• anon6789@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    I largely agree. I don’t know the best solution for copyright. On one hand, I don’t think that necessarily the creators’ kids deserve rights forever. They didn’t make the stuff. But on the other hand, who does get the money after the creators are gone? The publisher in this case should get something for publishing physical materials or for marketing their wares that sell, but again, they didn’t create it so someone should get something.

    I do think that if nobody does anything with a work for x amount of time (maybe 10 years) then it should be fair game for anyone that does.

    Even things like old games, if I download a Contra NES ROM, how am I hurting Nintendo or Konami?

    If I download LotR, how am I ripping off Tolkien? I’m not stealing a hard copy. I could borrow it from a physical library. Why can’t I borrow it from an electronic library? The person that deserves the rights to the literal story is dead. He doesn’t care.

    • thirteene@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      12 days ago

      As time goes on, we should be simplifying laws, not creating more. The reductionist view is that content should be freely available as long as the IP isn’t being developed/marketed still. And in order to prevent practices like Disney’s vaulting we need a developed IP rotation of every X years to prevent IP hoarding. At it’s root copyright law is rooted in greed, after you are done with the initial release, it just becomes part of everyone’s culture.