Maybe, and maybe not.....first off, they have made it very long already and people might object to it more if they try to push it further(especially as more seem to be concerned with copyright lengths now than before) & also even Disney(iirc) let SOME older(even mouse related) works slip into the public domain as of late.

Yeah, the original intent of copyright has been pretty much ruined by corporations "persuading" the government to extend it into absurdity. However it's also true that intellectual property like Mickey Mouse has created a lot of jobs and tax money over the years that likely wouldn't have existed otherwise, so I don't think it's entirely without merit. The 2000s is a lot different than the 1800s when it comes to copyrighted media works' relevance in the market.

As to the bolded bit: No one said companies and original creators cannot sell stuff that has had it's copyright/TM lapse....they just cannot copyright/Tm it anymore(afaik). They could still sell their "official"/"original" brand of said things alongside any who make new versions of same even if others are allowed to.

Yes but obviously it would devalue said properties incredibly, and eat into... for example... the billions of dollars Star Wars makes today. If anyone and their brother could make Star Wars films and merch it would dramatically reduce the drive to make high quality stuff, and the profits that result. Those billions mean thousands of jobs, if not tens of thousands, plus a lot of tax revenue. I'm not really arguing for the current copyright situation, just saying it does have reasons beyond politicians advocating for corporate greed.

I disagree on it dramatically reducing drive to make high quality stuff.....the original creators would likely do it to remain competitive with newcomers to the same IP, and newcomers would likely do it to make a niche for themselves and some profit as well.

Also, I will be blunt here and say I couldn't care less if behemoths like Disney make a few million less per year. ;)

I think that is a bit of an overstatement(based on one IP's potential loss if competition sprung up....i.e. I don't think most of those jobs would be lost if competition sprung up for some IPs).

Also if new competitors sprung up they might drive more new jobs and tax revenue to replace what the other company lost to some degree.

Fair enough, but imo NO creator beyond maybe small single creators and small companies needs 50+ year IP protections.

I mean... they employ a lot of people, put a lot of money into the economy. I'd prefer small businesses owned by individuals, but I think that society sailed out decades ago, never to be heard from again. If corporations are the new norm, then keeping them healthy and profitable is good for everyone because it means jobs and tax dollars.

Still, if we have a choice still i'd rather small businesses be promoted over bigger ones that treat their workers more or less like disposable cogs or worse.

Also there are some industries(that I can't mention much here as it'd likely be against the no politics rule or borderline) which employ a bunch of people that i'd rather we cut back on anyways....basically(imo) just because a business employs large numbers of people doesn't mean it should be supported so much.

Actually it was the rights to bring out Batman 66 on video that was in issue, Fox always had the broadcast rights to the TV Show. (And the 1966 Batman movie rights also were clearly owned by Fox,the movie has been avaialbal on video since the late eighties.
And one of the big legal hangups,even after Warners (owners of the Batman charecter) and Fox came to a deal was all those cameo appreanced when Batman and Robin were climbing up the side of a building. They had to get legal cleareances from the person or their heirs... doing the cameo,and in some cases that proved really difficult.
Apparently the video rights clause for the TV show were carelessly written ....who knew how backin 66 how valuable they would become...giving Warners grounds to claim the rights because they owned the charecter, and Fox's rights to the charecter had expired. (The movie contract was totally different and the rights were clearly defiened).

Best way to describe the Nolf situation is the ownership is in a state of confusion, and, so far,none of the rights owners think it's worth the legal expenses to clear it up.

Either way in the case of NOLF specifically, its not like you can support the devs as you literally cannot buy the game officially unless used copies or just pirate it.

I'm aware of what's going on with No One Lives Forever, but thank you for the refresher anyway.

I honestly don't care who downloads what and does or doesn't pay for it (or who gets paid for it or not, even) - it's their life and their money to spend or not spend as they see fit.

If there's one thing I've learned about finding older games that the publishers don't want to sell, it's that eBay is your dearest friend.

This....but for SOME games(the ones where people sell them for a hundred or more dollars due to rarity[actual or imagined]) I am not opposed to SOME (poorer folk mostly) going "another route" to get said games if they cannot afford eBay/etc prices. :)

(Note: To be nice to some and also to have physical editions I save up for SOME eBay copies of certain series so I can have a physical copy....especially with handheld games like DS/etc of some series....as long as the price isn't too high)