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

51–60 of 163 posts

Re: Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

#51

Post by mixmastamyk »

nostromo wrote: post #34
nordsieck wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All copyright is way too long but authors go completely off-piste at anyone who suggests that it should be something more reasonable (I kinda like 21 years myself). > Part of the issue is that the loudest voices are that 0.01% of authors whose work still has some commercial value decades after its creation. My favorite scheme is that all copyright last for 10 years by default. You can register it for $100 for anoth…

This scheme seems to protect the largest companies with the largest bank accounts the most. Why would we want a system like that? I actually have the opposite view: I'm more worried about a small-time author that say, makes living on a low-volume text or training book, than I am protecting Mickey Mouse.

They’re not protected—they’re made to pay to keep the work out of public domain. The deepest pockets will likely pay the most.

Re: Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

#52

Post by shiroiuma »

mlyle wrote: post #41
nostromo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This scheme seems to protect the largest companies with the largest bank accounts the most. Why would we want a system like that? I actually have the opposite view: I'm more worried about a small-time author that say, makes living on a low-volume text or training book, than I am protecting Mickey Mouse.

It's nice to make works that no longer have commercial value enter the public domain by default. Another justification: if the harms increase for giving an author exclusivity for a longer time, society should demand a larger payback. This may only be justified for the most prominent works It feels a little out of calibration. How about free for 20 years; $500 for 10 more, and then 100x for every 10 additional years.…

I think only 5 years should be free, then maybe $100 for another 5, then exponentially increasing after that.

A lot of stuff simply has no commercial value after 5 years. This is for software, BTW; for movies or books, different terms might make more sense.

Re: Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

#53

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

PostOnce wrote: post #5

Games made before I was born whose copyright won't expire until long after I'm dead. They ought to be public domain by now. In fact, games should have a shorter copyright term since they're harder to preserve and less valuable over time. I still have a box legally-purchased of Zork games (CDROM editions) and manuals and a copy of Planetfall here, but should I feel any shame about pirating them? I don't think I should…

Disney keeps lobbying for copyright extension. How about we create a system where you lose your copyright after 15 years say, but you can pay the government an annual fee to extend the copyright of a specific work indefinitely? That way Disney is no longer incentivized to extend the copyright for works that no one cares about, and it also unlocks a new stream of tax revenue for the government. Everyone wins.

Re: Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

#54

Post by robocat »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #46
nostromo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This scheme seems to protect the largest companies with the largest bank accounts the most. Why would we want a system like that? I actually have the opposite view: I'm more worried about a small-time author that say, makes living on a low-volume text or training book, than I am protecting Mickey Mouse.

Numbers can be tweaked but it adds up quickly. Protect for 40 years for a million? Sure. Probably worth it for mega IPs 50 years for $100m? Still doable but it really starts to hurt. 60 for $10B? Maybe Pokemon and Mikey mouse can justify it, but very very few. By 70 years it's simply not worth it. >This scheme seems to protect the largest companies with the largest bank accounts the most. Why would we want a system l…

My friend was getting royalty cheques 30 years after creating a song (slightly different from books) and the money mattered to him. The amounts were small and probably not worth any paperwork nor the risk of prepayment (paying for extension) which might not get back.

Hard to find the right balance, but what we have now is asinine.

Re: Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

#55

Post by benstein »

demondemidi wrote: post #43

I think Zork sank into the swamp long ago. "Want some rye, 'course ya do..." I mean, come on, let's not clutch our pearls after that abomination.

Why hate on that game? It had both great puzzles (challenging yet approachable) AND was pushing the envelope of CD-ROM as a new technology, specifically the use of video + celebrities.

Re: Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

#56

Post by mlyle »

ethbr1 wrote: post #24
rgmerk wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All copyright is way too long but authors go completely off-piste at anyone who suggests that it should be something more reasonable (I kinda like 21 years myself). Part of the issue is that the loudest voices are that 0.01% of authors whose work still has some commercial value decades after its creation.

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.

And there's a sibling to your comment proposing the exact opposite https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37895648

I can think of arguments why derivatives should get more favorable and less favorable treatment than overall copying. To me it feels like a wash and they should probably be treated similarly-- though trademark can provide some limited protection beyond copyright terms if the work's use in commerce has been continuous.

Re: Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

#57

Post by magicalhippo »

shiroiuma wrote: post #52
mlyle wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's nice to make works that no longer have commercial value enter the public domain by default. Another justification: if the harms increase for giving an author exclusivity for a longer time, society should demand a larger payback. This may only be justified for the most prominent works It feels a little out of calibration. How about free for 20 years; $500 for 10 more, and then 100x for every 10 additional years.…

I think only 5 years should be free, then maybe $100 for another 5, then exponentially increasing after that. A lot of stuff simply has no commercial value after 5 years. This is for software, BTW; for movies or books, different terms might make more sense.

I think that if a copyright is held by the creator, it's fine that it's longer. If it's inherited to a person then the age should be inherited as well, so the exponential fee kicks in as if the creator had lived.

If it's sold or otherwise acquired by a non-person (company or similar) the exponential fee should kick in immediately.

Something along those lines.

Re: Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

#59

Post by tarek_computer »

markx2 wrote: post #42

Have been gaming since the mid 80's and text adventures were a main feature. Years later and I owned Lost Treasures 1 and 2 then the Masterpieces CD. I topped that with IUB.zip - pretty much everything Infocom. Jason Scott then produced Get Lamp - I have a coin - which brought so much of that era together. I view text adventures, be they Infocom, Level 9 or others, as an inspiration to others. A re-release could only…

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

Re: Microsoft consumes Activision; and a plea

#60

Post by toast0 »

jccooper wrote: post #47
rgmerk wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All copyright is way too long but authors go completely off-piste at anyone who suggests that it should be something more reasonable (I kinda like 21 years myself). Part of the issue is that the loudest voices are that 0.01% of authors whose work still has some commercial value decades after its creation.

An explicit renewal regime with some reasonable fee would allow most works to pass into the public domain, and avoid objections from owners of still-valuable properties. (I like the concept of renewal fees escalating each period, a kind of dutch auction against the public domain, but I'd accept even a fairly trivial flat fee as the price of avoiding ever-longer universal copyright.)

Explicit renewal is also nice, because there's more likely to be updated contact information, which makes licensing more likely.
Post reply on HN