• Ragincloo@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 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

    • blazera@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 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.

    • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 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.

    • BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 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
        0
        ·
        7 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.

        • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 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.

        • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 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.