![]() Companies shouldn't get to sit on culture indefinitely, even long after the artists are dead in some cases, and keep collecting paychecks. But if it is some old game from 20 years ago, or something that they aren't even selling anymore, then no. ![]() If that were the case, then yeah, sue them. I'd have sympathy if someone was distributing something recent, like Smash Bros Ultimate. There's a give and take, but all they want to do is take. Corporations want the first part of the bargain but, thanks to clever investments in the right politicians, they don't have to do the second part. This has stopped happening in the case of copyright. You get protection for a reasonable period of time, enough time that you have a chance to make a living and support further creative work, then it goes back to the public domain. That should be the deal with copyright and patent law. I know the hard work that goes into making something new (in my case it would be a patent matter not copyright, but still), however at the same time I acknowledge that did it on the shoulders of those who came before me. Sound like you have never created anything in your life. ![]() Why should Disney get to strip-mine other people's creations without giving anything back? From Sleeping Beauty to Moana those stories are all, at their roots, other people's creations, given new life by a new interpretation in new media. An incredible number of their hits are retellings of much older stories, mostly unencumbered by copyright. How exactly is that goal served by continuing to let you lock up your creation for another 90 years beyond when you've already extracted most of the total money you'll ever get from it?ĭisney, in addition to being one of the major architects of the current near-perpetual copyright terms, is an excellent poster child of why it's a bad deal. It's that last part I have a problem with - how is that in society's best interest? Because there's nothing sacred about copyright, it's an artificial gift from society, given to encourage creators to create more things. It is unlikely, as TorrentFreak have reported, that the couple will be obligated to pay the full figure a smaller settlement has likely been negotiated in private.Īs a creator you work a few years to make something, you typically make 90% of the total money in the first few years, and can then milk the long tail for a tiny trickle of residual income for decades afterwards while depriving society, including other creators, of the ability to use your work. Additionally all games, game files, and emulators previously on the site and in their custody must be handed over to the Japanese game developer, along with a $12.23 million settlement figure. TorrentFreak reports that a permanent injunction, prohibiting them from using, sharing, or distributing Nintendo ROMs or other materials again in the future, has been included in the settlement. and were the joint property of couple Jacob and Cristian Mathias, before Nintendo sued them for what they have called " brazen and mass-scale infringement of Nintendo's intellectual property rights." The suit never went to court instead, the couple sought to settle after accepting the charge of direct and indirect copyright infringement. The complaint was originally filed by the company in an Arizona federal court in July, and has since lead to a swift purge of self-censorship by popular retro and emulator ROM sites, who have feared they may be sued by Nintendo as well. The judgement, made public today, ruled in Nintendo's favor and states that the owners of the sites and, will have to pay a total settlement of $12 million to Nintendo. An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Nintendo has won a lawsuit seeking to take two large retro-game ROM sites offline, on charges of copyright infringement.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |