Yes, I'd like to move past the heavy emphasis on how corporations and their regulatory/legal capture are making it happen. That is fully understood and someone would have to be a little bit dense not to understand it, imo. They are entities that exist exclusively to create profit, they will pursue all legal means to do so, and attempt to influence the law to their own ends. This is simply the logical thing to do, in their situations. I can't blame them for it, generate profit is what we create them to do. I'm about as anti-corporate as people get, I fully expect them to obstruct to preserve every penny of potential gain they could ever possibly have, with a preference towards being short sighted. This constant criticism of them feels like shaking a baby for crying. It's just what babies do.

Unless you have some kind of plan? I understand your passion, but ... it'd be cool if we could keep moving forward instead of constantly looping back.

You did get me wondering exactly where the line should be drawn. All art is clearly not equal, shouldn't it be the ultimate responsibility of the property owner to preserve it? Whether the physical holder or the intellectual owner? Not legally speaking, again I give no fucks as I expect the law to become compromised by money, but practically speaking?

Regarding the online service games you mentioned, I hadn't even considered those, but I do know what you mean. I've played a few that are long gone now, to my dismay.

[–] TwilightVulpine 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wouldn't compare companies to babies. Not only because they are organizations controlled by rational human beings, but if it is to treat their chase of profits as an inevitable urge, I think an animal is a more fitting metaphor, particularly regarding their disregard to human concerns, their potential to cause harm and that we sometimes need to restrain them for our well-being. It's deeply dysfunctional of our society when companies are only bound by law as far as it guarantees maximum profits to investors, when that often comes at the expense of the rest of society. If they can't help themselves, they should be treated accordingly and regulated.

When it comes to the particulars of how to effect preservation, the users themselves already do a lot of the work in preserving, they just need the protection to do so and not be punished by the law for it. The only requirement towards the companies, which makes for the greatest hurdle, is that companies which charge for online games ought to be obligated to release their servers on discontinuation. It already shows a certain disregard to customer rights that online games can charge players thousands of dollars for fictional digital in-game items, then they can close down the server and the value that player paid for is all gone. The player ought to have a way to retain what they paid for.

Of course this is a complex matter and it likely wouldn't be so simple, but it's not acceptable for things to remain as they are, when our culture is already facing losses exclusively because of the legal framework that was built.

Another thing to consider is how in the internet we are constantly communicating through derivative works which are technically intellectual infringement. Nearly every meme would count as such. But the law doesn't acknowledge it in any way, maybe because it would be a huge can of worms, and it would force them to recognize that copyright cannot be so strict as it has been codified, as it doesn't represent the moral values and habits of average people in today's society.

[–] Candelestine 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Corporations aren't babies. Criticizing a corporation for behaving like a corporation feels to me like shaking a baby. The corporation is fundamentally innocent--pursuing only its basic programming. It can do nothing else. It's not even legal for it to do otherwise, it has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, violating that subjects it to lawsuits. It's basically required to be evil and greedy by law.

What if we just dropped patent and copyright protections down to something like 10/20 years? That would kick pharma companies in the nuts too. I'm aware it would stifle innovation somewhat, but frankly I don't care. At least it would be a longer-term solution, where we wouldn't have to deal with whatever the next generation of this problem looks like in another couple decades.

Yes, now that you mention it, people should be able to copyright a meme. Not much point though, I don't think. Mainly an enforcement problem, we'd need AI tools just to keep up with the content produced. And for what gain? Hard to monetize a meme, and value is what everything is about at the end of the day. Not identity or structure, just how much money its worth.

On a side note, AI tools are going to make piracy a lot harder soon, I'd imagine.

[–] TwilightVulpine 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's less that people should be able to copyright a meme, though it is a creative work that might warrant it, but more like a whole lot of memes use pictures and clips from copyrighted works and the likenesses of people, and as the law is written people are not legally allowed to do that, however much it is entirely glossed over.

Dropping copyright every 20 years seems reasonable with the speed of internet culture and technology, and funny enough that's very similar to the length that copyright started as: 14 years plus an optional extension of another 14 years. It might be controversial, but that seems absolutely more reasonable than the 120 years that corporations get today. Can you imagine if people actually waited 120 years to play old Nintendo games? Chances all but a few collector pieces among the cartridges would have become rust already. It's not a reasonable length for technology-based media.

[–] Candelestine 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah. I think you've brought me around actually. Because that is an achievable goal worth fighting for, too. It would have benefits in other spaces of society. That was my original reason for disagreeing in the first place.