Applying cultural/politically-correct/moral 20/20 hindsight to earlier works does not strike me as useful criterion for deciding whether to allow the preservation and dissemination of those works.
Yet copyright gives Disney the power to use exactly this criterion.
To me, it's like tennis or basketball. Imagine if James Naismith had started a Basketball Company that asserted copyright in the exact placement of the markings on the court, such as the width and length of the "key" and the diameter and height of the rim, and became known for a habit of suing cities that put a basketball court in a public park. In such a situation, I don't think basketball as we know it would have caught on the way it did. Or imagine if the governing body of tennis suddenly switched from older sport of indoor "real tennis" to the modern sport of lawn tennis and then sued anybody who put up a "real tennis" court.
The easy way out is to drop the pretense that a proprietary video game could become an enduring sport.
But if you remake things game play, but have different graphics, music, etc, then you're set
The Tetris Company managed to win a lawsuit based mostly on having copied the piece set: all seven one-sided tetrominoes and no other shapes. See Tetris v. Xio from a year ago. Changing the piece set would affect the balance.
I enjoy myself a lot more when I grab my wii.
That can be so taken the wrong way.
All the extra graphics on the other consoles do is bloat the cost by 300%
By how many percent do the publisher's share and the console maker's share bloat the cost?
I think the gaming world would be better off if 3d had never been invented.
Other than with a first- or third-person 3D view, how should a game show both close-up objects and far-off objects?
People are remaking old Atari 2600 and NES games and making them free to play/advert/microtransactions. If the major players like NIntendo aren't going to give their player's old rom collections for free/cheap, there will be a short term market for indie devs to recode the past. Everything old is new again.
Not necessarily. Anyone remaking old school Tetris, the game you remember from back before the "infinite spin" rule was added in 2001, is begging for a lawsuit.
It's been definitively established that the right to first publication trumps the right of the public to the availability of a work.
First publication, yes. But the work I'm talking about was first published over half a century ago.
However, when you're paying for a train fare, you've paid for the transit
No, you've paid for half the transit. Advertisers paid for the other half. It's little different from newspapers or pay television.
to paraphrase a gibbering offender led away in a straight jacket
As opposed to a gay jacket?
"Marriage is like a cage; one sees the birds outside desperate to get in, and those inside desperate to get out." -- Montaigne