“Because in 2 years the value of the product might be higher and we expect to always be paid more, regardless of the current deal we are making today.”
That’s actually a very bad argument in court. Taking things off the market to drive scarcity and boost sales at a later date is a normal and common business tactic. See: the McRib, Pumpkin Spice Lattes, and the Disney Vault.
The McRib is actually an awful example for this, because McD’s primary deciding factor is the price of pork. When pork prices drop, McD revives the McRib. They want to manufacture them as cheaply as possible. Then when the prices start to climb again, they pull it from the menu.
That’s why they don’t do big “it’s coming back on this date, and leaving on this date” announcements ahead of time, because those announcements would affect the pork prices as pig farmers would anticipate the upcoming large McD orders, and subsequent dips when they stop selling. By the time the McRib is on the menu, McD has already been buying pork for a while. And by the time it gets pulled from the menu, McD has already stopped buying a while ago. So their profit margins won’t be affected by them adding/pulling it from their menu.
I think there’s a difference between unavailable and limited availability.
There are some old games that may never come back. In many cases, there’s no agreed owner. Imagine if something became public domain after a short period of no use (5 years, 10 years maybe).
Rights-holders can make these products available whenever they want. Nintendo added many old “abandonware” games to their subscription catalog that had been unavailable for much longer than ten years. If someone else is putting them out for free, they’re stealing Nintendo’s lunch.
There are very few cases where copyrighted material would have no owner and no legal mechanism to determine ownership.
Not saying I support the current system. I think current US copyright law is ridiculous and a net negative for our culture. Just clarifying that “Well, no one was selling it” is not a legally defensible position when it comes to copyrighted work.
It absolutely isn’t a legal defense. You’re right.
I’m saying it should be legal. Starting now, since digital is a standard. Nintendo needs to put it out or let people share it. They can have 10 years (or the highest of 5 years from now/10 years from when it was last available). Something like that.
The TV movie standard of everything being available should be the video game standard.
The TV movie standard of everything being available
TVs and movies are not universally available. Dogma is a pretty famous case of being universally unavailable for over 15 years. It was only announced this year that a new licensing deal had been reached. There are plenty of lesser-known shows and movies that are just gone forever.
But that is a case in favor of piracy and physical media. Films like 1922’s Nosferatu only survived to today because of bootlegging. If we’re expecting Netflix to: one, be around as a company for 80 years until their films enter into public domain; and two, maintain their originals on their servers for that entire time, then we’re setting ourselves up for some pretty big disappointments and some rather huge holes in our cultural history.
It should not be legal for a product such as this to just cease existing due to an agreement between IP owners ending.
It’s like Disney saying “We agree you can make this Mickey Mouse game using our characters, but it can only be sold for 2 years.” Fucking why?
“Because in 2 years the value of the product might be higher and we expect to always be paid more, regardless of the current deal we are making today.”
~Disney, since it was established as a business
Makes sense they bought Star Wars, so they can legally say “I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it further.”[User was moused for this comment]
Uh oh. You quoted a Disney movie. Prepare to be litigated.
I’ve got a bad feeling about this…
[Jawa noises]
Except if you bought the game you still own a copy, they’re just not allowed to sell new copies.
There are a bunch of Marvel games that are exactly like this.
Somewhat related. I tried to watch Guava Island, which was apparently only made available for Amazon for a limited time, then it just disappeared.
I think it should be legal to download or stream any of that stuff that’s no longer available.
It’s certainly ethical, if not legal.
You could make a good argument in court, too. Hard to show damages when there’s no possibility of profit because you’re not selling it.
That’s actually a very bad argument in court. Taking things off the market to drive scarcity and boost sales at a later date is a normal and common business tactic. See: the McRib, Pumpkin Spice Lattes, and the Disney Vault.
The McRib is actually an awful example for this, because McD’s primary deciding factor is the price of pork. When pork prices drop, McD revives the McRib. They want to manufacture them as cheaply as possible. Then when the prices start to climb again, they pull it from the menu.
That’s why they don’t do big “it’s coming back on this date, and leaving on this date” announcements ahead of time, because those announcements would affect the pork prices as pig farmers would anticipate the upcoming large McD orders, and subsequent dips when they stop selling. By the time the McRib is on the menu, McD has already been buying pork for a while. And by the time it gets pulled from the menu, McD has already stopped buying a while ago. So their profit margins won’t be affected by them adding/pulling it from their menu.
I think there’s a difference between unavailable and limited availability.
There are some old games that may never come back. In many cases, there’s no agreed owner. Imagine if something became public domain after a short period of no use (5 years, 10 years maybe).
Rights-holders can make these products available whenever they want. Nintendo added many old “abandonware” games to their subscription catalog that had been unavailable for much longer than ten years. If someone else is putting them out for free, they’re stealing Nintendo’s lunch.
There are very few cases where copyrighted material would have no owner and no legal mechanism to determine ownership.
Not saying I support the current system. I think current US copyright law is ridiculous and a net negative for our culture. Just clarifying that “Well, no one was selling it” is not a legally defensible position when it comes to copyrighted work.
It absolutely isn’t a legal defense. You’re right.
I’m saying it should be legal. Starting now, since digital is a standard. Nintendo needs to put it out or let people share it. They can have 10 years (or the highest of 5 years from now/10 years from when it was last available). Something like that.
The TV movie standard of everything being available should be the video game standard.
TVs and movies are not universally available. Dogma is a pretty famous case of being universally unavailable for over 15 years. It was only announced this year that a new licensing deal had been reached. There are plenty of lesser-known shows and movies that are just gone forever.
But that is a case in favor of piracy and physical media. Films like 1922’s Nosferatu only survived to today because of bootlegging. If we’re expecting Netflix to: one, be around as a company for 80 years until their films enter into public domain; and two, maintain their originals on their servers for that entire time, then we’re setting ourselves up for some pretty big disappointments and some rather huge holes in our cultural history.
It doesn’t stop existing, you just can’t buy it… Not great but not unreasonable.
Wouldn’t the solution just end up screwing artists who have to give up their song in perpetuity? You can have those buy pay way more