Miniscule in comparison to the shitloads of money they can make by improving on long forgotten old games of companies that don't want to do it themselves.Even those companies will benefit from the revival of the old franchise. It opens up business opportunities for everyone. Does that sound like communism?

You know, demanding every game to be released for free is even more greedy than rightsholders who had to somehow pay for their copyrights to be able to earn money from them.

Even in parliament, where these discussions matter, your behaviour would be unexcusable. We're not in parliament - we're on discussion boards. I have absolutely no power over legislation.

So, how do you think you're going to change my beliefs, and to make me see things your way? By insulting my beliefs, or by calmly explaining your standpoint? What you're doing is inefficient and pointless. Calm and rational argumentation will take you much further - especially on, you know, discussion boards.

The thing you all seem to forget: if you start making exceptions, where do you stop?

I dont like what the big companies are doing just like any other person, but you if you start making exceptions, you're gonna be a subject to them as well when you create sth (record an album, write a book, make a game etc). Where does it stop?

After all, technically there is no difference in IP rights of an independent creator, and a publisher which 'only' gave money for the game to be made, not taking part in any of the creative process.

It is not such a simple matter to resolve.

@Fenix and the others
Sorry if I came off too strong, but I am sick of people dictating, forcing me into their world model, taking away my freedom, as it is the basic thing to me.
As long as an individual doesnt hurt other people, directly (kill, steal etc) or indirectly (for example promoting racism, making statements centred on hatered which lead to violence etc etc) he should have a right to decide for himself.

Including the very subject we are talking about.

edit:
The problem is, what is there to explain? Its as if you wanted someone to explain why doesnt he like some particular colour.

I said that a person should have the right to decide on what happens to his creation, as long as he's still alive - you disagree with that completely. So how could anybody convince you? It is not important to you, as you've stated.

The thing is, your vision of the matter invades my vision. It takes away my right to choose.

Whereas my vision doesnt take anything from you in that matter. You want to give something away? You are free to do so. It is your choice.

This way people who dont care are satisfied, as they dont have to hold on desperately to their creation, as well as those who care, as they still have a say in the matter.

And this is relevant how?

Wtf? What exceptions, wtf are you talking about, Walter.

Please read back your own post and try to interpret it in a realistic manner

Well, the biggest thing seems to be the case of publishers, 'large rightsholders'. You cant devaluate their ownership without devaluating the ownership of an individual.

Wait what, I'm pretty sure it was write my own, and read everyone elses posts. So I ask you again, how is the level of greedyness of the various parties relevant?

It's entirely reasonable to say that copyright durations should be shorter, and to lament its various shortcomings. However, it's lawmakers you should be directing your attention to and not GOG. There's very little GOG can do about the situation, and due to dependency on good-faith bargaining with rightsholders it cannot even take a position on the issue. The reason the laws aren't changing is because people by and large do not demand it. Copyright is still regarded as an arcane and mysterious thing by most people, and so long as public engagement on the issue remains low powerful corporate interests will dominate that discussion.

Now, on to the inevitable copyright discussion itself!

The goal of copyright is to incentivize the creation of new works. It provides the creator a state-backed monopoly on reproduction of the work to allow them to recoup the large cost of developing the work (which could otherwise be usurped by copiers). This monopoly is a cost born by society, as any work subject to copyright will both have a higher price and lower availability. As well, the rightsholders ability to veto derivative works can disincentivize the creation of future works, working counter to copyright's intended purpose (note that trademark law is another matter entirely, and it addresses most concerns regarding low-quality derivatives). As a result, a balance must be played; granting a duration long enough to incentive the creation of new works without making it too long as to over-burden the public. Part of that balance is also in exceptions and limitations to copyright, such as exhaustion (aka "first sale") and fair use.

Due to three factors, the vast majority of a work's value is redeemed within the first decade of its existence. First of all, new works tend to sell at higher prices than older works. Second of all, new works tend to sell more copies (in spite of higher prices) than older works. Finally, there's simple time-value of money: a dollar booked today is significantly more valuable than a dollar booked ten years from now. Taken together, the average work has redeemed 90% of its net value within 10 years. Only a tiny fraction go on to be the "Micky Mouse" or "Harry Potter" that can carry an entire corporate dynasty on its back, and there's just no economic rationale for society to support that; people like J.K. Rowling are already multi-millionaires, so further incentive for their works (however much a masterpiece they may be) is unnecessary. This is not to say that 10 years is the right number; it's probably too short for a number of reasons. Rather, it's to illustrate that even very short copyright durations would still fulfill the purpose of incentivizing the creation of work.

As to people who treat copyright like property: it's not. Unlike a physical piece of property (whether it's land or an object or a limited resource) another person's use of an idea does not at all interfere with your use of the idea. If someone else squats in my home, they limit my ability to use my home. If someone else reproduces the contents of this post I have just wrote, it does not affect my ability to use those ideas. In fact, wide-spread usage of an idea can make it more useful to society at large. Copyright is a government-granted monopoly that restricts the way other people can use an idea or expression. The cost of this monopoly is born by society at large, that takes the form of a transfer from society to the rightsholder plus a deadweight loss due to externalities. This is a social contract: a promise that society shall honor a temporary monopoly on an idea or expression if you take the time and effort to create it. Claiming that society is somehow obliged to offer creators long protection duration is nonsense, no different than saying society is obliged to provide a higher minimum wage, higher unemployment benefits, or higher tax subsidies to your particular industry. There may be good reasons to do so, it may result in a net benefit for the vast majority of society, but if you want them it's on your shoulders to justify that society should grant such privilege. It should not be taken as automatic that you are entitled to such.

Perhaps not the level of greedyness but you attempt to describe rightsholders as moneygrabbers, I feel the same way about people who demand games to be free after a period of time.

Not sure how that relates to "the slippery slope of making exceptions" you want to warn us of. But even that individual will benefit more from the overall advantages of public domain than he loses from making somewhat less on his 20 year old game.
Not sure where people demanded free games or what your beef is with them. But you misunderstood me. I was using moneygrabbing as a positive. To illustrate the benefits of public domain to capitalist enterprise.

I think copyright should last through a lifetime but after that it actually cost to keep. Companies should be limited to having to use their copyrights on a certain basic else it would lapse.
I also do not think single words, names or sounds should be copyrighted.

Why should Disney have the right to Ponchio which was open for all of us to use, but they now own because they made a single movie something like 40 years ago, that they even limit the distribution of to make it "worth" the £20 they charge per disk. The whole copyright mess has gone through the works now and really must be looked at to truly benifit the masses.
As for games, I really appreciate GOG and their work to bring older games to our tables and I am more then happy to pay for a game, but I do wish that as games aged that they might drop slightly to represent the fact they are older, so a game like Zork might go for $2 due to its age, while the lastest installment might be about $5 and a new game such as Shadow Warrior 2013 could be $15. I know it does not suit everyone, but it is what I would prefer.

I have no idea what you just said and it didn't sound like communism, no.

Why give this much attention to an article by Troll-Paper-Shotgun?

Any bets if this one will beat the religion / atheism one in length? I say it will...