While you can't simply strip people of their rights because you feel like it, so it's a bit tricky, this is also exactly what happens when a game shuts down. You technically are still allowed to play it, you simply can't legally. Even with SP games, when you need a online authentication, or MP when services like Gamespy or GfWL shut down. You bought it, maybe even spend hundreds of dollars on ingame content, and then they feel they don't make enough profit anymore, sometimes within a year after release.
With everything becoming digital, one way or the other, from eBooks to your fully connected house, we need some way to *effectively* use things you bought. It is not enough if the use itself is legal, when it's not possible to do so without breaking the law.
There are also things like proprietary formats or devices. If Amazon would stop selling Kindles, you could only read your eBooks as long as you still have one. If it breaks down or anything, you are out of luck. Heck, with Apple using proprietary connectors for charging, you are out of luck when you lose the charger in such a case.
You might have spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on the device itself, bought a lot of music, games, ebooks etc, but a $5 dollar thingy you need to continue using your device breaks and you can't legally replace it.
The idea isn't even that strange, even from a legal standpoint. After all, there is already the case of "enforcing" trademarks. Companies have to actively use and/or defend their trademarks, if they don't, there's the possiiblity that they'll lose it.
Copyright could be similar. You don't "use" it anymore, as you don't distribute your product anymore etc. (it shouldn't matter if you make money with it, only whether you are doing something with the product in question), you'll lose the rights after a certain time.
If you continue to distribute your product, or offer your service etc, copyright stays in place.
This way, the inequality of the copyright holder simply sitting on it and buyers not being able to do anything with their product would be balanced out somewhat.
The details would need to be worked out, sure, but currently, copyright favors companies holding it way too much, especially vs. private persons.
I'll wait to the day's end when the moon is high And then I'll rise with the tide with a lust for life, I'll Amass an army, and we'll harness a horde And then we'll limp across the land until we stand at the shore
Well, if you ain't have any income from a game a few years and closed it down I don't see how anyone else running a server would hurt you in any way. Many companies do ignore servers for closed games for that reason but an actual law would make that easier.
But it does create some questions, if for instance you would take a closed down MMORPG like SWG or Vanguard and improve the graphics and content, do you suddenly own it? Is it fine to actually earn money on running a server for a dead game, can you at least charge to replace your running cost or must it all be for free?
I would say five years... BUT, if the company or person holding the copyright decides to either re-open the original game or create a new one using the IP, they should have the option to either issue a C&D order to any private distributor (SP games) or servers (MP games), or to charge a licensing fee or request royalties to allow for continued operation. Furthermore, should they decide to simply allow third party operations to continue unhindered, this shouldn't count as forfeiture of the copyright in the eyes of the law. That's why we have so many seemingly ridiculous copyright infringement suits; failure to defend a copyright from any possible infringement, no matter how slight, can result in the loss of the copyright.
I think it's a good compromise. People get to play a game they miss without being a pirate, and copyright holders can reassert control over their property should they choose to do so, while having the option to stay within the good graces of their fans without penalty.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
Comments
While you can't simply strip people of their rights because you feel like it, so it's a bit tricky, this is also exactly what happens when a game shuts down. You technically are still allowed to play it, you simply can't legally. Even with SP games, when you need a online authentication, or MP when services like Gamespy or GfWL shut down. You bought it, maybe even spend hundreds of dollars on ingame content, and then they feel they don't make enough profit anymore, sometimes within a year after release.
With everything becoming digital, one way or the other, from eBooks to your fully connected house, we need some way to *effectively* use things you bought. It is not enough if the use itself is legal, when it's not possible to do so without breaking the law.
There are also things like proprietary formats or devices. If Amazon would stop selling Kindles, you could only read your eBooks as long as you still have one. If it breaks down or anything, you are out of luck. Heck, with Apple using proprietary connectors for charging, you are out of luck when you lose the charger in such a case.
You might have spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on the device itself, bought a lot of music, games, ebooks etc, but a $5 dollar thingy you need to continue using your device breaks and you can't legally replace it.
The idea isn't even that strange, even from a legal standpoint. After all, there is already the case of "enforcing" trademarks. Companies have to actively use and/or defend their trademarks, if they don't, there's the possiiblity that they'll lose it.
Copyright could be similar. You don't "use" it anymore, as you don't distribute your product anymore etc. (it shouldn't matter if you make money with it, only whether you are doing something with the product in question), you'll lose the rights after a certain time.
If you continue to distribute your product, or offer your service etc, copyright stays in place.
This way, the inequality of the copyright holder simply sitting on it and buyers not being able to do anything with their product would be balanced out somewhat.
The details would need to be worked out, sure, but currently, copyright favors companies holding it way too much, especially vs. private persons.
I'll wait to the day's end when the moon is high
And then I'll rise with the tide with a lust for life, I'll
Amass an army, and we'll harness a horde
And then we'll limp across the land until we stand at the shore
But it does create some questions, if for instance you would take a closed down MMORPG like SWG or Vanguard and improve the graphics and content, do you suddenly own it? Is it fine to actually earn money on running a server for a dead game, can you at least charge to replace your running cost or must it all be for free?
I think it's a good compromise. People get to play a game they miss without being a pirate, and copyright holders can reassert control over their property should they choose to do so, while having the option to stay within the good graces of their fans without penalty.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
#IStandWithVic