Nope, you get to run naked through minefields so the glorious tanks of the motherland can safely pass through and they will crush the Nazi's and shoot Hitler in the ass.

Whatever floats your boat oh Glorious Leader.

What does it matter? They own the rights. Their might not be any of the original Bullfrog developers of Dungeon Keeper 2 at EA, but Electronic Arts still paid money for that game to be made, and they legally own it. Or in the case of Activision they paid money for the properties of Sierra On-Line.

Really, it's easy for you guys to be pro-public domain and all, but I doubt any of you spend thousands/millions of your own money to make these video games, like publishers/developer do, so it's only natural they want to protect what they paid to be made. It's easy to have an opinion and to want free stuff when you aren't the one paying for it.

Oh am I the leader now?

KNEEL!

How is it GoG's fault ? Total BS, its the companies that own these licences and copyrights and still willing to sell these retro games that are a threat. GoG has actually a few collaborations with abandonware sites they even tolerate that localized versions of games they sell on GoG can be downloaded on these sites as long they don't have the licence for that localization.

RPS likes to purposely stir up shit to generate clicks and thus ad revenue.

They started this issue up because the old "video games are sexist!!!11" well had gotten a little dry.

yeah, they tend to get that money back in the first year of sale, if they do not they will go under. If this really is your concern, stop buying games on sales. Usually a game earns about 70%-80% in the day 1 sales.

You do realize that all that stuff becomes public domain anyway in like 70 years or so, right? So how about we take your house in 70 years? Your entire fortune? You really should watch using slippery slope fallacy - there's a reason for it to be called a fallacy after all
I have actually done creative works in my life. Not very popular, not all that great admittedly, but I have actually been in a position where people were snatching more or less what I've done and replicated it. It did make me feel quite proud of achieving something that changed the way of thinking of another person.

More like 70 years after you die.

I am all about creative works becoming public domain after their creators have already died. Not while they're still alive.

Also, I am not the one advocating taking away people's rights. You are. I just gave an extreme example of it.

Yes, that's the problem, you gave an extreme example of it. So you're not actually discussing the issue, you're discussing some fucked up variant of it that you have made up in your mind, which completely kills off any good points you might have made in the first place. Do yourself a favour and when talking about a problem, talk about the problem, not some imaginary stuff nobody ever mentioned.

Now that that's been dealt with, vast majority of profit is measured in about first month of sales, the rest is measured in like 1 year tops. 20 years is so much time that pretty much any work of art is long outdated by then, especially software, which won't even work properly in that timeframe. Still, 20 years is just an arbitrary number, it might be longer - I'm arguing for videogames to go into public property in a shorter time than it is so currently, and I'll give you a couple of reasons for that:

a) Compatibility. Vast majority of software is pretty much abandoned after so much time, and by then, the best that could possibly happen is for source code to get released and for community to fix the game for the creators who no longer much care for it (or have lost their works in the first place. Your argument with signing the contract is pretty terrible, because most small companies do not do so voluntarily but are forced into it by circumstances)

b) Maintenance. I have mentioned source code previously, and I stand by it. Every year, chances that the source code and documentation will even be found is getting slimmer and slimmer. If the time for a work to get into public domain would be decreased, there would actually be more incentive for people to keep the source of their creations, as it would assure its longer lifespan without the content creator having to do anything whatsoever for it.

The other issue is that, by this time, your work has a) been forgotten, or b) became a major part of culture in general. Now, there's just a time when a creation outgrows its creator, and since every single creator inavoidably draws from public domain for his works, it doesn't hurt to actually give back. Of course, I would want most of this for the sake of perservation - we could always have addendums of the sort that '20 years period only starts after software is no longer maintained" or whatever.

Now take my post apart, point by point and try to reply by meaningful argumentation, as opposed to calling me a commie and taking human rights away

Yes very easy. So why is it so hard for you? You are like us, you would only benefit from it. These companies would indirectly benefit from it as well. Free market and all.

I'm sorry, I thought you said communism, not fascist disctatorship.

Public domain is about giving rights to more people. I would call it socialism.

There's a saying I heard recently from a podcast discussion regarding austrian economics that socialism/communism works until someone else's money run out, I thought it was rather catchy but inevitably true.

I can't say I'm certain on this issue as I'm in favour of public domain taking advantage of art but at the same time if commercialisation is possible it creates work and that is usually positive too.

@Fenix
Man, and what is it if not taking rights away?

And what is being a commie, if not taking someone's rights away in order to give sth for others? Take away someone's work, and make it public domain without their consent? To me, thats a commie-type reform, because you're taking away the charge over a creation from the living author.

If I make something, I want to be in charge of it. Is it that hard to understand, that I'd be offended if you wanted to take that right away from me?

What imaginary stuff? I used your train of thought (which is basicly about taking stuff away - in this particular case, IP rights) to give an extreme example of it.

" Your argument with signing the contract is pretty terrible, because most small companies do not do so voluntarily but are forced into it by circumstances) "
OK, its great to see you ignoring what I said before. Yeah, I'm not gonna bother to repeat myself again.
Clue: indie developers.
Also, I agree with Crosmando's statement (post 63), so I'm not gonna repeat or transform his idea either.

@source code stuff
Do you think I'm against that? No, I'm not.
I am however against someone else bossing around when it comes to stuff that I've created, or invested it.

Meaningful converastion, lol. And thats from someone who doesnt respect the basic stuff.
Mind you, I'm not comparing you to Hitler or Stalin, so dont jump on your heels just yet, but I bet that they could make a really good meaningful conversation defending their actions. It wouldnt mean that its good.

You either respect another human being, or you do not.

You cant make exceptions like, thats it OK to take away rights after 20 yrs for a video game, but its not okay for a book. If its 20 yrs, its 20 yrs, thats it. Then it would also have to cover music for example.

How come if I write a book, or record an album, I shouldnt be entitled to profit off it, or have exclusive rights to it as long as I'm alive? Really, tell me.

To me human rights are the top priority, sorry if you see the world from a different perspective.

@ChrisSD's post below - I totally agree with it.

Nobody's rights are being taken away by public domain. They still keep all their rights.
They just aren't exclusive anymore.

I'll do it for him.

Typically this true but not all sales work like this (see "hidden gems").

I'll state up front that I think copyright is too long as it stands but that 20 years is too short a time frame. I'd also argue that if an artwork is truly outdated then almost nobody would have an actual interest in it. Perhaps you mean something different?

Most of these points seem to boil down to the same thing (I've edited out the bit that doesn't, see below): keeping old games running on new machines. What you seem to really be arguing for is a kind of patent system for games (only less strict). For example, the source code is registered with some central authority. They keep this code secret for however many years and then release it to the public. This would preserve the source code for future generations while remaining closed in the here and now.

Incidentally, you can have open source code that is still copyrighted and not free.

The creator has "given back" by releasing their own work. Other people can (and likely will) draw on it without infringing copyright.