• Summzashi@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 hours ago

      This isn’t about copyright. Is there anybody here that has actually read the article? It’s absolutely insane how everyone just opens their mouths without understanding anything.

    • pjwestin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      4 hours ago

      No, Copyright exists to protect creators. It’s just been perverted and abused by the wealthy so that they can indefinitely retain IP. Disney holding on to an IP for 70 years after an author dies is messed up, but Disney taking your art and selling it to a mass audience without giving you a dime is worse.

    • Ragincloo@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Idk about that, maybe indefinite copyrights would be but limited term is entirely fair. Like imagine you spend 5 years and $50M to develop something (random numbers here), then the next day someone just copies it and sells it cheaper since they had no overhead in copying your product. There’s no incentive to create if all it does is put you in debt, so we do need copyrights if we want things. However Pokemon came out in 96, that’s 28 years. There’s been very little innovation in their games since. And seeing as Digimon wasn’t sued it’s not about the monsters, it’s about the balls. But those balls haven’t changed in almost three decades so I don’t think the really have a case to complain

      • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 hours ago

        The problem is that IP laws eventually are lobbied by the big copyright holders into being excessively long. How long did Steamboat Willie really have to be copyrighted for, and has their release into the public domain really affected Disney?

        Eventually after you get back the money you invested, it’s just free money, and people like free money so much they pay lawyers and lobbyists that free money so that they can keep it coming.

      • Syrc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        5 hours ago

        However Pokemon came out in 96, that’s 28 years. There’s been very little innovation in their games since.

        First, not really, there’s been a LOT of innovation in Pokémon, as much as people want to deny it.

        And second, 28 years is really not that much. We’re not in the Disney realm of copyright-hogging, I think 50 years is a fair amount of time. The issue is that it’s often way too broad: it should protect only extremely blatant copies (i.e. the guy who literally rereleased Pokémon Yellow as a mobile game), not concepts or general mechanics. Palworld has a completely different gameplay from any Pokémon game so far, and (most of) the creatures are distinct enough. That should suffice to make it rightfully exist (maybe removing the 4/5 Pals that are absolute ripoffs, sure).

        • Teils13@lemmy.eco.br
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 hours ago

          50 years is already excessive, dude or dudette. The north american law originally gave 14 years, plus another 14 years if the creators actively sought after and were approved (most did not even ask, and approval was not guaranteed). This is comparable time to patents, which serve the exact same function, but without the absurd time scales (Imagine if Computers were still a private tech of IBM … those sweet mainframes the size of a room). 28 years, or lets put 30 years fixed at once, is more than sufficient time for making profit for the quasi totality of IPs that would make a profit (and creators can invest the money received to gain more, or have 30 years to think of something else). 30 years ago was 1994, think of everything the Star Wars prequels have sold, now remeber the 1st film was from 1999, would star wars prequels ventures really suffer if they started losing the IP from 2029 onwards ?

          • Syrc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            I still think if copyright laws weren’t so oppressive, 50 years would be fair (And still a huge improvement from the current situation).

            Maybe have it in tiers or something? First 10 years: full copyright - until 30: similar products allowed, but no blatant reproduction - until 50: reproduction allowed as long as it’s not for-profit - post 50: public domain?

        • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          5 hours ago

          50 years… 5 maybe. If you have not earned back your investment by then you are just squatting on it.

        • pjwestin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          I agree with you almost entirely, but if we’re being honest, there really hasn’t been a lot of innovation in their games since Gen 4, and that was almost 20 years ago. Once they figured out the physical/special split, nothing really changed in the major mechanics. They have a new gimmick mechanic every game, like Z-Moves or Dynamax, but they’re always dropped by the next game. I guess camping/picnics are evolving into a new feature, but that’s about it.

          • Syrc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            If we’re talking PvP, battling has constantly evolved through new abilities, even without gimmicks the way the game is played changed a lot through the years.

            In single player they also changed a lot of stuff since gen 4, although the positive changes were mostly in gen 5/6 and the later ones like wild areas and the switch to “””open world””” were… not as well received.

        • Petter1@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          I think 50 is generally too much, but I think it should depend on categories, so that it is based upon the efforts put into an idea to create and how much it value (like in expected ROI).

          I fear, that is hard to define

      • blazera@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 hours ago

        The people spending 5 years to develop something arent the ones that own the rights to the end product. Like I said, copyright exists so rich people can own more. The people that own the rights to pokemon are not game developers, artists, writers, anyone that put actual work into creating the games and other media. Its people that had a lot of money, shareholders and executives. And then they receive the biggest share of the profits off others work and the feedback loop continues.

      • BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        5 hours ago

        How about no. Let people create if your only incentive is money fuck you. If someone spent $50 million to develop something the labor has been paid. You will be first to the market and you can make money if your invention isn’t that unique oh well.

        • Womble@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Thats a great way to make companies spend 0 on r&d that has longterm benefits and instead focus on squeezing out every penny from current assets.

          • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Want to make something, the people eho want it pay to make it happen, once it’s done and paid for, it belongs to everyone. I rather live in the star citizen dystopia than the Disney vampire dystopia.

            Making an unlimited reproducible resource artificially scarce for 160 years is really fucking evil parasiticism.

          • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 hours ago

            So you tax the fuck out of them and fund invention though schools and unis. But the fact companies won’t is not a sure thing… it just means they will be more pickey.