Copyright should just expire for that at 10 years. Not IP though so they will still own the characters and stories to make remakes and sequels. But the games themselves in the original version should become public domain. All the money that can be made on the sale of the original versions will have been made.
It's especially becoming a problem now that games need online activation or in some cases are online only (eg Google stadia). Right now we can just ignore copyright and pirate the games if we're getting nostalgic but I'm the future this won't be a technical possibility anymore once streaming exclusives appear.
> this won't be a technical possibility anymore once streaming exclusives appear
Just don't play them. I'm completely serious, why would I want to pay to support that model?
Understatement. 20 year old PC game? Those commonly run with a compatibility layer like Wine. Old titles for DOS, Amiga, whatever? Full blown emulation because the performance requirements are absolutely trivial relative to modern hardware.
Lots of older consoles have impressive emulation efforts but it's definitely hit and miss. Such projects regularly pop up on HN.
Copyright seems broken though, I agree.
Or, in other words: a patent can block access to something that is potentially irreplaceable, and that would have been discovered by others, eventually. Donald Duck just wouldn’t exist without Disney.
The goal of copyright is to provide some incentive for creation. At the same time, it limits the distribution of those works and the benefit that brings, an effect called deadweight loss. Those two goals—amount & quality of creation and distribution—are in perpetual conflict, and the limited time is supposed to balance them for maximum benefit. Is death + 70/95 years too long? Yes, defjnitely. I remember seeing something like 15 years being floated as the true optimum, but it’s likely to differ by category. But it’s just as annoying to often see complete ignorance or denial of the basic mechanism (I. e. “Commercial music suxx anyway” or “why should I pay for news”)
(Another item on this scale: trademarks, which are entirely imbued with value by the owner’s exclusive right to use them. They are not time-limited as long as they are used because, to a first approximation, the value of “Levi’s” has nothing to do with the beauty of the word (which one could consider a limited ressource), but depends on the company’s interest in maintaining its status)
After subscribing to Disney Plus I immediately began to notice their use of a segment of Steamboat Willie in place of a static or simply animated trademark. It seems clear to me what Disney's strategy will be going forth: to get as far they can abusing so-called "motion marks" (i.e. animated trademark symbols) to re-capture as much of their expiring copyrighted content they can.
However far they get--it will likely take decades for the dust to settle after years of intensely testing the legal waters and lobbying Congress for various tweaks--I don't doubt that it will prove very effective. Trademarks can in principal provide protection in perpetuity, as you say. Motion marks let you significantly expand the scope of the mark (and art), so you can protect a broader array of merchandise as well as films--not much market for public domain copies if segments have to be removed. Plus with their army of lawyers they can widen that moat even more through sheer intimidation, so they may very well be able to squash alot of otherwise highly marketable derivative works.
It's not an easy answer. Not everything is a hit right away... Some things like Song ofnIce and Fire only became hits decades later.
Actually, don’t even listen to me. In 2007, an economist named Rufus Pollock did research to determine the ‘optimal’ copyright duration to answer this question using empirically-estimable parameters and arrived at an optimum of 15 years.[0]
It is important to keep in mind that (1) copyright was supposed to promote the creation of new works, and so allowing creators to make a single hit and collect royalties until the end of time is not its purpose (at least in the United States), and (2) just because something is in the public domain doesn’t mean that the creator is now unable to make money from it.
Taking your example of the Song of Ice and Fire: if its copyright had expired before it exploded in popularity, George R.R. Martin would still be able to make money consulting for the TV adaptation. He would be able to make money giving talks and appearing at conventions. He would certainly increase the number of people giving him money on Patreon and sales of his contemporaneous books still under copyright would go up. He could cash in by quickly preparing some bonus content related to the book that is under copyright and sell it alone or as a bundle. He could do a fresh run of printed copies and tout their superior physical quality versus other copies on the market.
[0] https://rufuspollock.com/papers/optimal_copyright_term_talk_...
Xi Jinping
We are in a situation where there is no incentive to create new creative works because you can just exploit a dead person's stuff that's become popular until the end of time for your audience.
Of course it seems “times are a changin” and the vast majority of fame comes in the form of a viral and fleeting 15 minutes. Perhaps the law could catch up with the times, by having life imitate art and literally give copyright protection no more than 15 minutes.
People will create even if the long tail of profit is cut short.
Therefore I believe that his motivation lay elsewhere.
Not really; a fixed term is more sensible than life of author; why should we want to take active steps to remove the incentive to/reward for creation for creators without a long current life expectancy?
I remain convinced that a reasonable fixed “free” term that can be extended with slowly escalating annual ad valorem taxation on a declared value that also serves as an offer price for purchase into the public domain is the ideal solution here.
I think the very maximum reasonable copyright term is 50 years from the date of first publication/release. Simple.
Sure, that example is a bit constructed and imo the death+50 years or 100 years are way too long, but I see value a) in the fact that artists need some time to finance their work and b) that some degree of inheritance is good.
(Self employed are in a complicated way in between)
Not that long; IIRC, the vast majority of the money made for most artistic works is received within the first decade after creation; the share of artistic works returning much after that compared to before is small.
Sure, the works you’ve heard of are often exceptions to this, but that's because you are vastly more likely to be aware of things way out in the successful tail end of the distribution.
While for some it is the long tail which makes it viable.
Even ignoring inheritance this is wrong, because you can sell it to someone who might outlive you, and spend the proceeds while you're still alive. The amount you can sell it for is going to be much less if there is substantial risk that the property goes away soon after the sale.
I don't think copyright needs to do double duty as life insurance and it is mostly not helpless widows that are benefitting from it.
The same rules that apply to a survivor's pension could apply to copyright, although I don't think that is a good solution myself - I think it will get messy with copyright transfers made in life, decisions made by owners/publishers/media/regulators that might de-prioritize the printing/marketing of that copyrighted material, etc. Even during the life the copyright creator, copyright rights are no substitute for a survivor's pension. In line with another answer below:
"What does the average person have to do to provide their family this kind of security? I don't think copyright needs to do double duty as life insurance and it is mostly not helpless widows [widowers] that are benefitting from it."
People like whom? Disney?