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

151–160 of 163 posts

Re: Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

#151

Post by bruce511 »

mkesper wrote: post #76
bruce511 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt any would describe my voice as "loud", but I suspect I fall into the 0.01% you mention. I sell code (programming libraries, and commercial business systems) which have been under continual development sint 1996. So 27 years. Copyright in this context would be complicated in a "20 year" model. Last month saw a significant upgrade to a product first released in 2000. Should the 2K version be public domain now?…

Would you be restricted/harmed if the version from 2000 was public domain by now? How?

For yhe most part, Code-wise I would not be harmed by that. (We supply source code anyway so there are no secrets there.)

Market-wise I could see a fair bit of confusion as an old (now public domain) version floats around with the same name (but different version number) to the commercial version.

Of course this is likely immaterial anyway. Unless someone bothered to archive the version at the time, that version no longer exists. We can date it (from the release notes) but I no longer have that build in the archive.

So maybe my wariness is unfounded.

Re: Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

#152

Post by kmeisthax »

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #120
kmeisthax wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the most annoying thing about the 1976 Copyright Act. The most annoying thing about the 1976 Copyright Act is that copyright is only nominally automatic. To be clear, it casts a huge shadow over all creativity that would have otherwise been uncopyrighted. But on the other side, there's still a registration system . You need a registration in order to sue infringers, and you don't get statutory damages on i…

It is a fundamental truism of American "capitalism" that, if there is a law for something, it was written to protect established "capital" from competition. There are no free markets in the US.

Capitalism is a necessary transition from feudalism to feudalism.

Re: Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

#153

Post by kmeisthax »

jpc0 wrote: post #94
kmeisthax wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the most annoying thing about the 1976 Copyright Act. The most annoying thing about the 1976 Copyright Act is that copyright is only nominally automatic. To be clear, it casts a huge shadow over all creativity that would have otherwise been uncopyrighted. But on the other side, there's still a registration system . You need a registration in order to sue infringers, and you don't get statutory damages on i…

> But on the other side, there's still a registration system. This a thing in the US? It isn't in my country, you just need to be able to prove you own the copyright, a stamped letter or certified document is good enough. You cannot make blank statements about the US on a platform that has an international audience. Copyright law is cross border and the US does respect other countries Copyright acts just like other c…

Yes. As far as I'm aware the US is one of the few countries that still has some vestigial copyright formalities.

>You cannot make blank statements about the US on a platform that has an international audience.

I'm not sure what you're saying - I was very clear that this is US specific law.

That being said, while I don't exactly know how it works for works created by Berne signatory country citizens, I suspect foreigners still have to register in the US before suing in the US. "International copyright law" is generally just a pinky promise to let foreigners use the copyright system as it exists in other countries, so the rules you have to follow depend on what forum you sue in. For example, if you can get standing to file a copyright lawsuit in Japanese court, then your defendant can't mount a fair use defense, because there is no fair use there[0].

That being said, I do have to wonder if you could get SCOTUS to agree to "foreigners don't need to register but Americans do", because that's the sort of blatantly stupid ruling that only a law-huffer would love.

[0] To be clear, fair use is generally a concept borne of the Anglosphere and it's weird obsession with common law and precedent. Other countries don't have it. But those countries will still codify exceptions to copyright that do similar things. Japan is just unique in that they didn't even bother doing that, so it's illegal to, say, review anime if any Japanese fans might be watching your reviews.

Re: Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

#154

Post by dagw »

ethbr1 wrote: post #144
dagw wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Would this be that bad?

It's essentially a case of brand dilution. Today 'Harry Potter' is a brand that has certain values. If a new Harry Potter book shows up on the shelves tomorrow I can be very sure it's a kid friendly, easy to read, book about wizards. People can feel safe buying as a present for their niece or grand child that likes Harry Potter. In this alternate future a 'Harry Potter' book could be literally anything. If that is 'good' or 'bad' is left as an exercise to the reader, but something would definitely be lost.

Re: Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

#155

Post by zuminator »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #149
zuminator wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cor…

I still have to disagree on both counts. First of all, plenty of writers write with at least the hope that their work will continue to generate residual income for the rest of their lives.

Second, no, even with the expiring copyright on Disney's earliest works, people can't just go out and make their own Mickey Mouse content, because there is trademark protection on Mickey Mouse and other major Disney IP, and that can be renewed indefinitely.[0] So even a quickly expiring copyright regime would still favor the deep-pocketed large corporations.

And you might say, well, the little author can trademark their work as well. But most won't. So all Disney and Warner would have to do is sit on the sidelines, trawl through the 25 year old fantasy section for interesting stories and characters that have not been trademarked, and just start use NG them without compensation. And what's worse, by introducing minimal changes to the characters (“Frobo Daggins“) they can then copyright and trademark their derivative works such that even the original author could not turn around and try to benefit from the resurgent popularity of their creation.

Not expecting to change your mind or anything, but I hope I have communicated my misgivings.

[0] https://blogs.luc.edu/ipbytes/2023/08/13/is-disney-losing-mi...

Re: Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

#156

Post by jpc0 »

kmeisthax wrote: post #153
jpc0 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But on the other side, there's still a registration system. This a thing in the US? It isn't in my country, you just need to be able to prove you own the copyright, a stamped letter or certified document is good enough. You cannot make blank statements about the US on a platform that has an international audience. Copyright law is cross border and the US does respect other countries Copyright acts just like other c…

Yes. As far as I'm aware the US is one of the few countries that still has some vestigial copyright formalities. >You cannot make blank statements about the US on a platform that has an international audience. I'm not sure what you're saying - I was very clear that this is US specific law. That being said, while I don't exactly know how it works for works created by Berne signatory country citizens, I suspect foreign…

> I suspect foreigners still have to register in the US before suing in the US

Generally that wouldn't be needed since it's no US copyright law that is being violated but the country of the copyright holder. Being in violation you would not be tried in the US but in the copyright holders country.

There is this whole thing where in general Copyright is unenforceable but when it matters it is enforced, since nobody really cares if you as an individual infringed on my Copyright since to be fair there just isn't enough to be claimed in damages for it not to be a frivolous suit.

But when the amounts become significant enough it is quite serious.

https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2006/02/article_0006.h... for reference to an influential case on copyright law, there are other more modern cases as well

Re: Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

#157

Post by tarek_computer »

markx2 wrote: post #135
tarek_computer wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool. Curious about IUB.zip. Can you share more details when to find it.

Infocom Universe Bootleg is 397.5MB A yandex search will reveal various torrent links. It should unzip to six folders; Bonus Games Infocom Games Infocom InvisiClues Infocom Universe Bootleg.nfo IUB Database Software Tools

awesome. thank you

Re: Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

#158

Post by 93po »

growingkittens wrote: post #146
93po wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you saying that's how you would solve it, or that's how things work?

Employees create content all the time that is copyrighted by default by their employer and never by the employee.

Re: Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

#160

Post by growingkittens »

93po wrote: post #158
growingkittens wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you saying that's how you would solve it, or that's how things work? Employees create content all the time that is copyrighted by default by their employer and never by the employee.

That's how I would solve it, yes.
Post reply on HN