What would Pokemon look like without the perversion of copyright?

What would Pokemon look like without the perversion of copyright?
Continuing with Pokemon as an example, let's imagine for a minute that copyright worked the way a modern researcher determined would be mathematically optimal - 15 years automatically with no renewal.
arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/07/research-optimal-copyright-term-is-14-years/

It may seem crazy, but let's roll with it.

Copyright begins at publication. For Pokemon, this was 1996 - but not all of Pokemon. Some elements did not premiere until later. Therefore, certain elements would enter the public domain later than others. For example:

1996 - Pokemon Red and Blue
2000 - Pokemon Gold and Silver
2003 - Pokemon Ruby and Sapphire

Hypothetically, these ideas would enter public domain 15 years later, in:

2011 - All 150 Pokemon
2015 - 235 Pokemon
2018 - All Pokemon from Ruby and Sapphire

This means that, by 2018, anyone could publish their own Pokemon game using every character, region, concept from the original games (like Red and Blue, Pokemon Snap, and Stadium) and have it available for sale on the shelves of Gamestop. And any producer with the funds could greenlight any game.

Just like that, suddenly entertainment business would need to compete to bring us the best possible Pokemon they could. Bethesda, Sony, Konami, EA would all be sending scripts to Veronica Taylor and Ikue Otani - tripping over themselves to write the best story they could create - trying to convince them to take the role. Copies sent off to Satoshi Tajiri for that incredibly valuable "author approved" signature.

>Pokemon Red and Blue would still be made, and print shittons of money
>Pokemon Leaf Green and Fire Red would still be made
>Pokemon Soul Silver and Heart Gold would still be made
>Pokemon Diamond and Pearl would still be made
>Pokemon Black and White would still be made

Attached: soulpoke.jpg (2606x926, 420K)

Other urls found in this thread:

web.archive.org/web/20130112152530/http://rufuspollock.org/economics/papers/optimal_copyright_term.pdf
nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2019/190425e.pdf
businessinsider.com/jk-rowling-is-no-longer-a-billionaire-booted-off-forbes-list-2012-3
io9.gizmodo.com/what-does-it-mean-now-that-james-bonds-in-canadas-publi-1678191830
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Copyright, in modern times, has been perverted so extensively that it now causes the opposite of what it was originally intended to.

So here is how it started, way back in 1790:
>The Congress shall have Power...to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

As you can see, the intent of copyright was to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" which includes art like painting, music, and film. By granting ownership of an idea, the creator of that idea is able to profit off of it. This, in turn, creates a financial incentive for artists to create new ideas.

But, unlike physical property, there is no practical reason for "intellectual property" to be protected. Physical property, for example, is a shirt. It is important to know who a shirt belongs to. If you and me disagree about who owns a shirt, there's a problem because only one of us can wear the shirt. If we both tried it would tear in half. Physical property is a house. If we disagree about who owns a house, we need to find the answer. We can't both live there with our families, setting our own schedules. Thus, shirts and houses are physical property that need to be protected by law.

Intellectual property is different because an idea can be shared. I can tell you the idea of a superhero I had, and I don't lose an ounce of it. A thousand people can have the same idea and it does not break. It does not need to be protected.

Thus, the sole purpose of granting ownership to an idea is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts." By offering ownership to ideas, Congress hopes that I will make my idea a reality by writing a story, making a film etc. - thus adding to the commonwealth that we all enjoy. So does modern copyright do this? Yes, sometimes...but it usually does the opposite instead.

You have a board

Over the past two hundred and thirty years, a critical perversion to copyright law was the loss of "limited terms." To show you this, here is a timeline of major changes to copyright law:

Copyright Act of 1790 – established U.S. copyright with term of 14 years with 14-year renewal
Copyright Act of 1831 – extended the term to 28 years with 14-year renewal
Copyright Act of 1909 – extended term to 28 years with 28-year renewal
Copyright Renewal Act of 1992 – removed the requirement for renewal
Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 – extended terms to 95/120 years or life plus 70 years
Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) – criminalized some cases of copyright infringement and established the Section 512 notice-and-takedown regime.

As you can see, the original duration of copyright was 14 years with an option to renew once (for a maximum of 28 years total.)

This is almost unimaginable compared to today's concept of copyright, which can last for 120 years or more automatically, and 70 years at a minimum. Yes, the minimum duration is now two and a half times longer than the maximum was originally. Wow!

Attached: 1527714359136.jpg (1481x1609, 877K)

delete this, haha

Attached: the mouse.jpg (342x491, 85K)

What does this mean?
Established brands are much easier to market, and therefore less risky. This makes everlasting copyright an important tool for the giants of modern entertainment like Disney. Why fund a director's new idea for a superhero when you can just pump out Spider-Man 17? Or Toy Story 5? Or Star Wars Episode 21?

Ironically, this means that copyright has been twisted to now lead to less creativity and new ideas making it to film.

On the other hand, it also robs the commonwealth of the ability to express their own culture. The children who grew up with A New Hope turned 41 this year. Think about that...they were born into a world where Star Wars has always existed (from their perspective), they got education, careers, their own families. Some went to film school, or became writers because they were inspired by Star Wars. But sadly, they will most likely retire and die in a world where they never got to make a dollar adding to the thing they loved.

So who gets to make a Star Wars film instead? Only whoever Kathleen Kennedy (CEO of Lucasfilm) feels like...Rian Johnson and JJ Abrams, I guess. Out of an entire generation and culture.

You might mention fan films or fan fiction as a counter-point but this is irrelevant. By removing the ability to profit, these writers would be foolish to spend the time and energy (for writing) and the money (for filming) necessary to bring those stories to life. People need to eat, they can't go into crippling debt just to express their culture. So, without a way to profit, fan fiction and film will always be a very low tier of art - rushed out, passion projects or just for practice/experience - meaningless in the large scale of things.

PDF to study: web.archive.org/web/20130112152530/http://rufuspollock.org/economics/papers/optimal_copyright_term.pdf

15 years. Not 150 years. How can we justify this bullshit?

What did we get in 2018 instead? Pokémon: Let's Go, Pikachu! And everybody got tricked into spending $60 for it.

Which version of 2018 would you prefer? As it is, Nintendo can offer whatever quality they want - even if it's garbage. They have a monopoly on the property. They could decided tomorrow that they don't want any more new Pokemon. They could sit on the property for 50 years, publishing nothing - no new books, films, games, nothing - and there's not a thing we could do about it. A cornerstone of our culture...complete control.

Wouldn't this be unfair to Satoshi and original creators? No. Fifteen years is a long time.

>By 2018, Nintendo's annual income was $1.79 BILLION
nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2019/190425e.pdf

Not bad...an entire generation of fans had thanked them for adding to our culture by giving them a huge pile of money. And, since the property would be free to anyone there would be nothing stopping Nintendo from continuing to sell stories from the world they created. As a bonus, anything with its name attached would always have the advantage in game sales.

Another example to look at would be J.K. Rowling. Fifteen years after she published Sorceror's Stone, Rowling was already so tired of being a billionaire
businessinsider.com/jk-rowling-is-no-longer-a-billionaire-booted-off-forbes-list-2012-3 that she donated $160 million to charity. Again, not a bad trade for enriching our culture by sharing her idea. Fifteen years is a long time.

Attached: soiboysoulless.jpg (798x768, 97K)

This thread could just be “What if an other dev made Pokemon” and would achieve the same results. Take your wanking over copyright laws to a law school lecture, smart ass.

I blame Cher.

>ashnime
>soul
choose one.

Attached: 1546653857122.png (1116x838, 999K)