The actual benefits of copyrights are outweighted by the bad side of it. Right now copyright is only pushed by media giants so they can monopolize on popular and "eternal" content.
Benjamin Ramirez
The ideal copyright length is 14 years plus a 14 year extension if the author is alive. 25 years for corporations, no extensions.
Julian Robinson
Copyright is the reason why your favorite game characters aren't gay trannies. God bless America for rejecting communist dogma and keeping our intellectual properties intact.
Gavin Edwards
> actual benefits Which are what? Artists getting "compensated" for their work? Can no one purchase a CD from the artist's official store unless it's copyrighted? Can no one buy merch from the band unless copyright exists? > b-but if they could legally pirate it, why would anyone buy it Same reason they buy it now. They like the game, they like the developer, they like the publisher, etc. and they want to support them.
Jack Carter
Law and corporal punishment is meant to be a deterrent but I think it barely filters out the people who wouldn't do illegal shit anyway. All it can do is punish those that do get caught which is usually the people who were doing fucking fangames and mean no harm.
>Jews >Caring about anything but shekels >Etc
Jack Taylor
Unless, of course, the developers decide to make them gay trannies, in which case their version is the *only* version allowed to exist. Did you like them the way they were? Too bad, the author bowed to the woke and no one is allowed to release a different version until the copyright expires.
Isaac Nguyen
> mean no harm Fun fact, the expressions of admiration/labors of love known as "fan works" are not protected by fair use. But if someone were to write a scathing review of a game, parody it so hard that no one can possibly take the game seriously anymore and no one buys it afterwards? Guess what, that's fair use! Funny how everyone thinks of "fair use" as being allowed because it's harmless, when it's the exact opposite.
Easton Perez
For a while we really did have too many zombie games
Kayden Rogers
For a while we really did have too many WW2 games
Xavier Taylor
>The actual benefits of copyrights are outweighted by the bad side of it So if I create valuable ip, other bigger companies can just make popular shit based off of it, oversaturate the market for that specific ip and I make nothing? That's ridiculous.
Lucas Hughes
Let's say I make some kind of valuable IP, I decide to put out money for it to develop a product for that ip that I made. You're just saying that a more well funded corporation can just pump out better versions of that product I was making, with my idea, making my product worthless by comparison? What the fuck that's disgusting.
Dylan Cruz
>Copyright is the reason why your favorite game characters aren't gay trannies. God bless America for rejecting communist dogma and keeping our intellectual properties intact. have you seen cartoon network remakes?
have you seen teen titens go ? have you seen that new cal art thundercats? have you seen nuStarWars?
Levi Evans
>and I make nothing?
mate you can make tons
did lack of copyright stop Mozart from becoming famous?
did lack of copyright stop Beethoven from becoming famous?
did lack of copyright stop Bach from becoming famous?
did lack of copyright stop Homer from becoming famous?
did lack of copyright stop Shakespeare from becoming famous?
did lack of copyright stop Machiavelli from becoming famous?
did lack of copyright stop Sun Tzu from becoming famous?
Isaac Gray
>While I get your point I think that argument is a strawman when it comes to the actual benefits of copyright.
user in your example picture the solution was for Ginax to print more ova's to sell
if Ginax is the copyright holder of Neon Genesis Evangellion
and if Ginax no longer distrubes or prints DVDs/Blurays/Digital's who is to blame?
Ginax
Brody Martinez
Sun Tzu is different as its not art & entertainment but more so facts
Brandon Jones
Okay, so let's assume they do that now, under our current system. What recourse do you have? Sue them? Good luck, they have hundreds of thousands of dollars, teams of lawyers ready to drown you in paperwork, in-depth knowledge of the copyright system to make sure they can prevent your case from ever seeing the light of day. What do you have? > b-but they bwoke the law Yes, and? > b-but the judge will surely listen to me Did you register the copyright? Did you send a cease and desist letter before your suit? Did you cross every T, dot every I, and take care of every possible recourse before going to trial? Are you prepared to spend months (at *best*) to get before a judge and have the high-priced team of lawyers stall and catch every little flaw in your argument? And let's say you, against all odds, manage to eke out a win. Congratulations, you almost recouped the cost of going to court. Years and years later.
Christian Parker
>Sue them? Yes, it is what prevents companies from even trying.
It's not like someone could make a feature length Super Meat Boy movie tomorrow and expect to get away with it.
Hunter James
If that's true give examples of people's ip's being blatantly stolen by megacorps and them getting away with it.
>mate you can make tons Imagine, for example, any product you make having a totally superior version getting made that is IDENTICAL except twice as cheap. You think the creator should have zero recourse?
>Yes, it is what prevents companies from even trying.
mate rich people have a habbit of bullying people with the law
>do as I say or I will sue !
for example Donald back in the day would immediately sue anyone for 100 million dollars if they dared to say anything about him he didn't like, many journalists caved, for example he sued the makers of this 1991 documentary to stop showing their film about how he hires illigal immigrants, robs people, cheats his taxes, and hires crack kingpin with ties to the mob to fly helicopters for him
> prevents companies from even trying. I could tell already that you're not speaking from experience. But let's follow that train of thought: I go out and make a Super Meat Boy movie tomorrow, and there exists no copyright to stop me. How much money does the original developer lose? How many sales? Should he be able to shut me down, because he *might* lose money, years and years after his game was relevant? Even if it was the game's hayday, would he have lost anything from me creating a fan work? Would it be okay if, instead of a high-budget, feature-length film, it was a shitty backyard project by a bunch of kids? youtube.com/watch?v=CPBlnyM9IMc First one I could think of off the top of my head. Minecraft is another well-known one, but he gets a pass because he was "indie" at the time.
Lincoln Davis
>Imagine, for example, any product you make having a totally superior version getting made that is IDENTICAL except twice as cheap. You think the creator should have zero recourse?
mate you stick to the theory how about the real world?
we know how copyright really works, you keep arguing de jure when he have defacto examples galore
de jure >copyrihgt protects the little guy !
defacto >copyright kills creativity (look at star wars) kills innovation, fucks over the little guy over and over (many such cases), is used to censure the press and the people, is used as a legal justification to spy on people (how else can we stop piracy? every bit you transmit has to be watched by copyright holders to see if you are breaking ip), and cost billions of dollars in damages every year,
Blake Diaz
>[YouTube] EA stole this man's game and made millions (embed) This is because game mechanics ARE NOT COPYRIGHT-ABLE Could you be any more retarded?
You can just as easily claim that lack of copyright kills innovation, because why put energy into making something that will immediately be stolen?
Gavin Collins
>This is because game mechanics ARE NOT COPYRIGHT-ABLE
Actually they are, Sega and Namco are particularly scummy about it. You could get sued just for having an arrow on the HUD.
Brayden Ross
> people shouldn't be able to steal other people's games! > well in THAT case it was okay, because TECHNICALLY it's not protected by copyright So let's look at this a bit deeper. Assume that copyright does not exist. Why is it okay to "steal" someone's game if you change the art and storylines, if any, but it's not okay to make derived works from the game if you keep the characters and story? Remember, assume the law does not protect either, and argue from a moral standpoint, not "well the *law* says..."
Ryder Rogers
You can get sued for anything user, that doesn't mean shit. Game mechanics are not actually copyrightable, it has never held up in a court case.
>well in THAT case it was okay, because TECHNICALLY it's not protected by copyright I didn't imply that. Stop being a massive faggot. Because game mechanics aren't copyrightable that happened to him. It's the perfect argument as to why copyright should be even more strict, and you posted it yourself.
Ayden Moore
>because why put energy into making something that will immediately be stolen?
because you can make money?
>why make fried chicken if people can steal your fried chicken recipe and sell it themselves!
and yet fried chicken lives
did you know recipes are not copyrightable
you can buy a cookbook, steal all the recipes, and put them in your own cookbook
and yet cookbooks are still being sold to this day
>why open a theater if someone can make their own theater!
>why open a car wash if someone can open their own carwash!
user...
Sebastian Parker
>You can get sued for anything user, that doesn't mean shit. millions in legal fees means alot
Justin Smith
Do you understand what you are even saying? According to you whether copyright exists or not doesn't matter because I can sue you for wearing the color red on a tuesday and you have to stop whatever you are doing because "legal fees".
You lost the script when you moved your argument to "well even if copyright matters you can still get sued for anything".
Robert Moore
What the fuck is wrong with your keyboard? Also literally nobody but you made the statement in meme arrows.
Xavier Ward
Ok so you are saying that:
A) you can make a ton of money even without copyright B) recipes can't be copyrighted
The biggest cola brands all have to keep their recipes secret so they aren't stolen. The lack of copyright just creates more overhead to maintain your idea from it being found out. That only hurts small creators if you want to talk about recipes, because they can't afford shit like that.
Ethan Flores
fucking reddit posters cant format their garbage for shit
stop
double
spacing
every
paragraph
Its About As Annoying As Capitalising Every Fucking Word
Jackson Garcia
> Because game mechanics aren't copyrightable that happened to him. So let's go farther: say game mechanics are copyrightable. What now? No one can make a first person shooter after Wolfenstein? How about a game about building after Infiniminer? Can I make a game about a boy wizard going to magic school? How about running around platforms collecting stars? How far should it go, really? Define the line as you believe it should be.
Parker James
> they can't afford ... not telling people what their recipes are.
Joshua Roberts
>The biggest cola brands all have to keep their recipes secret so they aren't stolen
They can't afford lawyers to make copackers don't steal their shit using NDA's and things like that. You sound like someone who has never produced anything of value in their life.
Carson Sanders
> to make copackers don't steal their shit Trade secret laws already exist. You don't have to do more than just say "don't tell someone else the recipe," and in some jurisdictions you don't even have to say that much. Contracts aren't some magical, arcane thing that only the elite can understand.
Mason Diaz
>Trade secret laws already exist. So you're saying that copyright is arbitrarily okay as long as it's named something else? Ok gotcha.
Adrian Ortiz
newfags don't know it was the de facto format of the early internet, something I doubt they would be able to experience if they were back into that time
John Reyes
> arbitrarily Trade secrets are not copyrighted works and are never considered copyrighted works. There is a clear difference, but it's also clear that you're not arguing in good faith. Have the last word so you can win and feel good about it.
