Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act
-
@Dashrender said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@wirestyle22 said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
People like me who want to do everything legally have no recourse other than just not playing it, which sucks.
well, you do have another - as you said you can buy it for $400.
Yup. You can also find the copyright holder and buy the rights yourself.
-
@Dashrender said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@wirestyle22 said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
People like me who want to do everything legally have no recourse other than just not playing it, which sucks.
well, you do have another - as you said you can buy it for $400.
Yeah, if you can find the game you're looking for.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@Dashrender said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@wirestyle22 said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
People like me who want to do everything legally have no recourse other than just not playing it, which sucks.
well, you do have another - as you said you can buy it for $400.
Yup. You can also find the copyright holder and buy the rights yourself.
It's just not reasonable
-
@Dashrender said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
Perhaps you're implying that copyright owners should make FOSS anything they no longer care about? But why would they do that? That takes effort on their part, effort that at minimum requires time, and most of us agree that time is not free. So I can see no reason why they would bother.
That's why passionate people sometimes go and buy the old games. That's how Day of the Tentacle saw the light of day again. Disney bought out Lucas. Then Double Fine bought that one thing from Disney.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@scottalanmiller said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@Dashrender said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@wirestyle22 said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
People like me who want to do everything legally have no recourse other than just not playing it, which sucks.
well, you do have another - as you said you can buy it for $400.
Yup. You can also find the copyright holder and buy the rights yourself.
It's just not reasonable
Why not?
-
I've considered going after some IP that I wanted access to before. It's not a crazy thing to do.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@wirestyle22 said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@scottalanmiller said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@Dashrender said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@wirestyle22 said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
People like me who want to do everything legally have no recourse other than just not playing it, which sucks.
well, you do have another - as you said you can buy it for $400.
Yup. You can also find the copyright holder and buy the rights yourself.
It's just not reasonable
Why not?
You think attempting to purchase the IP is a reasonable thing to do to play the games you want to play? I'll give you an example. On the Playstation 1 Capcom came out with Street Fighter EX Plus Alpha. All of the non-capcom characters are owned by amiga. The game itself is owned by capcom. You think the process of getting this is not only fiscally viable but also achievable by an average person? Legal costs and everything? Just to play a game? Wat
-
@wirestyle22 said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@scottalanmiller said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@wirestyle22 said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@scottalanmiller said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@Dashrender said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@wirestyle22 said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
People like me who want to do everything legally have no recourse other than just not playing it, which sucks.
well, you do have another - as you said you can buy it for $400.
Yup. You can also find the copyright holder and buy the rights yourself.
It's just not reasonable
Why not?
You think attempting to purchase the IP is a reasonable thing to do to play the games you want to play? I'll give you an example. On the Playstation 1 Capcom came out with Street Fighter EX Plus Alpha. All of the non-capcom characters are owned by amiga. The game itself is owned by capcom. You think the process of getting this is not only fiscally viable but also achievable by an average person? Legal costs and everything? Just to play a game? Wat
If getting the IP is hard at all, you just explained why it's not made free by someone. So you just answered you original question. It's not a reasonable request that you are making.
-
Also SF is current IP, not abandoned IP. So you jumped the shark from your original discussion. Get back to Boogerman. How hard might that be?
People do this all the time. It does work when people want to sell.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
Also SF is current IP, not abandoned IP. So you jumped the shark from your original discussion. Get back to Boogerman. How hard might that be?
People do this all the time. It does work when people want to sell.
Don't get caught up on boogerman. I was just commenting on the price of a game from my childhood as an example.
The legal fees alone of this process make it unachievable by an every day person.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
The legal fees alone of this process make it unachievable by an every day person.
What legal fees? There aren't necessarily any. It's a straight purchase.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
Don't get caught up on boogerman. I was just commenting on the price of a game from my childhood as an example.
But it is a good example. It's not currently in use IP (AFAIK) and it is old and "worthless". That's a useful example. Street Fighter is not, that's obviously not the same problem as that is a current product with current IP that you can buy today. Of course you can't buy that, it would cost millions and millions because you are trying to buy popular, current, valuable IP that makes money right now. That's not part of what we are discussing.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@wirestyle22 said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
Don't get caught up on boogerman. I was just commenting on the price of a game from my childhood as an example.
But it is a good example. It's not currently in use IP (AFAIK) and it is old and "worthless". That's a useful example. Street Fighter is not, that's obviously not the same problem as that is a current product with current IP that you can buy today. Of course you can't buy that, it would cost millions and millions because you are trying to buy popular, current, valuable IP that makes money right now. That's not part of what we are discussing.
The IP's of Earthworm Jim and Boogerman (along with around 70 others) were sold within the past few years. Idk if they are worthless. That's why I'm saying don't get caught up on Boogerman
-
Someone got the rights to Boogerman in 2013. So my theory is pretty valid. Someone thought that it was valuable, sought it out and bought it... and failed to do anything with it except to license it to the new Earthworm Jim game since then. But someone did exactly what I said, with exactly this example product, just recently. Very viable. And it was some guy, not a company.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
Someone got the rights to Boogerman in 2013. So my theory is pretty valid. Someone thought that it was valuable, sought it out and bought it... and failed to do anything with it except to license it to the new Earthworm Jim game since then. But someone did exactly what I said, with exactly this example product, just recently. Very viable. And it was some guy, not a company.
Is there a link to this information?
-
@wirestyle22 said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@scottalanmiller said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
Someone got the rights to Boogerman in 2013. So my theory is pretty valid. Someone thought that it was valuable, sought it out and bought it... and failed to do anything with it except to license it to the new Earthworm Jim game since then. But someone did exactly what I said, with exactly this example product, just recently. Very viable. And it was some guy, not a company.
Is there a link to this information?
It's on the wikipedia page. There was a 2013 fundraising campaign for the next Boogerman which didn't raise all that much money, maybe $40K I think. They gave up and didn't make the game, but the new Earthworm Jim is featuring the character. You could track down the guys who got the rights and ask them if they will sell limit rights to the original game (sell the game but not the IP of the characters beyond releasing the original game) so that you can release it.
-
One of the huge reasons that IP is not released for free is that it cannot be. Common reasons:
- No one knows that they are the owner of it.
- No one is a clear owner of it.
- No one can find an owner of it.
- It's owned by a giant company that doesn't spend time and money to track down things to give away.
- No one even knows what it is.
- The game using third party software that has licensing of its own per copy and needs to pay royalties or get releases from numerous other parties. (This is what killed off Who's the Boss and lots of other television shows from release.)
- Someone owns it in the hopes of making something with it (King's Quest came back after decades away. Mother IP is still used.)
-
But a different example, Interplay (who made Boogerman) let the people who bought the rights to the name "The Bard's Tale" also get the release rights to all original BT titles and they released all four of them for "free" as part of the other game.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@wirestyle22 said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
To be able to play it at all. Why enforce it if you aren't attempting to monetize it? There are games you can't find anymore.
Well if you are George Lucas it's because he actually hates his customers and uses his money to keep games that they want out of their hands.
LOL, George doesn't own Lucas Arts anymore, oh and Lucas Arts I'm pretty sure doesn't exist anymore.
-
@Dashrender said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@scottalanmiller said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
@wirestyle22 said in Gaming and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
To be able to play it at all. Why enforce it if you aren't attempting to monetize it? There are games you can't find anymore.
Well if you are George Lucas it's because he actually hates his customers and uses his money to keep games that they want out of their hands.
LOL, George doesn't own Lucas Arts anymore, oh and Lucas Arts I'm pretty sure doesn't exist anymore.
No, and that's how we found out how much he hated everyone. He literally refused to let anyone have their classic games for decades. Then Disney bought LucasArts (which is still a video game brand) and didn't pay a penny for the "extra" stuff, they were buying the big IP. Immediately several individuals contacted Disney, who actually likes their customers, and asked to buy some of the big, old, unused IP and Disney instantly said yet and amazing titles like Grim Fandango and Day of the Tentacle were remade and are back on the market!
George actively used his money to stop his IP from seeing the light of day. Not to make money, just to spite people who liked LA games.
Same with Star Wars, he used his money to ensure that the good originals were destroyed and only his crappy modifications were allowed to remain on the market.
So one can argue that that IP was in use all that time - in use spiting people who liked things made by LucasArts.
