Hacker News Reader

Comment by mmastrac | Hacker News Reader

The legacy video game libraries were kept alive by emulator developers and ROM collectors. Now that these emulators have re-invigorated enough interest to make some $$$, they want to kill them and reap the dough.

View on HN

Or ended. The idea of owning ideas is dumb, and corporations abuse the concept more than it benefits individuals.

As a simple example, why would Amazon not immediately sell ebook versions of every book ever if copyright ended? Ditto for adding every movie and show to every streaming service, meaning there'd be no incentive to make them.

> As a simple example, why would Amazon not immediately sell ebook versions of every book ever if copyright ended?

Why would I even use Amazon in this scenario?

> there'd be no incentive to make them.

People do make stuff for reasons other than money you know. We might see less shows, but certainly shows of higher quality, originality, and passion. I’ve witnessed the opposite shift myself on several occasions, when creative communities I participated in suddenly found monetization (online videos, game mods, etc). Suddenly there’s much more junk from people trying to cash in. There’s a reason artists make fun of sellouts!

There's a middle ground that needs to be reached. I also know too many artists in creative communities that are forced into menial labor because they can't monetize their work enough to pay the bills.

> Why would I even use Amazon in this scenario?

The point isn't "Amazon", it's "insert ebook distribution platform". If you prefer you can just as easily mentally substitute Kobo, Barnes & Noble, Google Books, Apple Books, Pirate Bay, or "ebooks123 (dot) biz".

And sure, there'd be writing, but not "authors". There'd be movies, but nothing with an appreciable budget. Plenty of big budget movies suck, but that doesn't mean I'd rather they not exist as a category.

Why would anyone buy an ebook from Amazon in this world where books are free?

There are lots of things produced without a copyright-like legal structure that gives retained property rights.

It was just an example. Without copyright, ebooks would pretty immediately be free, so why "buy" any book?

And what do you mean by "retained property rights" over the contents of a book, such that it isn't just renaming copyright?

Retained property rights are property rights which continue to exist for an extended period after some initial transaction. So copyright lets creators control their work long after it is initially published. Similarly patents let inventors retain control over their inventions, leases allow landlords to retain control over real estate, etc. But you could easily have a book commissioned where an author gets a lump sum on publication and then has no control of the work afterwards, the same way you can buy a house instead of renting it. Most things you buy do not have retained property rights, and indeed that's typically what buying something implicitly refers to.

Copyright still serves an important function (without any copyright, the companies with access to physical media creation would trivially steal from smaller ones) but 70-100yrs is an absurd amount of time that only benefits century old publishers.

Yeah the entire PS4 emulation effort is being driven solely by Sony's refusal to release Bloodborne on PC or make it playable at 60 fps on PS5.

And they have succeeded. Just about everything is perfect now. So naturally when Sony does decide to do what they should have done years ago they will probably pull a Nintendo and sue ShadPS4 into the ground, followed by using an emulator in a museum to showcase old games.

That's what Big IP wants. If copyright is drastically shortened, Mickey Mouse can rake in new IP more quickly and further reduce royalties for creators.

Instead let's support creators directly, boycott publishers, buy and produce physical media, avoid media subscriptions, and shift gaming to open source.

What? That makes zero sense, how do you figure that Disney, which makes a tremendous amount of money on licensing it's IP and is always fighting to strengthen and lengthen copyright would actually be better off if we did the opposite of what they've been fighting for for the last 100 years?

Most of their IP is itself derivative: fairy tales, mythology, classic novels, a Buston Keaton film, etc.

With OG Mickey now lost to the public domain, they're shifting to trademarks [1], merchandise, media access (i.e. hastening the demise of physical media [2] to regain the cinema-style control they always favored until VHS busted open their vault and briefly enabled media ownership/collectibility/free repeat viewing), sports, and theme parks. Note that they now bring in more from sports and experiences than entertainment. [3]

They'll look to commoditize copyright, so creators continue working for them for distribution instead of operating independently. If they can't automate the creators.

1. https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-courts-dog-toy-ruli...

2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2023/08/02/with-sale...

3. https://www.statista.com/statistics/193140/revenue-of-the-wa...

Besides the fact that I have yet to see any "Big IP" fight for anything but strengthening and lengthening IP rights, your premise doesn't compute: Depending on the country copyright is either by itself transferable (and by far and away is done automatically in an employer-employee relationship) or transferable via exclusive licensing rights (for example in Germany).

It's bizarre to think that Disney somehow has to fight their employees for Disney IP right. It would be nice if that was the case, but it isn't.

Disney as an IP hoarder would lose, but Amazon as an IP retailer would win. If there was zero copyright, how could a independent publisher or small author compete? Amazon could just take everything ever and sell it at lowest available price.

If there was zero copyright, why would I pay Amazon any price? And if I do pay someone, why would it be anyone other than the original author?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com