928
Palworld maker vows to fight Nintendo lawsuit on behalf of fans and indie developers
(www.eurogamer.net)
this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
928 points (97.6% liked)
Technology
60102 readers
2759 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's literally the opposite. The first copyright law was passed in 1709 in England to give authors rights to their works instead of publishing companies. The Stationers' Company, a guild of publishers, had a monopoly over the printing industry, and they we're deciding amongst themselves who would get to reproduce and publish books. They took the labor of authors, changed it however they saw fit, and reproduced them for profit. Authors never saw a dime, and instead had to find wealthy patrons to subsidize their work.
Yes, for the majority of human history, people used to create art with no expectation of ownership, but for the majority of human history, there weren't methods to mass reproduce art. Owning the rights to your books didn't matter when the only way a second could get made is if a monk decided to hand copy it and bind it himself. When the only way to reproduce your painting was to have someone create a forgery, ownership of the physical copy was all that really mattered. If the only way you could get paid for a song was to sing it at the local tavern, it didn't really matter if you got writing credits.
We've already seen a world where the cooperations that control media production can use any work they want. They carved up artists' works like mobsters dividing up a town and kept all the profits for themselves. Maybe if we lived in a post need, post currency society, you could make an argument for abolishing copyright, but in the system we have, copyright is the only protection artists have against cooperations.
The commoner could not read or write in 1709. Even back then the law was meant for the upper class hence monied interests. So not the opposite at all. Wealthy using the law to protect their profits seems to be what has always happened. Hard to look at this as a some sort of positive for people like you and me.
What you describe is exactly what is happening in the majority of commercial writing nowadays. The corporations still have complete control. Strange how the law didn't change the status quo rather just carved out an exception for wealthy writers to be rent seekers. Once again, anyone without the means would have their work copied with no recourse.
Copying is not a bad thing as it is the foundation of all human culture. Trying to create a artificial system of scarcity perhaps made some sense to commercial interests when publishing cost so much. With the Internet though and our fast past culture it really is a ridiculous concept nowadays.
Once again owning the rights to your work doesn't matter unless a corporation wants to reprint, distribute your material, or in modern times allow you on their platform. Copyright would never stop this.
Even to this day the majority of those who create art don't expect compensation. Most do it for fun as a creative outlet. This obsession with trying to conflate art with profit has always been a lie. Only an extreme minority of people will ever make money from their art. So we are all to bow down to them copying our culture?
They did not create anything in a vacuum and they refuse to recognize this. This is what I mean when I say it is a flawed premise. We don't need to commercialize art to promote it.
We don't need to concentrate wealth for rent seekers and lawyers by creating a system of artificial scarcity. This does not promote the arts or protect them in any meaningful way.
Copyright does not protect the vast majority of artists because they don't need it and if they did would not have the resources or time to access our dubious legal frameworks in a court of law. It is a broken idea turned into a broken system.
First of all, literacy rates were about 70% in 1710, so the average commoner could absolutely read (at least among men, but copyright law isn't to blame for patriarchy). This is about 300 years after the printing press, literacy had gone up.
Second...I just don't know what to say to this anymore. You've created a strawman artist who believes their work is entirely original, even though no artist would claim they had no influences. You're pretending that copyright is an edict that says ideas can never be shared, as though the Public Domain, Creative Commons, and fair use didn't exist, or Substantial Similarity didn't have to be proved (which, by the way, is the reason that Hobbes isn't infringing on Tigger). And worst of all, you're acting like artists who want to be paid for their art are greedy capitalists, not artists that live under capitalism. How is an artist who wants make a living by creating art all day, every day, somehow less worthy than an artist who works 9 to 5 at a crappy job and then does art when they have free time?
You seem to think abolishing copyright will lead to some sort of artists' uptopia, but it's pretty much the opposite. Let's say copyright disappeared tomorrow. First, anyone making a living on Patreon will basically be done. If their videos or podcasts are now public property, there's nothing to stop anyone from uploading their Premium Content to YouTube within minutes of publishing, so no one's going to subscribe. Some of them will keep producing things, but since they'll need a new source of income, they'll definitely produce less.
Then there's the cooperations. They'll gobble up everything they can. Sure, you'll be able to make your own Spider-Man comics, but if any publisher likes them, they'll just sell them, along with any original IP you have. Of course you'll be able to sell them too, but since they can afford more advertising, higher quality printing, and merchandising, they'll out-sell you easily. You'll be lucky it anyone's even seen or heard of your version, even though you're the author. It'd be like trying to compete with Coca-Cola by opening a lemonade stand, and Coke is allowed to use your lemonade recipe.
I'm not saying copyright is being done well now; cooperations have an outsized ability to enforce copyright claims, they've manipulated the law to retain IP for an insane amount of time, and they have far more power in negotiations over licensing and rights than artists do. But your solution to that is, "What if artists had no rights? That would be better!" and I've just...I've run out of ways to react to that. It's truly insane to me.
I am not going to split hairs about whether the commoner would use copyright back in 1710. You know they would not.
For the privilege of copyright your idea must be truly unique to deprive others the right to use it. Perhaps you have never thought through the reality of creating artificial scarcity.
Your elaborate strawman is apparently copyright is needed for the arts which I have pointed out is not true and I had thought you agreed with.
We will never know if the creator of Calvin and Hobbes choose not license merchandising for the reality they could have been hit with trademark infringement.
Certainly if Nintendo can go after Palworld, Disney could have come after Calvin and Hobbes. This is all I was alluding to.
Almost everything you've said is just factually incorrect. We know why Calvin and Hobbes wasn't franchised; in Bill Waterson's own words, he wanted to, "write every word, draw every line, color every Sunday strip, and paint every book illustration," not, "run a corporate empire." His publisher had no worries about copyright infringement though, and pressured him to franchise.
Also, there was no chance he would have run into trademark issues because that's not what trademark means. Trademark is a name, copyright is the content. Trademark is why I can open a restaurant called Spider-Man, copyright is why I can't publish my own Spider-Man comics. While we're at it, Nintendo is suing Palworld for Patent violations, not copyright, so this has nothing to do with the similarity of the characters, it has to do with some game mechanic that Nintendo believes is proprietary technology.
Finally, the average working class person wasn't writing, but they were consuming printed media, and that's why publishers were making so much money off of authors. That's why copyright mattered. Copyright only lasted 14 years, with the option to renew it for another 14, and its sole purpose was to break up the publishers' monopoly. The idea that it was designed to create an artificial scarcity of ideas is an ahistorical conspiracy theory that you've dreamed up.
Looks like you are just spinning your wheels at this point. No, trademark is not just name. I suggest looking it up if you are not sure about it.
The fact that you can't accept that copyright creates artificial scarcity just shows that you don't really understand what it means. That is okay, it is clear you have not put a lot of thought into it.
Nice talking with you.