different entity, it is no longer owned by the originator, and subject to a shorter copyright term.

Re: Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

#147

Post by growingkittens »

njloof wrote: post #134
growingkittens wrote: post #122

I think copyright law should be different for originators vs. owning individuals vs. legal entities. Once the legal rights of a work are separated from the originator, the work should pass to the public domain faster.

France and Germany recognize the creators’ moral rights to the work; maybe the relevant law there would be a good starting point

Thank you, that's a good idea. I want to formalize my opinion on copyright sometime in the future.

Re: Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

#148

Post by talideon »

kromem wrote: post #71

Yeah right. Microsoft isn't about to let go of IP rights around the most well known text adventures. But at the same time, I'd be surprised if they don't do anything with them either. The synergy between their investment into OpenAI and their acquisition of Activision might suggest that they'll be doing quite a fair bit with those franchises indeed.

They're not being asked to give up their IP rights: they can create new franchise entries. It's about making the original z-code files redistributable.

How OpenAI and text adventures could possibly fit together is beyond me, though.

Re: Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

#149

Post by TulliusCicero »

zuminator wrote: post #75
TulliusCicero wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

20 years, same as patents. People aren't writing books because of the profits they might make 25 years from now.

Sure they are. Plenty of film and streaming projects are based on older work. Sapkowski's Witcher series comes to mind. If his rights to the IP had expired after 20 years then not only would Netflix been able to rip his work off for free, but he wouldn't have benefitted at all from the resurgence in popularity that his novels garnered. It would've just been gravy for some publishing company -- how would that be fair?…

You seem to have missed what I said. I didn't say nobody gets money 25 years down the line, I said people don't write because of the profits they might get 25 years down the line.

Yes, Netflix might've been able to make The Witcher without paying him, and also random Youtubers, complete nobodies, would've been able to make derivative works as well. That's the whole point of expiring copyright.

Does that favor big corporations? Well, it also means anybody and everybody can make Mickey Mouse content, or use the popular Marvel and DC characters, etc. Do you think Disney is a fan of that idea?

So while corporations would take advantage of it, so would random people, including indie artists.

Re: Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

#150

Post by TulliusCicero »

vlz wrote: post #64
TulliusCicero wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

20 years, same as patents. People aren't writing books because of the profits they might make 25 years from now.

I have to disagree somewhat. People write books for a lot of reasons, but one alluring thought in many an author's head certainly is: "Sure, it might not be commercially viable directly now, but over time…" Writing books can be a pretty risky proposition from a financial point of view. Copyright should at least span an authors lifetime in my opinion. Thinking that an author could profit not at all from a work if it g…

> Writing books can be a pretty risky proposition from a financial point of view. Copyright should at least span an authors lifetime in my opinion.

Why is it accepted that patents can last only 20 years then? Like, do you think creating new inventions is easy? Why for one and not the other?

But the bigger thing is that books making significant amounts of money after twenty years is an extreme exception. That's not the motivating thing. It's a "maybe that'd be nice" on top of the desire for revenue in the immediate future, in the first few years of the book coming out.

Post reply on HN