I agree. Some people will argue using an ad-blocker on youtube is piracy too (yet with or without the ad i'm not on the ocean so....)

Just saying it's all BS. Feels like it will come to ahead very soon. I can only hope that Disney crashes, copyright gets adjusted to something reasonable, and all the craziness goes away.

Its already pretty reasonable in most of the world. The US is very backwards on it though (hence the Disney stuff).

Corporations around the world over would want to do the exact same thing: Own everything forever, and mooch off IP's til the end of time.

Though it seems a very double edged sword. Like Disney, EA, Activision, Blizzard, Marvel and other big players, think they can go off brand name alone and then piss their talent away, 'we need more money, let's do a 20th anniversary Metal Gear Solid collection for full price with no features, give the devs 1 day to throw it together'. All the bigger companies eventually just become empty hollow suits with no soul.

Own everything forever. That's how they see it. Putting things in public domain is not considered at all, otherwise for games source-code and documentation would be preserved, DRM removed after year one, convert entire libraries to subscription/renting, and not try to sue archiving groups trying to keep things from disappearing.

Then the case with the newer Alice in wonderland. Was suppose to be it's own parody and take on Alice, but Disney stomped in, and threatened them with being sued to oblivion or selling to Disney and having Disney finish it under their umbrella.

Poor Walt... really wonder how the company would have been if he lived another 30-40 years and directed the company, and his kids taking over properly... :(

Try to fight the german GEMA, then you won't think that the US have it backwards.

It's really the same all around the world, especially when it comes to music.


What I don't understand in this discussion how Disney can be blamed. What exactly did they make worse?

Here's a short explanation.

NOLF is an amazing game, especially the first one, love it so much. If it was re-sold again I would definitely buy it. A remaster, remake, or a sequel would be amazing, I've never quite found any game comparable in aesthetics to it!

Thanks. Sadly, not even with Disneys downfall this would change.

someone would always be there to pick up the pieces and sit on the copyrights.
NOLF was great, yep. Luckily some fans keep it alive, created a better installer and patched a few things so it would run smoother on modern systems.

There's a reason it's called the Micky Mouse Millennium Copyright Extension Act (or pretty close to that). Any time Micky or one of their properties might go into public domain, they push to extend copyright longer and longer.

Forever Less One Day is an excellent video on the topic.

(bolding mine)
They do that on PC games as well, sadly....remember Chuchel?
-----------------------

That said, my opinion on the topic at hand is as follows:

1.a If a game is sold somewhere DRM-free, I will buy there at a price that's decent to me.
(this can be on sale OR for more than asking price[like on itch], if the game is good enough/I want to support the dev more)

1.b If it isn't sold somewhere DRM-free, i'd consider buying it on steam/etc at a deep discount,and then "make it DRM-free".

2. If a game isn't sold anywhere online(besides maybe ebay/etc sellers wanting absurd prices for a disc copy), I would be ok with "borrowing a copy". Once said game became available (preferably DRM-free) online/IRL, I would save up and buy such at a price I consider decent.

3. I think copyright limits are absurd, and in many cases don't benefit the "little man" making the work(but rather the corporations they work for), and as such I feel the max limit should be the following: 20 years or so for corporate owned works/assets, and a bit more(25-30 years) for indie/smaller devs who own their works.

a sore spot: SkullGirls.

On that note: GOG doesn't want family sharing games amongst themselves...their official position(as said by a staff member in a thread several years back) is that every family member should own their own copy of games sold here.
(as for the other game services like steam/etc, I dunno what their positions are offhand)


It's less sitting on copyrights, and more so Disney "lobbying" to have copyright terms extended to insane levels. If they hadn't done so, we'd likely have a good chunk more media in the public domain now.

Well, Copyrights DO have their purpose.
While Disney is a company of course, they have plenty of people working for them, meaning that a lot of people make good money and pay their rents because these copyrights are still valid. Let them make money with Mickey Mouse for another 150 years, for all I care. But I am all for the characters and settings being available for non profit projects.

However ... Companies using public domain characters and settings for their movies and then getting these protected ... that's too much. These days you have to pay attention that your Peter Pan is not to close to Disneys interpretation.

ps: of course everyone's lobbying to fight for his interests, Disney is no exception. They were just the ones being successful with this pledge.

Dunno about other countries, but in the US a number of the creative types who work for said companies either get paid hourly or one lump sum at some point before/during/after the creative process. The ones who profit mostly from the continued copyright on said works in those instances are the corporations....not the ones working for them.

Yes, (as I said earlier) in the case of indie devs who own the IPs they create they profit the most from copyright, but when it comes to their corporate counterparts that isn't usually the case.
(i.e. Disney artist#438 isn't usually making royalties/etc decades down the line for their work)

Of course not, but he has a job, right? And the secretary at the front office door answering phone calls does as well, also the people who keep the offices clean.

I know, it's cool to say that all big companies are bad, but they have a lot of people working for them who make a living by doing so.


Indie devs owning their IPs make more money? Then everyone should be come a indie dev creating his own IPs, problem solved.