| | |
|
AustinLeachFirstPaper 8 - 05 Jan 2012 - Main.AustinLeach
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | Innovation, Public Good, and Resolution for the Consumer | |
<
< | A shortened copyright/trademark regime will better promote the arts and increase the public good, not only for videogames, but all forms of media. Since videogame development cycles—the start of development until release date—are about two years, a regime that gives parent developers and companies 10 years from the release date of a game to make a new franchise-related game is not only better for innovation and the public good, but it accurately reflects the decreased economic value of a franchise years after its creation. The cycle would reset each time the parent released a new game, and this would exclude ports of old games or downloadable content to existing games. If the parent decides to let the franchise die in those 10 years, a new developer/company could develop their own game in the franchise. This would essentially be a free license. Should the parent want the franchise back, they need only release a new game, and the 10-year clock is reset. | >
> | As it can be difficult to separate the copyrighted elements from trademarked elements in media such as videogames, a combined copyright/trademark regime that lasts only 10 years with renewals upon use of the protected content will better promote the arts and increase the public good. Current videogame development cycles—the start of development until release date—are about two years. A copyright/trademark regime that gives parent developers and companies 10 years from the release date of a game to make a new franchise-related game is plenty of time for developers to continue to cash in on a franchise. Such a regime is better for innovation and the public good because new developers could create new content with expired franchises. This regime also accurately reflects the decreased economic value of a franchise years after its creation. Developers of popular franchises recognize the decreased value of a franchise, and so they continually capitalize on them by releasing sequels as soon as possible—normally within two or three years—after a game’s initial launch. The cycle would reset each time the parent developer released a new game, and this would exclude ports of old games or downloadable content to existing games. If the parent decides to let the franchise die in those 10 years, a new developer/company could develop their own game in the franchise. This would essentially be a free license. Should the parent want the franchise back, they need only release a new game, and the 10-year clock is reset.
A 10 year copyright/trademark regime would allow companies to keep their franchises as long as they developed for them, and it would only really affect forgotten franchises. Such a regime gives new developers a chance to breathe life into old games and continue bringing new content to the market. In this way, the nerd rage over pulling Streets of Rage Remake could be alleviated. | | | | |
<
< | A 10 year copyright/trademark regime would allow companies to keep their franchises as long as they developed for them, and would allow new developers a chance to develop a franchise. In this way, the nerd rage over the pulling of Streets of Rage Remake could be alleviated. | | | |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |