One of the reasons: if you want people to buy your next thing. (I was fairly highly ranked online in one of the Ace Combat fighter pilot franchise games, and had built a stable of planes in another one. But when they shut down the servers for the previous installment, after introducing a new one, I found I couldn't get interested in investing in the new one, if it was only going to get ripped out from under me like the previous.)
this is fair but I would also really love to see the problem solved at the regulatory level for companies that go out of business, too
all abandonware -- including server code -- should enter the public domain when certain criteria are met
hell, the whole practice of rights holders choosing to stop distributing media that could be distributed by fans at very low cost -- like the Disney vault or the recent fiasco with Coyote vs ACME -- is an affront to art preservation and to art and to creatives and society in general and should be stopped.
free the media! if you won't sell it, you should have to let others distribute it for you
quibble about details but in general stuff like Ubisoft deleting The Crew should be illegal
all abandonware -- including server code -- should enter the public domain when certain criteria are met
The problem is that 99% of the time it contains licensed code from an entity that is not going out of business, and who's going to pay the person who has to separate in-house and licensed?
Server code often includes proprietary third party software that cannot be legally open sourced, or depends on licences. Do you think game fans will pay Oracle prices?
The code owned by the company could be released without those proprietary libraries (or code, if embedded directly). The game fans would then need make/source a drop-in replacement or remove the need (if the 3rd party code is something like DRM then they'll do the latter). This is of course work, but less work than replacing the whole server-side perhaps making it at least practical.
Of course it might not even be as easy as that, depending on how the code itself was contracted out and how the rights were distributed around parts of a larger company that might have since split & merged a few times, it could be difficult to make sure such a release only contained what it legally can.
The law can open source any code. It means that in the future the companies using such code might decide to use code they own or the people selling them that code might charge more upfront. But the market will adjust.
If that third party code must go in products that must eventually become open source, they won't be able to sell that code and it will be replaced by open source one because of market pressure.
I completely disagree that rights holders should be required to distribute media or lose the rights.
It essentially means if you create something, it’s not yours unless you are actively selling it?
As for online games, I think the ephemeral nature and limited lifespan of the game should be forced to be very clearly advertised at point of sale, not hidden in an EULA.
The fact you can’t play them forever isn’t a problem, but consumers need to be aware. That said I don’t know how much difference it would make. I think most consumers would not care. I know the online games I play will go away one day and I still pay for and play them. Why? Because I don’t care. I was never going to play them forever even if they were around forever, so I don’t care if they go away. The only difference I’d really like to see is a minimum guaranteed service period and a full refund if that isn’t achieved.
It essentially means if you create something, it’s not yours unless you are actively selling it?
What is inherently wrong with this?
Why should someone own an idea, just because they had the idea first? I think most people would agree with paying people for their work, and the benefits to society of providing some protections.
But this whole discussion is around where to draw that line and you seem to be starting from "ultimate control by originator" wheras others would perhaps start at "ultimate gift to society"?
At least in the US, having intellectual property interests isn't about authors having control over every aspect of their works in a moral sense but the public benefiting from the investment in and creation of new works through a limited-time monopoly (from the constitution):
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
If you aren't selling them or otherwise making them available to the public, why should the public/government give you any extra control over them in the legal system?
Let's say you're Pablo Picasso and you have a sketchbook from your early years. You get very successful and suddenly the public wants to see your sketchbook. You want to sell the book, but the law says you don't own the rights because you didn't sell it X years ago. So you just keep it, and the public doesn't benefit.
Alternatively, the law compels you to give it away. Little Bobby Picasso, your five-year-old, brings home some stick figures that they drew in kindergarten. In order to be compliant with the law, you now have to give that drawing to the public after X years, along with thousands of others. Presumably also the photos you took of Bobby's first day of school, the song you made up in the shower that morning, and the bedtime story you improvised that night, as they are creative works as well.
In the Picasso example, if the you weren't selling your sketches before, then the potential copyright rights were likely not the incentive needed to create the work in the first place, practicing your craft was. Also, just because you don't have a copyright doesn't mean you can't sell it. In this use it or lose it hypothetical system of copyright, it just means that you can't prevent others from using and building off that work. I'll also note that even actual modern copyright treats unpublished works differently than published ones. In the context of the article about live-service games, your sketchbook example would be more like an unpublished game like 0x10c. I'll agree that there might be reasons to still treat published works differently than unpublished ones.
In your second example, again it would be about extra exclusivity rights you get from copyright, not anything you necessarily need to do for every slightly creative act you're involved in. If you were never going to assert copyright on those, why should there need to be copyright protections provided by the public?
In general, the way I was mainly thinking of this kind of potential requirement was for things that have already been distributed to the public but then no longer supported/sold. I see things being made part of the culture by being released but then becoming totally unavailable to be one of the worst things that can happen to creative works when we now have the technology and capability to preserve everything.
I don't think that's unreasonable. If you don't want to make your creative work available, you shouldn't get to have access to the state's violence to prevent anyone else from making it available.
Copyright is an inherently coercive concept. That coercion should come with responsibilities, or else (current situation) it's just another rent for corporations to extract.
No, it's more coercive. If I own a bagpack, that means people can't break into my house and beat me up to get my bagpack. If I own a song, that means I can stop anyone else in the world from publicly singing the song at my leisure. One is much more coercive than the other.
Maybe, but property is typically an item, which you can't easily copy. Copyright is for items which are easily copied. So, it not the same. If you download a car it's different than stealing it, because original owner of car still has the car.
If you create something it is already not yours now. "Intellectual property" is not property. You are only given a limited time monopoly over distribution in order to encourage more creation to further the commons. If you take your past creations out of the commons you have broken that deal so why should the rest of society keep up their part?
It essentially means if you create something, it’s not yours unless you are actively selling it?
It would be cool/wise if this rule applied strictly and harshly for large game devs with regular mass layoffs and massive profit margins, but not to struggling indie devs.
Comments
Companies should keep their servers running.
One of the reasons: if you want people to buy your next thing. (I was fairly highly ranked online in one of the Ace Combat fighter pilot franchise games, and had built a stable of planes in another one. But when they shut down the servers for the previous installment, after introducing a new one, I found I couldn't get interested in investing in the new one, if it was only going to get ripped out from under me like the previous.)
this is fair but I would also really love to see the problem solved at the regulatory level for companies that go out of business, too
all abandonware -- including server code -- should enter the public domain when certain criteria are met
hell, the whole practice of rights holders choosing to stop distributing media that could be distributed by fans at very low cost -- like the Disney vault or the recent fiasco with Coyote vs ACME -- is an affront to art preservation and to art and to creatives and society in general and should be stopped.
free the media! if you won't sell it, you should have to let others distribute it for you
quibble about details but in general stuff like Ubisoft deleting The Crew should be illegal
The problem is that 99% of the time it contains licensed code from an entity that is not going out of business, and who's going to pay the person who has to separate in-house and licensed?
Server code often includes proprietary third party software that cannot be legally open sourced, or depends on licences. Do you think game fans will pay Oracle prices?
The code owned by the company could be released without those proprietary libraries (or code, if embedded directly). The game fans would then need make/source a drop-in replacement or remove the need (if the 3rd party code is something like DRM then they'll do the latter). This is of course work, but less work than replacing the whole server-side perhaps making it at least practical.
Of course it might not even be as easy as that, depending on how the code itself was contracted out and how the rights were distributed around parts of a larger company that might have since split & merged a few times, it could be difficult to make sure such a release only contained what it legally can.
The law can open source any code. It means that in the future the companies using such code might decide to use code they own or the people selling them that code might charge more upfront. But the market will adjust.
One way of adjusting is never legally releasing the game in a country with such laws.
Yes, and leave a huge market to your competitors!
If that third party code must go in products that must eventually become open source, they won't be able to sell that code and it will be replaced by open source one because of market pressure.
I completely disagree that rights holders should be required to distribute media or lose the rights.
It essentially means if you create something, it’s not yours unless you are actively selling it?
As for online games, I think the ephemeral nature and limited lifespan of the game should be forced to be very clearly advertised at point of sale, not hidden in an EULA.
The fact you can’t play them forever isn’t a problem, but consumers need to be aware. That said I don’t know how much difference it would make. I think most consumers would not care. I know the online games I play will go away one day and I still pay for and play them. Why? Because I don’t care. I was never going to play them forever even if they were around forever, so I don’t care if they go away. The only difference I’d really like to see is a minimum guaranteed service period and a full refund if that isn’t achieved.
What is inherently wrong with this?
Why should someone own an idea, just because they had the idea first? I think most people would agree with paying people for their work, and the benefits to society of providing some protections.
But this whole discussion is around where to draw that line and you seem to be starting from "ultimate control by originator" wheras others would perhaps start at "ultimate gift to society"?
We’re not talking about ideas, we’re talking about creative works.
We could do it any way we want, but I don’t see the problem with not selling something.
I have created creative works. Should I be forced to sell them or lose the rights to do so exclusively in the future when I see fit?
At least in the US, having intellectual property interests isn't about authors having control over every aspect of their works in a moral sense but the public benefiting from the investment in and creation of new works through a limited-time monopoly (from the constitution): "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
If you aren't selling them or otherwise making them available to the public, why should the public/government give you any extra control over them in the legal system?
Let's say you're Pablo Picasso and you have a sketchbook from your early years. You get very successful and suddenly the public wants to see your sketchbook. You want to sell the book, but the law says you don't own the rights because you didn't sell it X years ago. So you just keep it, and the public doesn't benefit.
Alternatively, the law compels you to give it away. Little Bobby Picasso, your five-year-old, brings home some stick figures that they drew in kindergarten. In order to be compliant with the law, you now have to give that drawing to the public after X years, along with thousands of others. Presumably also the photos you took of Bobby's first day of school, the song you made up in the shower that morning, and the bedtime story you improvised that night, as they are creative works as well.
In the Picasso example, if the you weren't selling your sketches before, then the potential copyright rights were likely not the incentive needed to create the work in the first place, practicing your craft was. Also, just because you don't have a copyright doesn't mean you can't sell it. In this use it or lose it hypothetical system of copyright, it just means that you can't prevent others from using and building off that work. I'll also note that even actual modern copyright treats unpublished works differently than published ones. In the context of the article about live-service games, your sketchbook example would be more like an unpublished game like 0x10c. I'll agree that there might be reasons to still treat published works differently than unpublished ones.
In your second example, again it would be about extra exclusivity rights you get from copyright, not anything you necessarily need to do for every slightly creative act you're involved in. If you were never going to assert copyright on those, why should there need to be copyright protections provided by the public?
In general, the way I was mainly thinking of this kind of potential requirement was for things that have already been distributed to the public but then no longer supported/sold. I see things being made part of the culture by being released but then becoming totally unavailable to be one of the worst things that can happen to creative works when we now have the technology and capability to preserve everything.
I don't think that's unreasonable. If you don't want to make your creative work available, you shouldn't get to have access to the state's violence to prevent anyone else from making it available.
Copyright is an inherently coercive concept. That coercion should come with responsibilities, or else (current situation) it's just another rent for corporations to extract.
Copyright is no more “an inherently coercive concept” than is every other form of property.
No, it's more coercive. If I own a bagpack, that means people can't break into my house and beat me up to get my bagpack. If I own a song, that means I can stop anyone else in the world from publicly singing the song at my leisure. One is much more coercive than the other.
Maybe, but property is typically an item, which you can't easily copy. Copyright is for items which are easily copied. So, it not the same. If you download a car it's different than stealing it, because original owner of car still has the car.
I'm not sure I understand a distinction between "ideas" and "creative works"?
There’s a big difference between “ideas” and a written book, a filmed movie, a recorded album, a painted picture, and so on.
idea is the concept, whereas creative work is the implementation of that concept.
If you create something it is already not yours now. "Intellectual property" is not property. You are only given a limited time monopoly over distribution in order to encourage more creation to further the commons. If you take your past creations out of the commons you have broken that deal so why should the rest of society keep up their part?
It would be cool/wise if this rule applied strictly and harshly for large game devs with regular mass layoffs and massive profit margins, but not to struggling indie devs.
full refund as an alternative sounds fair