The original intention of copyright was so encourage people to build stuff, get benefit from the work, then release the work out into the public domain for this precise reason! It wasn't put in the Constitution so people could have cash cows for long periods of time, it was put in there so the work could could go out into the wild after a brief period of time and be built upon.
I've always wondered why there's so little real public outcry at the perpetual extension of copyrights and their increasing overreach. But now, after reading the comments on that story, it's no wonder corporations have yet again been able to run roughshod over the public, and it's the same reason as usual -- the public is willingly bending over for them:
Also, how can the world demand Nintendo to give them freebees
I see nothing wrong with this. Yeah, it sucks the site has to be taken down, but that was the risk he ran. Its an awesome idea, of course, but it belongs to Nintendo. [...] I, personally, only think something should fall into the public domain after the company it once belonged to is no longer around.
Someone forgot why Video Games crashed in 1983. The video game industry was like the wild wild west. Anybody could create or steal what they wanted and it just over saturated the market with crappy games.
Apparently this person forgot the reasons behind the Video Game Crash as well...
So if I create a game and it becomes mega famous, everyone is buying it and playing it, and that gaming product is a source of income for me...
Here's a crux of the issue and what republicorps rely on for the public's support -- "When I am rich and famous some day, I want these laws around to protect me!"
I really think it is you who doesn't understand [copyright]. Since you think [using something owned by someone] is okay, please give me your address so I can come move into your house and use your car. Hey they benefited you enough, time for someone else to make use of them.
It shouldn't be a time limit, it should be a lifetime benefit for the creator(s). Miyamoto has every right to make as much money off his product for the rest of his life
Ignoring, I suppose, the fact that he doesn't own any copyright -- Nintendo does.
I don't get this article. Couldn't someone pay a licensing fee if they really wanted to?