What would Pokemon look like without the perversion of copyright?

Two Disneys?

We can make a difference. If we can settle our differences and get all the normies riled up, this could be a huge piece of legislation. The problem is getting senators who Disney has in their back pocket.

And all the faggots on here saying it's impossible, it'll cause problems with the law blah blah blah blah, you're just dumb. It is possible. Repeal those laws from the past 100 years, that's it. It WILL happen if people know the truth.

Disney will continue churning out trash. They will continue suing orphanages and hospitals. They'll probably buy another studio or company. They're only digging their own grave. There's one thing that will be hard, and that's swaying public opinion.

>We can make a difference
What have you achieved in 12 years?
Nothing, fuck off

>What have you achieved in 12 years?
>Nothing, fuck off

Attached: t3_5c6hrt.jpg (710x1068, 201K)

Pretty much

I would rather have these copyright laws in place and get people trying to make new ideas than waiting until they can rip off a preexisting idea for money

>it's been an arbitrary amount of time that means I should be able to make crappy knockoffs of your creations
gamers are entitled and pathetic

there is no new ideas, all ideas are always based on something else and that's the problem, you can't take inspiration to create something because that idea you based on is protected by copyright

>normies rally and fight this
>copyright only last 14 year going forward

>suddenly nintendo can use banjo-kazooie again

fuck me I need this to happen

Attached: 1554148776399.png (748x800, 600K)

how many fucking soulless reboots and remakes do you need to see before you stop being stupid

>there is no new ideas, all ideas are always based on something else and that's the problem
If you're an unoriginal faggot sure. Maybe try thinking a little harder instead of being a drooling retard
>pokemon is so popular, I could make a clone of it and get so much money.....stupid copyright laws are fucking me...

Getting rid of copyright laws would not stop shitty reboots or remakes, but would open the floodgates for THOUSANDS of shitty reboots and remakes

The exact opposite is occuring because of the laws put in place.

The new star wars and pokemon look and feel like rip offs. How could the alternative be any worse? These companies will be forced to either try new ideas, or make a convincing flag ship.

you say that but i bet you are as unoriginal as you call everyone else to be. its easy to be said than done, faggot

This is exactly what happened to Sherlock Holmes. Look what we got. See my point?

>How could the alternative be any worse?
This is how I know you're a retard with absolutely no critical thinking skills
>Oh man, that brand new pokemon game made by a start up company is incredible, you've gotta try it!
>"Which one? There are literally over one hundred thousand pokemon games since the copyright law was repealed"
>The new one that just came out!
>"12 were released this month"
You're complaining about the company that owns the ideas making shitty reboots, and completely ignoring the fact that if pokemon dropped all copyrights today there would be literally over a hundred thousand shitty rip off games being made to try and make money off of the well known name

>Dude, sherlock gnomes was hype, we could have that for everything!

I agree with you but I don't know what to do with this information at all.

>Companies should be allowed to hold copyright for 100+ years

How long should they be allowed to hold it then Mr. Critical Thinker?

Telcent? Comcast? Google?

There will be a national campaign in the next 5 years, mark my words. Every con, every show, even the farmers market will have something about it educating people. It will happen.

what's wrong, is that before you were born or something?

>get all the normies riled up
Disney has literal armies and figurative armies of lawyers. They throw money around and drag out court cases until their opponent runs out of money to pay legal fees. Normies won't help.

Why do you think you're entitled to make money off of someone elses ideas?

The shitheads back in the 1700's had it right in the first place. 28 years is a long fucking time. 6 Star Wars movies were made in 28 years, and fucking mountains of cash. Companies need to quit thinking it will just be okay to sit on their golden goose, expecting it to provide for them forever.

Or maybe you could try being creative instead of being bitter, thinking that one day you won't have to put any thought into anything and can just release your own star wars movie

Look, copyright law is an interesting topic and there could be good discussion about it on Yea Forums but you have to understand your audience.

These posts are way too long.
You have to be more concise.

If your OP was something like:

"
>copyright originally lasted 14 years
>copyright now lasts 70-120+ years
WHAT THE FUCK? We could've had THREE GENERATIONS of Pokemon in the public domain by now.
"

or something like that, more people would read it and thus become more informed and aware of how shitty modern copyright law is.
Few people on Yea Forums are interested in reading a multi-post essay on anything, much less something they don't understand.

If your goal is to inform readers and generate discussion, you have to write with your audience in mind.

Literally every single man-made thing in existence was someone else's idea. You're either arguing that no one should make any money unless they invent something entirely new without any previous creative or scientific backing, or you're an idiot who has failed to distinguish his argument from the retarded ramblings mentioned prior because you can't understand your own point.
Either way nothing will be gained from your indescribably shallow thought processes other than a headache.

So rather than making your own shit you'd rather steal someone elses 'legally' ?

Attached: didn't read.gif (350x170, 1.84M)

>Literally every single man-made thing in existence was someone else's idea.
Wrong. Ideas can be inspired by other ideas and end up an entirely new thing. Not everything in existence was just stolen from someone else you retard

It was from reddit what do you expect.

There will be a normie-friendly vector graphics video coming up soon.

you realize pretty much all of Disney's movies are rip offs? look up lion king stolen from other japanese movie.

>The problem is getting senators who Disney has in their back pocket.
I love the idea dude but you do realize it's not just Disney, right? Literally every monopoly - Amazon, Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc - would fight this. You would be literally fighting at least trillions of dollars worth of legal fees and underhanded tactics. Heck, I bet they'd send out assassin teams for security like this.

Wouldnt a lack of IP protection actually lead to less competition?
Wouldnt every film studio just copy the most profitiable thing? Instead of copying Star Wars, I'd just make my own. We'd end up with 100 new Star Wars every year, instead of people being forced try something new. I dont want to live in that future.

>we should get rid of copyright so not only do large corporations not have to think up new ideas but neither do I!
Fucking brilliant.

I'm completely fine with copyrights being valid as long as the IP has been used within the last 10-20 years

None of the Pokemon creators are dead yet,

People would get tired of Star Wars.

You know how everyone is tired of the 10 years of superhero movies? That wouldn't have happened. They would have already been out of style.

Im fucking tired of EVERYONE talking about kimba like no one has fucking heard of it because remake of lion king recently
like shit the simpsons had a joke about it in 1995

that's literally what some contracts require and they just make shitty movies

Why would they, though? If every IP went into the public domain you'd have literally every developer making Mario and Zelda. EA Maria. Bethesda Mario. Ubisoft Mario. Gearbox Mario. CDProject Mario. Sony Mario. From Soft Mario. Microsoft Mario.

It would all be Mario because thats the most profitable thing. Why the hell would Nintendo, or ANYONE, for that matter, care about Banjo when the only IP that matters is the one that makes the most profit?

>It was from reddit what do you expect.
Doesn't seem like OP's post is from Reddit. Just did a few searches and everything pointed back to Yea Forums.

Nothing needs to be made "normie-friendly." If OP really wanted the autists on here to learn about copyright and have some discussion he should've made his post shorter.

>You know how everyone is tired of the 10 years of superhero movies?
No, I dont. This shit is still going strong. And even if Star Wars did fade away, everyone would jsut move on to the next IP, slowly sucking everything you love dry

That's... sort of the point. It would encourage taking risks with new IPs instead of just pumping out sequel after sequel.

But right now you have just Disney pumping out sequel after sequel. If Star Wars was in the public domain then EVERY film company would be pumping out sequel after sequel...

If anyones curious Micky will be public domain 2023 Disney ran out of time to stop that January this year. Of course actually using him will be fuckin hard due to the fact Disney can argue that Micky is inseparable from Disney as a company in image. Wonder what will happen the first time someone tries to use "public domain" Micky.

As long as corporations run western governments copyright law will continue to get longer and longer until it's effectively permanent

God, that was a glorious night to remember.

This, we need a new Klonoa made by someone else since Namco's clearly not doing anything with it

>If Star Wars was in the public domain then EVERY film company would be pumping out sequel after sequel...
Not necessarily. There'd definitely be more derivative works, some would be good and most would be shit, but it's unlikely that film companies would keep pushing Star Wars movies if demand went down. Maybe people would ignore the shit movies but still want to see Disney Star Wars, the "official" one.

But I would imagine interest in Star Wars overall goes down, which would incentivize Disney to take risks with a new IP because Star Wars is worth less.

Currently, with all their successful brands like Marvel and Star Wars, they have little incentive to take risks, so they just make Marvel and Star Wars. If those brands were worth less, they would make new stuff.

Your only argument here is that big companies would need to make new ideas, but everyone else is free to rip off those big companies ideas, which is fucking retarded.
You even backtrack yourself on all your points you make
>EVERYTHING IN EXISTENCE IS RIPPED OFF OF SOMEONE ELSES IDEA
>Okay but bros, if we opened up copyright laws then big film companies would take a risk with a new idea!
Fucking retard

What about canon? Sure, canon is only an idea, but it only exists upon the authority under the rights holder. If you force pokemon to relinquish the rights, then who determines the pokemon canon?
Oh sure, it's easy to SAY that the best pokemon will become canon. But I would argue that allowing multiple companies to fracture the story, you end up with multiple canons all in dispute. Some people agree on one, some people agree on the other. And since no canon exists with authority, then all canons are diminished.

It's essentially a "torn shirt", only one of the intellectual realm.

>knocks on your door

Attached: 25SECRET1-jumbo.png (509x578, 332K)

First of all, I'm not the same guy from before, dumbass.

>everyone else is free to rip off those big companies ideas, which is fucking retarded.
Of course that's retarded, because literally nobody is advocating for that.
Nobody is arguing for abolishing copyright law altogether. Literally nobody.
Your reading comprehension is shit. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Big companies would be forced to either compete with the flood of trash remakes/reboots, or make a new ip. And during their new ips copyright people would have THOUSANDS of popular established ips that have fallen out of copyright to rip off while they wait patiently to rip off the new ips once they fall out of copyright.
You cannot complain about big companies milking the same franchise dry, but then advocate for wanting hundreds of thousands of people to try to milk it even further

Mario and Zelda arent the most profitable ip, not even a company attack, but bud you have to read.

>then who determines the pokemon canon?

Gamefreak, obviously. This isn't that hard.

.....what?

Because market saturation would quickly kill interest in Mario games if everybody made them and only one of those Mario games would be made by Nintendo and be on Nintendo consoles. The company brand has power so your average consumer wouldn't be interested in a non-Nintendo Mario game. Your idea is stupid and even before copyright was invented a lack of new IP's wasn't a problem.

My solution is focus on making licensing less taboo.
>square enix wants to give a go at Pokémon.
>TPC lends them the license to use the IP, as well as any assets such as models, canon information, etc.
>SE can then make the Pokémon game as they see fit.
>profits are split fairly.
I used Square as an example, but an indie studio can be just as fine.

That wouldnt stop 100 Star Wars related things from being made. Even if Disney moved away from it, that would just incentivize every other company to jump on the ship faster in disney's vacuum. This reality is the worse of both worlds because you have Disney milking the shit out of every IP they have (which they will do anyway with or without copyright laws) AND you dont get any new stuff disney's competitors might want to make.

>If we just let copyright go there will just be shitloads of knockoffs!
The problem with this idea is that all ideas are essentially building off other ideas, and if you think they just come from the ether then you have never had an original thought in your head. Sure a lot of people will try to create literal shit, but if you have 1000 bad knockoffs chances are you will have a few good ones. If you have a studio make five only okay movies that is all you get.

But this is how it works for things like Shakespeare adaptations. It's a nonissue in practice.

Maybe in a nice fantasy world, but this is real life and theres no way companies would just sit and watch as every cashcow IP gets sucked up dry right before theit eyes

Shakespeare isnt a billion dollar multi-market IP

Because at this point in time no one is spending billions of dollars on shakespeare merchandise and movies/games retard.
There are already thousands of pokemon rip offs that get shut down by nintendo. There would be an endless amount if it was allowed

And NuWars isn't good.

Alright Disney bootlicker, we get it...

You really want 1000 fucking star wars for the chance to have a handful of good ones instead of a bunch of different IPs that can coexist?

>You cannot complain about big companies milking the same franchise dry, but then advocate for wanting hundreds of thousands of people to try to milk it even further
I'm not, and that's not really what would happen. Let me explain what I imagine would happen.

Let's use Star Wars as an example, and for the sake of argument let's just say the duration of Disney's ownership rights start now. Disney would own exclusive rights to the Star Wars universe for 20* years. They're the only ones that can make Star Wars movies and sell Star Wars merchandise.
And after those 20 years, anyone can sell or publish derivative works.

Derivative works are not just "copies."
They include complete reimaginings and alternate stories. The tone, style, stories, characters, and any other established rules of the Star Wars universe are no longer necessary. Some people's new Star Wars looks close to the original, some are totally unexpected. Not to mention you don't have to make a "Star Wars" movie at all. You can just feature elements of the Star Wars universe, portrayed however you see fit.

Basically, I expect more creativity than just soulless copies. Of course there will be some flagrant copycats, but honestly I don't think the demand will be there.
After 20 years of Disney Star Wars, I imagine people would be interested in seeing different perspectives on the universe.

I sort of already touched on this above.
The only thing I'd add is just because Disney's copyright on Star Wars runs out doesn't mean people would rather see the knockoffs. There could very well still be demand for the "official" Star Wars movies.

And anyway, after 20 years of exclusive rights on the Star Wars universe, Disney likely made enough money off the IP to have a massive headstart on funding for production and advertising.

Im not saying it is. But it does make billions of dollars

And most of them would be shovelware trash relegated to the dustbin of history.

>The children who grew up with A New Hope turned 41 this year.

um wtf? Are you stupid?

It's not an original post, it's pasta.
Searching up literally the first sentence that has nothing replaceable in it brings up the original source, which is a long one on Star Wars.
reddit.com/r/saltierthancrait/comments/9pnvz6/what_every_fan_of_star_wars_should_understand/

>Derivative works are not just "copies."
They include complete reimaginings and alternate stories. The tone, style, stories, characters, and any other established rules of the Star Wars universe are no longer necessary.
That begs the question: why not just make an original IP then?

And this only really help serve the people at the very top. Imagine creating something that only garners a niche following. Then in 20 years Disney swoops in and steals it completely because its free and in the public domain.

Your idea would be nice in a perfect world but its simply not how business operates...Sure I would love if a competent dev made a Pokemon game but at that point.... would it even be Pokemon anymore?

There is no point in making another Mario game if there's already a bunch of Mario games available for people to buy. Unless your product actually has something about it to distinguish it from the rest nobody is going to buy it. Let's say the copyright on Mario expires, meaning everybody can make Mario games. What will happen is that for a few years max every company shits out a Mario game, a couple do alright but most sell poorly because consumers don't have infinite attention or money so they have to choose. Those companies that made Mario games that did poorly will realize that this isn't worth pursuing anymore and will move on to something else, leaving only the companies that made good Mario games left to make more.

If this fantasy of your's was real then how come we don't see a billion new books of non-copyrighted IP's?

>The tone, style, stories, characters, and any other established rules of the Star Wars universe are no longer necessary.

So, the EU - which gave us some great Star Wars stories, some crap, some weird?

>Basically, I expect more creativity than just soulless copies
And this is exactly why you're a fucking idiot. It's not creative to take a preexisting franchise and simply put your own spin on it. For every "creative" reimagination of the series, there would be a thousand soulless lazy renditions such as
>star wars, but the gang goes through a wormhole and ends up in WW2
>star wars, but this time the Sith at the good guys!
>star wars, but I was too lazy to even put a spin on it so it's just a remake of the first one
The overwhelming majority of people remaking the series would be lazy uncreative fucks who are simply hoping to cash out on a beloved franchise.

>Released IPs to the public
>Indie market FLOODED with shit Marios, Zeldas, Pokemons, Halos, Animal Crossings, Splinter Cells, etc
No fucking thank you.

You'd be able to use him but it would only be his original cartoon design, not the redesigns made in newer cartoons. So anything made with him would look like he did in Epic Mickey.

So youd want to live in a world where every company attempts and fails to produce something from the most profitable IPs? Keep in mind this would apply not just to vidya; but movies, toys, music, books, merchandise.. youre
whole world would be nothing but Mario.... until everyone gets bored then jumps to the next thing. Everything would be Fortnite in today's age.

Also because the boom industry is not as big as film/video games

One negative would be that we'd get so much derivative shit of a single product/IP. Like the books and EU for Star Wars, except 10x more numerous and likely worse.

The problem is that people buy that shit regardless. That doesn't necessarily have to do with copyright law.

If you make a mediocre game and people buy it anyway, why would they bother making a better game? The same goes for every media. Disney won't improve Star Wars because you'll watch that shit anyway, etc. The first solution is to get people to stop giving these people money.

>And this only really help serve the people at the very top. Imagine creating something that only garners a niche following. Then in 20 years Disney swoops in and steals it completely because its free and in the public domain.
What's the alternative here? A truly great idea remains niche forever?
If you came up with something that was truly great and couldn't do anything with it for 20 years (obviously the exact duration can change but imo should be 50 at most) then I say it's better for everyone that other people get to work on it.

>Sure I would love if a competent dev made a Pokemon game but at that point.... would it even be Pokemon anymore?
Of course. They'd still be Pikachu and Charizard and Dragonite, just with different gameplay than 4 attacks in turn-based combat.

>For every "creative" reimagination of the series, there would be a thousand soulless lazy renditions
So what? There are already a thousand bad games and movies for every good one.
Easing the restrictions on copyright law would let us see cool, new perspectives on established properties.

I wouldn't mind because companies would quickly learn that it's not a successful strategy. It would also mean that the expiration date on these fads would be much quicker, so instead of getting a ton of Mario clones for a decade it would be more like a year at most, especially with how quickly the public consciousness moves in modern times. If it means someone can make a better Mario game than Nintendo then I'm all for it because here's the thing, if a game (or any other form of media) is shit, I can just ignore it like I already do.

You sound like one of those EGS shills that criticizes Steam for having too many shit games on it, as if you're literally incapable of ignoring them and their existence actively harms your experience.

>Easing the restrictions on copyright law would let us see cool, new perspectives on established properties.
This happens regardless. I don't know if you grew up in the NES or SNES era, but many of the games that people commonly think of as great were unheard of for many. There were also a fuckton of shitty fucking games. In time people discover the actually good games. Copyright law wouldn't change this.

It would be hard to ignore when its literally everywhere. The entire 'sci-fi' shelf would be nothing but star wars knock offs. The entire 'fantasy' genre just Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings. Why make anything new when you can just repurpose the old?

>So what? There are already a thousand bad games and movies for every good one.
>Easing the restrictions on copyright law would let us see cool, new perspectives on established properties.
We would see maybe 1 decent new movie versus 1000 shitty ones. Or people could stop being unimaginative and just make a movie based on a new ip or idea

Why should others have the right to my creativity?

Because nobody is going to buy YOUR "Lord of the Rings" when there's already 5 others on the shelf and none of them have the words "written by Tolkien" on them. Game of Thrones is actually a great example for loosening copyright since if it didn't exist maybe the fat fuck actually would have finished the series by now so he didn't get the last one sniped by someone else.

Stale pasta but this has already been done.

You have all the tools you need to create your own Pokemon game already, just look at vizzed. There's dozens of garbage Pokemon roms out there.

>>Easing the restrictions on copyright law would let us see cool, new perspectives on established properties.
>This happens regardless.
It doesn't, though. If you put out your own Pokemon game, it doesn't matter how innovative or good your gameplay is, the Pokemon Company will send you a cease and desist.
I was referring to perspectives of creators, not consumers.

There are also plenty of great old games that never got sequels. If their copyright expired, we could see people bring life back to the IP.

>Why should others have the right to my creativity?
This is a good question and gets to the core of copyright law.
Do other people have the right to your artistic works?
I think they should, eventually.

I think you definitely deserve some time to capitalize on your work (I would say 10 years is too short), but I also think there's more to be gained for everyone by allowing anyone the freedom to create derivative works instead of locking the rights away, even decades after you've died.

And no one is gonna buy my "brand new original magical fantasy adventure" when there are 20 LoTRs on the market

Why not?

pretty sure it'd be the opposite. if there were so many lotr games people would wanna see the thing that isn't lotr.

>This means that, by 2018, anyone could publish their own Pokemon
We have that with shitty chinese clones now
Original people with good ideas make original concepts
Stop trying to make money off other peoples ideas

Attached: 1562760364435.jpg (1000x1000, 186K)

>Do other people have the right to your artistic works?
>I think they should, eventually.
Not him but why the fuck can't they just make new shit, we'd be stuck with Dragon Quest spin-offs (no Pokemon, FF etc etc etc) if all JRPGs could just rip off copyrighted material

Its already been done yes, but with Digimon
>own unique IP, can legally make money off it
>unique take with own fans and ideas
Really fucking hard

>implying Digimon has anything to do with Pokemon
Great to see the average Yea Forums user still hasn't matured past the playground

>We have that with shitty chinese pokemon clone now
That's not a result of The Pokemon Company's rights expiring. That's an officially licensed game.

>Not him but why the fuck can't they just make new shit
You can, but it's just not the same.
A simple example is if I made a great Pokemon game with completely different mechanics, it wouldn't be the same game if all the Pokemon were replaced with brand new monsters.

Again, I'm not advocating for abolishing copyright law altogether. If you created Pokemon, you deserve to capitalize off it.
I'm just saying that current copyright law, where rights easily extend beyond 100 years, is far too restrictive. We would see much more creativity if it wasn't this draconian.

You already made this thread but I agree.

Because thats not how consumers work... it was even stated in above posts that creators would take liberties with old properties to make them feel 'new.' All it would be would be 'LoTR with a new coat of paint' and the masses would go wild...

>Because thats not how consumers work
What evidence do you have for that? Because that doesn't happen with any IP that isn't copyrighted right now. Even the most popular IP's nowadays still only have like 1 release a year maximum.

an entirely new thing that still uses those other ideas as a framework

>we would be seeing much more creativity if I didn't have to think for myself and just ripped off well known franchises
Being creative would be making your own fucking idea. Sure you can be influenced or draw inspiration from other works, but it's not fucking creative if you just take a already beloved franchise and just put a spin on it

>it's not fucking creative if you just take a already beloved franchise and just put a spin on it
Of course if you literally recreated a public domain movie frame for frame except with funny hats on the characters that would be retarded.
But entering the public domain offers many more opportunities for creativity than only little "spins" on beloved franchises.

What's your opinion on policy? Do you think IP rights should last forever?

>Doesn't realize the difference between doing this for fun and doing this as a career, for money.

Lot of work ahead of us educating the public.

Bad internet?

In 10 years this may pass and get signed by the President and history will be made. It will start here. Then it will grow.

We don't HAVE to live in a world with corporate control over our entire culture.

What if copyright was appointed, by a reputable third party such as some kind of government office, to someone after they proved they could do something worthwhile with the property
If you made a shitty Pokémon movie, you lose the rights to make Pokémon movies. If you make a shit Pokémon game, you lose the rights to make Pokémon games. But if you make GOOD shit, you get to continue to make good shit for as long as it’s good

unless you want THIS to happen to your favorite video game franchise, you better shut the fuck up about how copyright is totally bad for games and we should let everything go public domain.

Attached: 3b42cd57-439c-498b-b636-8074ae989450.jpg (400x600, 44K)

At least reduce the time it remains copyrighted. It's 95 years currently.

Ah yes the IRREPARABLE DAMAGE Sherlock Gnomes does to the Sherlock Holmes legacy

why? why exactly SHOULD every franchise be public domain in a shorter time frame, nothing is gained from it, you could argue that most of the time, public domain RUINS franchises more than helping them.

That sounds fucking awful. That's sounds even worse than the current situation. Now you can't do anything with works unless some retarded diversity hire government bureaucrat OK's it. I unironically want you to beat yourself for having such a retarded idea.

>a few russian trolls tricked Yea Forums into supporting someone who is against the interests of NEETs
>wow we are totally based!!

Do I have to point to the endless trashy mobile games that have shit all over their franchises?

Attached: i'm horny.jpg (220x220, 18K)

Why do you think anyone is entitled to make money off ideas? Should every car company have to pay money to the descendant of the guy who invented the wheel?

Fantastic thread.

Attached: 57310219_p0.jpg (1000x726, 807K)

It’s just an idea. Maybe not some retarded government goblin shack, maybe some kind of truly independent agency that somehow magically isn’t corrupt and shitty and bad and biased
I want shit like Pokémon Sword and Shield to be punishable. I want mediocrity like that to no longer be tolerated. I want people turning my favorite franchises into garbage to be heavily punished by some sort of system
That’s the ultimate end goal of this line of thinking. Punishment for mediocrity

>But if you make GOOD shit, you get to continue to make good shit for as long as it’s good
I dislike this because it's arbitrary. How would anyone evaluate "goodness?" If it's just sales or revenue, you're incentivizing maximizing sales or revenue, not quality.
What would separate an okay game from a good game? If you only make okay games, would you lose your rights? What about a game that's only kinda bad and not entirely shit?

I think fixed durations for copyright is much more fair. You have 20 or however many years to capitalize off your original work, then it enters the public domain. And the same rules apply to everyone else.

Then it would evolve into a genre, not just a franchise.

>someone who is against the interests of NEETs
and Hillary would be different how?

it's more the idea that we've lost all creativity and a public domain franchise is reduced to something like sherlock gnomes. copyright exists to allow the creators(or whoever owns the ip) to maintain an image for that property. Mickey Mouse is held on tightly to Disney, 1 because it makes money, but 2 because they want to keep a specific image with the mickey mouse character. A public domain Pokemon wouldn't lead to people competing to make the best pokemon game, the result would be people making as many pokemon games as possible and bigger companies making the most MARKETABLE and PROFITABLE pokemon game. If we use the Sherlock Holmes example, when he went public domain the result wasn't "everyone tried to make the best sherlock holmes interpretation" the result was "HOW CAN WE GET AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE USING THIS ESTABLISHED CHARACTER!!?!?!?!?!?!" which has led to shit like Sherlock Gnomes.

This is in a perfect vacuum where quality is quantifiable and the agency isn’t corrupt and biased and ineffective
It’s an idealized system

Who even gives a fuck about Mickey Mouse outside of Kingdom Hearts fans

I like the philosophy behind it but there's no way it could actually be implemented irl

Based mouse.

You're ridiculously cherrypicking.
You know there's other Sherlock Holmes media right? And there's plenty of low-quality cashgrab Mickey Mouse stuff?

Trump, of course.

Companies should be held accountable for making garbage just to make money
“Just ok” shouldn’t be the sweet spot

lots of people do. unlike most other mascots like Garfield and shit, Mickey is actually held near and dear to a lot of people despite how much greedy branding there is behind him.

how

Like who
The only time I ever see or hear about Mickey Mouse is in relation to Disney, usually through parodies because he’s the mascot
Nobody gives a fuck about Mickey Mouse cartoons or media or anything. Nobody cares about Mickey outside of his role as a mascot
Now, Donald on the other hand, he’s the real star

>Maybe not some retarded government goblin shack, maybe some kind of truly independent agency that somehow magically isn’t corrupt and shitty and bad and biased
No. Nobody should be allowed to prevent creative works from being made just because they don't like it. Censorship itself is already a cancerous enough issue.

>I want shit like Pokémon Sword and Shield to be punishable.
The punishment is it not being profitable. If you want good Pokemon games then you should just be pushing for looser copyright laws so other people have more freedom to take a crack at the concept.

At the bare minimum the IP rights should last the entire lifetime of the person who created it, and probably get passed down to their children.
There is ZERO reason that you should be allowed to profit off of someone elses idea. If you think that you're creative, then make your own IP instead of hoping to take a well known franchise and change some stuff

I don’t know
That’s the problem. Nobody knows. This isn’t a game, we can’t just tweak some numbers in the code until everything works as intended.

>If you want good Pokemon games then you should just be pushing for looser copyright laws so other people have more freedom to take a crack at the concept.
This would flood the market with hundreds of shitty pokemon games. If you think otherwise you're a drooling retard. We would get maybe one worthwhile game out of the hundreds of trash ones.

if mickey went public domain and the market got flooded with shit like Mickey Mouse porn and guro shit and cartoons of mickey mouse being a loudmouth cursing lunatic, people actually would freak out, they wouldn't be like "ehhh I don't care about mickey mouse anyway so this doesn't bother me"

I'd like to see Mario fan games go untouched and be encouraged by the freedom to make and release whatever they want. Fan creators can be more creative than Nintendo.

The shittiest, most low effort schlock is more rewarding to make than a passion project at the highest level because an established company will make more money by selling zero-effort garbage that costs pennies to make to drones than shit with actual effort put into it.
And protesting shitty business practices means less too. They have oceans of fans, you think they’ll miss a single customer?

>Wouldnt a lack of IP protection actually lead to less competition?
Fans would quickly decide which writer's version of Star Wars deserved to be called canonical, then other writers would have to collaborate or write side stories.

That kind of stuff has existed since the 20's.

nooooo but it's not fair that the creator/the company the creator worked for get to profit off of their own idea!!!!! I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF IT!!!!!!!!!

Court cases aren't the problem, the influence on people who wrote the law in the first place is. Copyright is a complete non-issue in the mainstream political debate so a corpo can buy themselves any billl they want by a "bipartisan" effort. What you need is at least one side of the murrican spectrum to argue against copyright.

I know the system is fucked because Capcom is still selling SFV at a profit while Fighting EX Layer is being created at a loss

and Disney attacks people who make shit like that. Disney is a bit more lax on porn and shit like that since it's typically free, but if people try to make money off of it or parade it as official, they go nuts, like how Walt got two animators blacklisted from the animation industry because they made a short animation of Mickey and Minnie having sex.

that's not because of copyright laws, that's just poor business decisions/lack of marketing on Arika's part.

You know that's bullshit. If you've browsed Yea Forums for even an hour you've seen lewd pictures of video game characters a fan did.

Who HASN'T seen Tracer kissing Widowmaker? Who HASN'T seen bowserette? none of this shit is canon yet it has tarnished the image.

This but unironically. 15 years is a great grace period for a creator to profit off a work, and after that the people should be able to use that idea however they want, and if it generates more money for more people that found inspiration in an idea, that's wonderful. I blame copyrights for destroying the common inheritance of man and for the decline in creativity and creative solidarity.

meanwhile two other masterpieces were made. The TV series, and the movie with Robert Downy jr.

>15 years is a great grace period for a creator to profit off a work, and after that the people should be able to use that idea however they want
>after that the people should be able to use that idea however they want
why

>I blame laws that prevent people from leeching off of established ips and force people to be original for the lack of creativity
you're just retarded

>We would get maybe one worthwhile game out of the hundreds of trash ones.
Sounds worth it to me. I can just play that one good one and ignore all the rest.

I still think it's a dangerous as fuck idea that the government should be allowed to determine what creative works can and can't be made. I think it's extremely immature that you want to stop people from making things just because they're bad. Newsflash, 90% of any form of media is bad.

This is interesting, and fuck both copyright and disney but this isn't really but what are you expecting to get posting this on Yea Forums?

Plus it's not like the original artist or inventor has to stop making money. He just has to keep up with new competition.

The issue is that Cuckcom can get away with making MvC: I and SFV and all the other recent shovelware they’ve put out and still be making a profit and having shills and drones eat out their metaphorical assholes while a company who is sacrificing money to make a better Fighting game that looks better than SFV and MvC:I combined is going mostly ignored
Talk about SOUL versus SOULLESS? This is why modern games have no “SOUL”. It costs too much money and doesn’t make enough

>he thinks the TV series is good
if you're gonna make a point, you should at least have good taste

Attached: 1556933995966.jpg (320x401, 37K)

>THIS
my favourite video game franchise becoming a cultural point of reference for any future work in the genre, and some outside of it?

that sounds pretty awesome bruh

Because they were inspired by it and it could fuel more art. Similar to how Chinese mythology is based on a conglomerate of specific stories and legends, and anyone can make art based on that. Imagine if a handful of companies owned mythology.

This isn't an argument.

Exactly. Keep updating the work and each update gets their own 15 years.

>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.

They immediately counter this by screeching "BUT IF WE CAN'T MAKE GUARANTEED MONEY IN PERPETUITY WHY WOULD WE DEVELOP ANYTHING?!"

there's already hundreds of shitty pokemon games BECAUSE there's no profit motive, they were all done on someones spare time.
Imagine a real studio like Bethesda or Rockstar working on one? Nintendo would actually have to make something better, or do another risk .

Because inspiration would strike.

Funny how copyright laws were made to aid in the betterment of arts and sciences but companies just use them to sit on their dragon’s hoard of IPs and let them rot and stagnate

better healthcare, less crime, and more stable economy (trump already set his recession into motion)

Yes, but big money and their bootlickers are buffoons, or disingenuous sacks of shit.

Please don’t turn this into a /pol/ thread

that's not the company's fault, it's unironically everyone else's fault for not making new ideas and not giving new ideas a chance whenever they come out.

>toy story 5
Haha user you know that’s coming

t. Company
Always thinking with your wallet, aren’t you

New ideas are inspired by old ideas. The creative cycle requires taking inspiration from others.

I think it's big companies faults for collectively deciding that making every penny it's possible to make is more important than anything else.

why not? why would you prevent people from using ideas in the first place?
the only reason copyright started at all is to prevent authors from getting shafted by publishers who simply wouldn't need to pay out after printing and selling a million copies if it wasn't for copyright
everything else around it you consider "normal" is just late addition by said publishers to help them actually shaft people because they can lobby the american senate and actual authors can't

Capcom should no longer have control of Mega Man because they clearly don’t have any new ideas
In fact, give every franchise that’s just sitting around collecting dust to someone else. They aren’t using them, so why have them?

Why should someone who worked hard on a project and after years of hard work reap the benefits of his creation only to have some autist 14 years later make some gay erp fan game with his characters and brand.

People just love the idea of getting things for free. Make your own interesting characters, oh wait you can’t.

Attached: 7234B4B4-C679-45DD-B31C-8E8CE612F33C.jpg (187x183, 19K)

Companies have spend lots of money over the years to convince consumers that only their shit is worth buying. They have a vested interest in turning consumers into brainwashed fanboys. Just look at this fucking board.

Because half of mythology is fanfiction of fanfiction of fanfiction. The only reason this stopped is because big money'd interests.

of course new ideas will be inspired by old ideas, but what makes the new ideas so great are when they take those ideas in new directions that actually make it better, like Terraria from Minecraft or any RPG from Dragon Quest/Wizardry

>why not? why would you prevent people from using ideas in the first place?
because the "originator" of the work deserves to profit off it.
this raised interesting points though

>Downy Jr. Holmes
>A masterpiece
Are you fucking for real?

Because freedom is good.

>implying the majority of people who worked at a project still benefits from it 14 years later

Bitch, you don't profit from your job from more than a month

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

still doesn't mean that it's justified for some random autistic loser to make a gay erp game with those characters 14 years later.

awareness. this is just a start. I want to see how aware people are of this and what dumbass arguments are against it and what fears people will have on it.

There will be a normie-friendly video similar to the solar roadways crap with catchy music and shit but will be done professionally with an actual 6-figure budget coming out by next year.

It doesn't have that gay. It could be a guy who actually worked in the original project. Those are cucked out too

Is it really freedom when a bigger fish can just steal your ideas for free and mass market better than you could ever imagine.

Yes they do because they have stock in their product or service. That is assuming it becomes widely successful; if not then it was a bad idea.

You're right, and you should be free to own your ideas

>that's not the company's fault, it's unironically everyone else's fault for not making new ideas
"New ideas" doesn't strictly apply to characters and stories. When it comes to characters, people want what they're familiar with, and they want the stories they've already experienced to be expanded upon. Old ideas are better than new ideas when it comes to characters. That's why the guy who mentioned mythology is making a good point. Imagine if Virgil couldn't have written the Iliad because the copyright to those characters belonged to some Greek company. Or if Milton couldn't have written Paradise Lost because biblical characters were considered the IP of the Church. This is why people prefer a slightly different Pepe or Wojak rather than an entirely new character for every new expression. The reason that Pepe and Wojak became so popular is because everyone on the Internet can do what they want with them, and the funniest ones enter wide circulation. The point the OP is making is that widely loved and culturally significant characters and stories shouldn't be shackled to one creatively stagnating company.

Why isn't it? why is it better for some guy who never had any involvement buy owns the rights to profit from it ad-infinitum while making sure that only they can make anything with this brand and sell it?

>muh russian trolls
shut up, glowie

No, they don't. Ask any programmer of old games

Why is it not justified? If someone can think it they should do it. Even if it's something as insignificant as a homoerotic novel that will probably never be published, it should still be allowed to be made. Maybe it will also be a work of art from a 20-year-old game developer that found substance in the work that the original creator never noticed or capitalized on, and makes a masterpiece.

The only ironic thing about current copyright laws is that Disney are essentially cockblocking themselves because characters are no longer entering the public domain.

>Virgil couldn't have written the Iliad
Aeneid*

It's a dumb dangerous idea that you think people should be able to openly steal and rip off ideas from others because you're simply too dumb and bitter to make your own successful franchise and want to piggy back off of others success.
>B-B-BUT IT INSPIRED ME TO MAKE A NEW PRODUCT!
Then make that NEW product. You can even openly say pokemon inspired you, just don't blatantly rip it off and copy the game or it's properties.
>imagine if all the AAA studios instead of having to come up with new ideas just ripped each other off for decades
Wowie that's a good idea, retard

I don't know, I don't see the real beneifit of letting things enter the public domain, most of what people make will be garbage trying to piggybank off the IP.

Just make your own shit man.

Attached: illust_75810227_20190719_141140.jpg (1049x1865, 1.27M)

After 15 years, sure.

Why shouldn’t people have to make more shit instead of guarding their own ideas so selfishly

you can just make something similar

If some random guy can make a game that's able to compete with the AAA company that's been making those games for 15 years, then yeah that guy deserves every fucking bit of it.

Why should people be allowed to selfishly rip off other actual creative ideas rather than make their own shit?

You can, but it's just not the same.
A simple example is if I made a great Pokemon game with better but completely different mechanics, it wouldn't be the same game if all the Pokemon were replaced with brand new monsters.

People do realise non-copyright shit exists right? Sherlock, Agatha Christie, Shakespeare, Alice, Brothers Grimm.

People don't make a billion of films and works around stuff already in the Public Domain. Sure there is alot but we're not seeing 100 Alice in Wonderland movies this year. Why would it be different with Pokemon or Star Wars?

Shit like Gaia and Festival of Champions are already way better than the crap official Pokemon shit. Public domain that franchise already

Attached: foc.jpg (640x452, 81K)

>he deserves every fucking bit of it
If he makes his own IP. If he rips off an existing one he deserves absolutely nothing, and is too retarded to understand why ripping off existing IPs isn't allowed

Better question is: Why should they? If you make one successful IP, you're already in a small minority of people.
>Selfishly
How ironic when you're currently arguing to gain something for nothing.

Just make your own shit man.

Attached: tongue.jpg (700x800, 64K)

Because knowledge is a shared commodity of the entire human race and the freedom to create from our common societal and cultural pool is an important one that's been eroded so a small group of people can make lots of money.

Guy 1 thinks of a idea. It’s stick rock where you hit a rock with a stick.

Guy 2 sees this. He owns a widely successful business running rock throw. A game where you throw rocks.

He sees how successful stick rock could be. With his vast wealth from rock throw he runs a smear campaign on stick rock so nobody will buy it.

Nobody buys it and the protection fade away after 14 years. Guy 1 is a sad panda.

Now Guy 2 revived stick rock and market it as something new. He doesn’t have to even mention Guy 1 or pay him. Guy 2 is even now more wealthy while Guy 1 is shambles.

Guy 1 commits sudoku

>well yeah I could make a great pokemon game with completely different mechanics!
>"Why don't you just make a new game then with brand new monsters?"
>Well no one would buy it if it wasn't pokemon
Funny how you're admitting that you're simply trying to piggyback off of other peoples success and think no one would buy a new game

>Shakespeare Company doesn't allow derivative works or non-authorized performances. You cannot create new works based on Shakespeare Company's copyrighted content.

That isn't a good enough reason.

See I agree with this BUT at the same time I still believe it's important for creators to capitalize off their original works.
Copyright law is important but currently when rights last 100+ years that's way too fucking long.

Why should people be allowed to legally tell you to fuck off for doing a better job than them
Why should Nintendo be able to shut down AM2R when the last Metroid game they made at that point was a spin-off and the last main-line one they had made was absolute garbage
Why should people own intangible ideas? Why do we allow tyranny over our creative spirit for the sake of the rich and successful? Why do they need a break?

>dude thinking is so hard, just let me steal your idea haha
>"No, fuck off retard"
>THIS WOULDN'T HAPPEN UNDER COMMUNISM, EVERYTHING SHOULD BE FREE
Literally just think of your own idea dipshit

>Then make that NEW product. You can even openly say pokemon inspired you, just don't blatantly rip it off and copy the game or it's properties.
>You can make a game like Pokemon but just don't make it like Pokemon
I don't get it. Patents only last 20 years, why should copyright be allowed to last more than a century? If you want the free expression of new ideas then you have to let people be able to use old ideas without worry of being financially ruined.

Yes I too was never told "no" by my parents while growing up.
I believe everything is owed to me.

this whole pasta originated from the fact that people are tired of blatant cashgrabs, but public domain laws changing would lead to even MORE blatant cashgrabs, OP didn't think this through at all. If some rando was told they were legally allowed to sell their own pokemon game, they aren't going to try to make the best pokemon game ever, 9 times out of 10 they will make something worse than sword and shield so they can get their money quickly and leave. what should really be changed is how much control investors have over companies, they're the ones who tell companies to rush out shitty products to make a quick buck. Nintendo delayed animal crossing and prime 4 so they can make the games better? investors got pissed off because that meant they wouldn't get their money as soon as they were supposed to, THIS is what is ruining ips, the quest for investors to make as much money as possible as soon as possible, they're the ones who force cashgrabs, not the actual ip holders.

Attached: example-24846.jpg (1024x1024, 61K)

Your question is actually: Why should we? And allow me to answer your question with more questions. Is it good for corporations to own ideas for over a century? Is it bad for other people to take inspiration from other ideas and retell stories in a new way?

Because if you create something, it belongs to you. It doesn't matter if someone else can do a better job than you, it's your idea and you own it.
>why should people own intangible ideas
Because it encourages you to actually think of your own fucking ideas instead of just stealing from others

>our freedom as a species and the continuation of the single most natural form of storytelling that has ever existed isn't a good enough reason to fuck off a small number of investors.

14 years is a long fucking time.

I'd argue that you're mostly denying the basic history of humanity, we cling to established characters, we love that shit. We've been talking about Hercules for thousands of fucking years. The ability to cordon off sections of that is a selfish and ultimately greedy and unnatural act.

Should I make my own language in order to speak? Engineer my own original plants to create my own original air to breathe? Concoct my own new brands of foods in order to eat? Produce my own land in order to walk and live on?

>Why do we allow tyranny over our creative spirit for the sake of the rich and successful?
It's not your creativity spirit, you're mimicking another person's, you mook.

I never said no one would buy it, I only said it'd be a completely different game.

because those properties aren't the literal biggest media franchise on earth that could make billions of dollars without even trying.

Cheap blatent cashgrabs would be outweighed by companies using their financial clout to create new things that they had 14 year exclusion on. Those 14 years of exclusive marketing and production would be valuable, and the companies could still continue to make those things. While having the ability to say "from the ORIGINAL CREATORS"

>like bethesda or rockstar
you have terrible taste but maybe a world with 15 year copyrights would have them hiring on merit too if they didn't just have TES to live off of forever

>our freedom as a species and the continuation of the single most natural form of storytelling that has ever existed isn't a good enough reason to fuck off a small number of investors.
You're still free to make your own stories.
If you want to or have to.

You didn’t create that video game, you assembled it from code. And what about companies that own the rights to a series despite not employing or no longer employing a creator? They didn’t create those things, what right do they really have to them?

If the idea of making a game similar to pokemon without actually stealing from pokemon is too hard for you to understand, that's your problem.
>if you want the free expression of new ideas you have to let me steal your popular ideas with no repercussions
JUST. MAKE. YOUR. OWN. IDEA. If you honestly think you cannot come up with a new idea without completely stealing from another property, you are unironically a brainlet

>over our creative spirit
If you had a creative spirit you wouldn't need to use existing IPs now, would you?

you're retarded and are grossly misinterpreting the point this user is making with this exaggeration

Well if I don’t want to or have to create my own original ideas, why should I then?

If the world had worked like it does now back in ancient greece no mythology you know today would exist. The people that retold the tales but with a different spin would never have done it, the most popular ones would never have been collected and turned into the classics we know. King Arthur would be a footnote in some Welsh mythology textbook somewhere.

>there is no such thing as a creative derivative work

Attached: 1540650507611.png (645x729, 113K)

You guys do realize that hardly ANYONE knew who the fuck Black Panther, Captain Marvel, the Defenders or Punisher were until they got their movies/shows, right? Yeah BP and CM were pandering, and BP was mediocre while CM down right sucked, but the point is that Disney took a risk putting so much money into characters that normies didn’t know. Hell I would bet my soul that most people didn’t know the Punisher skull even came from a comic character and thought it was just some dudebro military shit.

There is no such thing as an original idea

good luck to you then.
In that case I only have the basest awareness of this I only knew there was one extension I think more recently and I knew of the name of the DCMA but that's about it

If someone makes an idea, they own it. Cry more about it retard.
>greedy and unnatural
Human beings are greedy by fucking definition. Here you are whining on a video game board that you want to selfishly steal other peoples ideas. Newsflash retard, wanting to take what isn't yours is an act of greed
Then why not make that completely different game?
>And what about companies that own the rights to a series despite not employing or no longer employing a creator? They didn’t create those things, what right do they really have to them?
The original creator of the game signed the rights to them dipshit

>Why should we?
Because it's immoral to take from someone just because you want it.
>Is it good for corporations to own ideas for over a century?
Depends, sometimes yes, sometimes no.
> Is it bad for other people to take inspiration from other ideas and retell stories in a new way?
You're free to take inspiration from anything, but plucking Pikachu from Pokemon and putting him in your game isn't "inspiration" it's just copy/pasting.

Just make your own shit man.

Attached: thinkingg.jpg (2477x2480, 712K)

People don't "make" ideas, they just come. When we have them, we should commit to them. Whether they're based on something in life, or based on something in another person's idea. This is a natural creative process. Telling people they're not allowed to be creative regarding another person's idea is unnatural.

Why the fuck do you retards want to walk into a store and see 59 different versions of Pokémon on the shelves. just write your own fucking story and make a interesting game.

Just think about the Steam Greenlight. Now imagine if every autist on there made some Final Fantasy or Star Wars game. No I don’t want that. I want more quality control not a load of rubbish.

Attached: 3625E9B2-2A66-40B7-8718-DAD8183525E7.jpg (550x482, 41K)

Citation needed.

You can’t “give away” an idea
It’s a thought in your head, a chemical reaction in your brain
You might as well sell a second of your life

If you don't want to then no you shouldn't.

>Or maybe you could try being creative
The problem with that argument is that with current copyright law it's significantly harder to get funded and picked up with a new creative idea.

Which is the mega corp most likely going to invest in and take a chance on?
1. A brand new IP
2. Star Wars 14

Statistically, some of those knock offs would be better than the originals
So yes

>Because it's immoral to take from someone just because you want it.
Creating your own work isn't taking anything from anyone, it's only contributing more. Even a derivative work based on someone else's work isn't theft.
>Depends, sometimes yes, sometimes no.
When is it good for corporations to own ideas?
>You're free to take inspiration from anything, but plucking Pikachu from Pokemon and putting him in your game isn't "inspiration" it's just copy/pasting.
This is a misrepresentation of the argument.
>Just make your own shit man.
This is an ad hominem.

CAUSE THE ONLY REASON I'M NOT A SUCESSFUL GAME DESIGNER IS CAUSE I CANT USE PIKACHU IN MY GAME

SELFISH FUCKING NINTENDO HOLDING MY LIFE BACK BECAUSE THEY WONT FUCKING GIVE ME PIKACHU AAAAAAAAAAAAA

Don't need funding to publish a novel in 2019, dipshit.

Almost everything we today consider king arthur comes from French fanfiction.

>If someone makes an idea, they own it. Cry more about it retard.

You have the exclusive rights to make money off it for 14 years, then you have the right to keep making money off it if you want to keep working with that thing. You also have a significant advantage by being the original.

>write your idea down
>sell it someone more financially stable than you
>he can start a business with your idea while you instant monetary value
>you are both taking risk and both win

Ok.
Oh but wait. I CAN’T because Rich Moneybags over there had an idea that’s similar enough to mine that he can pay his stable of lawyers to destroy my entire livelihood.

This is classic copyfraud, museums try pull this shit all the time but it's not legal. Shakespeare company do not own the legal rights to Shakespeare. It's public domain and has been for hundreds of years.

You can by all means be creative with someone elses idea. What's uncreative is wanting to steal that idea and add another thing to it.
You can be inspired by star wars and make your own story about an intergalatic war. However you cannot just steal star wars and it's characters and say that they're fighting under the ocean and Luke loses both hands this time and has to learn how to swim without hands and claim it's an original idea.
If you want to steal an idea, stick to fanfiction. If you want to sell your idea, then make your own IP

there are good arguments in favor of copyright law
try using them instead of embarrassing yourself by misunderstanding all of the opposing arguments

I know you're acting like a retard on purpose, but people sell ideas every single day.

You sold him a paper with ink on it.
There’s nothing quantifiable or qualitative in an idea that can be used to own it or have it. What you did what use a mutually agreed upon societal construct in order to outsource your idea to someone else

>However you cannot just steal star wars and it's characters and say that they're fighting under the ocean and Luke loses both hands this time and has to learn how to swim without hands and claim it's an original idea.
>If you want to steal an idea, stick to fanfiction. If you want to sell your idea, then make your own IP

You could for the vast majority of human history.

>Creating your own work isn't taking anything from anyone
If it's your own then you don't have to worry about copyright.
>When is it good for corporations to own ideas?
Example of good: Nintendo with Mario
Example of bad: EA with Dead Space
>This is a misrepresentation of the argument.
Then enlighten me.
>This is an ad hominem.
You don't know when an ad hominem is.
I addressed your arguments, dipshit, me tossing on something that hurts your feelings doesn't make it an AH, stop embarrassing yourself.

Attached: lold.jpg (400x400, 33K)

They sell the legal rights to ideas
Which are constructed and not real
They only have meaning because we agree to pretend they do

This is arguing in poor faith. What if I want to completely retell Star Wars in a new medium, from a perspective different from the originals? That's exactly what Disney did with classic fairy tails. It should be no different for modern stories.

>implying I give a fuck about your autism debate with commies

>You have the exclusive rights to make money off it for 14 years
That's what commies like you wish would happen. They own that idea for the entire copyright period, and no amount of whining will ever change that.
Why do you think you deserve to steal someone elses idea just because "it's been so long!".
You aren't creative if you think you need to steal in order to make a good product

>Example of good: Nintendo with Mario
>implying the best mario shit isn't romhacks.

You’re so autistic

This is the exact talk of someone who invests in Bitcoin.

No reason to be needlessly hostile. Explain to me how the average creative novelist goes from writing a book to making a AAA movie without the funding of a 3rd party.

assuming Trademarks still exist these would inherently not be POKEMON (tm) and the Pokemon company (and any other major media company) would just attempt to trademark any design they have and at least some portion of the most popular or all of them would achieve trademark status.

>I want more quality control not a load of rubbish.
read: I am literally incapable of using my brain to be selective so someone else should do it for me. If something is shit then just ignore it. There's tons of shitty books, games, movies etc released every day but you don't hear about them because they're shit. It hurts nobody by allowing these things to exist.

People that make bad things involving things I like shouldn’t get to
People who make things I enjoy about things I enjoy should make money and continue to do so until it’s no longer enjoyable
Good things should be made, not bad things
People making bad things should be stopped

Oh so it's not about being creative but the money itself for a high budget?
Goal post shift, and pathetic at that.

Why do you think this is about a single person and not society as a whole?

I'm really interested why you focus on a single person so much, it's always "you want to steal" rather than "you want this to be freely accessible to everyone"

Romhacks wouldn't exist without Nintendo to begin with, dummy.

>back then we didn't have copyright laws with old stories, we should go back to that!
>whoa, owning slaves back then was fucked up, we should never go back to that!
Times change, whether you like it or not. Want to tell your own story? Make your own characters and setting

Society is a construct
No one can own your thoughts
Your mind is your kingdom, let no one else rule over it
You are a sheep, but you choose to live in the pasture

This. Snow White never should have been retold in any way.

ITT people who don’t know what over saturation is

>What's uncreative is wanting to steal that idea and add another thing to it.
Firstly, derivative works aren't inherently uncreative. Just because some part of your work existed before doesn't invalidate the creativity behind all the other parts of your work.
Secondly, if copyright law was fair (not 120 years) then creating derivative works of a property in the public domain wouldn't be "stealing."

>comparing the free exchange of ideas and stories to slavery
Go back to twitter, shill.

Because it means society as a whole gets a greenlight to steal from other popular ideas rather than come up with their own ideas.
>freely accessible to everyone
It already is freely accessible to everyone to play/watch and talk about. Wanting it to be accessible to everyone, and wanting everyone to be able to make a profit off of it are two entirely different things

The great video game crash is directly responsible for Nintendo’s success.
Without oversaturation you wouldn’t have Mario, Zelda, Pokémon, the PlayStation, or a shitton of other good things

>comparing humans having more freedom to humans having less freedom as if they can only ever be balanced in some way.

congratulations
we're all very proud of you for being too stupid to understand anything being discussed here

>and wanting everyone to be able to make a profit off of it are two entirely different things

Why? if you can come up with something interesting with it that people want, why is that so ridiculous that you could earn a living from it? why does the guy who moneyhats the licence have a right to it over a creative who wants to make something good?

You keep saying steal, but it's not stealing, it's FREEDOM.

>it's not fair because I don't like it
And that's where we disagree. I see absolutely no reason that anyone but the original creator/company should be allowed to profit off of someone elses idea/product, outside of them selling or licensing the product

Romhacks wouldn't exist if copyright law was always enforced like you want it to be.

we built all this we can tear it down at any time
This world was built by human hands and human hands can tear it down
If there’s one thing we can accomplish together, it’s destroying each other
Never forget that we can all end all we see whenever we want if we try
Never forget the human’s potential for destruction

I'm pretty sure if you counted up the profits of everything Shakespeare it would be over a billion dollar's.

>It's FREEDOM to take from others so I can make money
Why are you so terrified of having to sit down and think of a game others would buy? Is it because deep down you know that you're an unoriginal hack who could never make a decent product without ripping someone else off?

copyright IS modern slavery

>Why shouldn’t people have to make more shit instead of guarding their own ideas
Why not do both like everyone is currently doing?
>selfishly
Let's be honest, you just want to benefit from someone else's hard work.

>it's not fair because I don't like it
Plenty of people here have clearly explained multiple times why modern copyright law is unfair.
If you're incapable of understanding the reasons given then that's on you.

Hmmmmmmm

Attached: EB3EE75E-4CD9-4802-B28B-EED2445CD4AC.jpg (750x750, 474K)

Who is being taken from? There's no taking, they still have it as well. More people just have access to it as an avenue after 14 years.

>Goal post shift

>Which is the mega corp most likely going to invest in
My argument from the very start was new creative ideas being picked up by the mainstream. Did you not read my post all the way through? I don't think you know how to have a civilized debate, you will never change someone's mind through insults.

Attached: 1558159072176.png (500x472, 223K)

Neither would Mario games past the year 2000

Which doesn't mean using an IP that belongs to someone else you dumbass.

Why wouldn't they? do you just think no one would buy a mario game from the original creator any more?

If someone thinks they can make a game that’s better than a multi-million dollar company’s using the same IP, why shouldn’t they get to try

unironically, explain why you can't just make your own idea? if you claim you're creative enough to use these ips better than the original creators, you should be creative enough to create your own idea. it's not like the character designs and names are what prevent you from making something great

Attached: gg15o7nbkkh21.jpg (510x594, 25K)

I wonder what the Bernie fags who want free everything think of this? It's a socialist's dream legislation. Redistribute Disneys "safe" investments back to the people. Now your average artist can make something related to star wars and it would be a safe bet, it would be easier to make money off of it. That's the point. You transfer the safety/low risk back to the people.

Conservative fags will want it because it just restores laws back to the original constitution law, which stated 15 years. This is what the original framers intended.

Attached: 1547790983651.jpg (640x960, 129K)

>an IP that belongs to someone else
What's the difference between an IP that belongs to someone else and a work in the public domain?

>why shouldn’t they get to try
They can, all they need to do is make different characters.

>I don't want creative access to modern ideas and stories, I want everything to be hoarded away by corporations long after the original creators no longer need exclusivity to turn a profit!
Epic.

No company would bother with an IP that has baggage like that. You'd see a cycle of major IP pushes every 15 years

OH NO BROS INDEPENDENT DEVELOPERS ARE MAKING MONEY OFF THE IDEA THAT WE CREATED WITH OUR MARKETING TEAM’S MINDS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF MAKING MONEY
>IT’S OK WE CAN USE THE LAW TO PREVENT OTHER PEOPLE FROM USING OUR IDEAS TO MAKE SOMETHING ENJOYABLE
GOD BLESS AMERICA

No thanks, I prefer copyright to last for at least 50 years. Let time pass.

Are you retarded? Think about what public domain means.

Why do you keep avatarfagging with anime girls? You do realize that you are literally infringing on someone's copyright by doing so right?

i dont care youre are a baby fat baby

It's not about the ability, it never has been. It's about our collective, societal, cultural and historical tendency and desire to put our own spin on things that we know. The creative freedom to do that while ensuring the person who made it can get their dues for doing so while also ensuring the richness of our species literary history continues rather than degrading into a series of moneyhat sinks that are designed solely around maximising revenues.

Why do you think fanfiction is so popular? people want that shit.

...

>all they need to do is jeopardize their original vision

Why should they have to make new characters? If the game is better, they deserve to make it with the characters from the series they want to depict. And if not, the company will still make more money off of its games

>I don't want creative access to modern ideas and stories
As opposed to
>I don't have the ability to make my own stories that can compete with bigger franchises, I want everything to be free so I can steal them for my own benefit just like Disney!

>they deserve
No, they don't deserve shit if they can't make anything on their own.

Imagine if someone copyrighted the wheel. Or walking. Or the standard story structure (rising action, climax, etc). Or breathing. Or religion. Or the idea of music. Or growing and planting crops.

28 years is the sweet spot.

Attached: 1507084094073.jpg (656x480, 45K)

You'd see, imo at least, a big cycle of pushes coupled with continuations of the really successful ones. People would still buy Mario from Nintendo. But franchises wouldn't get money shoved into them constantly because of brand recognition when they aren't doing well for the original company.

If you can't put 2 and 2 together I'll do it for you.

The ONLY difference between an IP that belongs to someone else and a work in the public domain is the law.
This entire thread is about how current copyright law is unfair, you fucking idiot.

IPs that you would say "belong" to someone else wouldn't if copyright laws were sane and didn't last 150 fucking years.
That's why you're a fucking retard.

>be developer
>create dream project
>let franchise rest since you feel you've done all you set out to do and end it on a good note
>14 years pass
>some jack off who thinks he's hot shit makes a shitty sequel and advertises it to be the next big chapter
>can't stop it since copyright laws aren't there to protect your ip anymore
>your passion project is forever ruined because some idiot felt he was entitled to make an unnecessary new entry

Attached: 1445808711394.jpg (250x290, 28K)

I honestly think creative copyright should last the lifetime of the person who filed it + 1 year. Requiring at least 1 new entry every decade.

Attached: 1557890635153.jpg (480x486, 35K)

So, people only deserve to use the original creations they make.
So I’m assuming you created the internet and the device you are currently using to communicate with me, as well as the English language, the pictograms you are currently reading my words in, and so forth?

>Hey guys I wrote king arthur 2!
>Fuck off idiot.

This is what happens already, why would it be any different?

>he thinks sherlock gnomes singehandedly ruins the original sherlock holmes

Attached: 1562745152731.jpg (499x499, 19K)

imagine being so retarded that your argument against copyright laws is "what if someone copyrighted breathing????"

>but public domain laws changing would lead to even MORE blatant cashgrabs
We've seen historically that it doesn't. What we've seen is people incorporating aspects of the property into their own work. How many straight rip offs of Call of Cthulhu do you see being made oppose to just using the general idea and mythos in their own original work?

>>your passion project is forever ruined because some idiot felt he was entitled to make an unnecessary new entry
Literally how is it ruined? You don't even have to acknowledge it exists. You can publicly trash him and say you don't approve of it and that nobody should buy his crap.

That still happens with copyright law
Have you not seen all the reboots, series revivals, and other similar things that have been happening? Ever heard of DmC? Ever heard of Netflix adaptations of other works? I could go on
And it doesn’t delete the original works from existence

Good lord, you don't understand a thing do you. Especially since patents and copyrights are two entirely different things.

>I'll argue like a retard, that will show him!
You can only profit directly from things you make yourself retard

People can’t own ideas, retard

>We've seen historically that it doesn't
Tell that to Disney.

>>your passion project is forever ruined
How is it ruined? You can still continue your project, once people see it's by the original creator they'll disregard all the pretenders and jump on board the canon.

you have no argument and are just exaggerating everything to insane degrees in hopes that it might help your case when it doesn't.

So what you’re saying is that you don’t have an argument against mine
My argument being that people cannot, and should not own ideas.

He's been at this for years now. Ironically he could have made a completely original game in the time ha was whining.

>people haven't profited from the English language
>people haven't profited from the internet
>people haven't profited from making image files

>So what you’re saying is that you don’t have an argument against mine
No. They're saying you don't have an argument at all.

I like how no one ever had a counter argument to this any time I ever see it.

>>people
Key word there kiddo

telling someone to design their own original character instead of banking off of pikachu is not even at all comparable to "just make the internet bro"

Hey, they can point to legal minutia designed to protect corporate profits!

Just don't ask for a philosophical argument.

what's the difference

Really? Because those people almost certainly aren’t only using their own creations. They aren’t practicing what they are preaching. Their actions subvert their words.
Ideas belong to humanity as a whole. No man has exclusive right to a thought or way of thinking, a way of living or a way of acting.

people who didn't have the idea

And yet, the internet started out with some person in the Air Force telling some workers to “just make the internet/GPS system/whatever bro”
Of course, they didn’t call it the internet at the time, but the point still stands

>your passion project is forever ruined because some idiot felt he was entitled to make an unnecessary new entry
If your passion project is forever ruined by some random jagoff making something without your input in the matter then I'd seriously question the intelligence of the people consuming the content and/or the original creator for thinking their original work is ruined somehow in the first place.

>BAWWWWW I'm entitled to your work because I'm not happy about the direction you've taken it in and I'm too much of a lazy cunt to create something original

Dumb faggots acting as if Disney forced people to sell their IPs to them.

Attached: 1559174328703.gif (480x270, 1.73M)

>without the perversion of copyright
The single most liberal/communist string of words i've ever read in my life

If someone can do better, let them do better
Life should be a meritocracy

A more appropriate comparison would be if you asked him if he was using an internet browser that he created instead of something like Google Chrome or Internet Explorer.

>Ideas belong to humanity as a whole
They don't, especially if they weren't created with the intent of benefiting mankind. That's why patents exist separately from copyright.

Regardless of a that nothing would be stopping you from making something in the same genre using your own ideas

Just because your mom was passed around like a peace pipe at woodstock, doesn't mean we all want to share

Copyright; as it is; weakens an essential part of capitalism: the competition
If there were 30 companies all competing to make the best Pokémon game you bet your ass Pokémon would be better than it is

pokégnomes

>If someone can do better, let them do better
Yeah and nothing is stopping them from doing so.

Why should I have to make Drake Journey instead of Dragon Quest, huh?
Why should I have to make a game starring Marty O. Instead of Mario? The better game will sell more, and I know I can’t outdo any of those big strong companies, so what threat am I?

or you could make your own ip that proves that the idea can be done better.

Oh but there is
A little four letter term

Attached: 811BCADE-DCAF-48FE-83D4-E74B78693AFE.jpg (660x330, 16K)

Pathetic.

>Copyright; as it is; weakens an essential part of capitalism: the competition
BZZT wrong.
There's absolutely nothing stopping competitors from making their own monster tamers. In fact pokemon wasn't the first.

no it wouldn't, the "competition" would be decided by which company can market it better, not who can make the better game. EA makes more money than most game developers combined, not because they make the best games ever made, but because they know how to market their games better than everyone else.

Why should I sacrifice my artistic vision
It’s not like two people aren’t allowed to paint the same bridge

DMCA isn't an issue if you just make an original ip that is based around the IDEA of pokemon while still using completely original character designs and names

Yes user and that term is "work".

Not
An
Argument

if you seriously think being told "don't use someone else's character designs" ruins your artistic vision, maybe you didn't have any to begin with

But then it’s completely different from what I want to make. I want to make a good Pokémon game. Not something “like” Pokémon. I want to make the Pokémon game I’ve always wanted, with all my favorite Pokémon as I’ve wished to see them depicted, and I want to attempt to profit off if this so I can continue to make more, even better, Pokémon games
But I can’t, because my artistic vision threatens the big, helpless multi million dollar company

>Why should I sacrifice my artistic vision
Yeah you can't say that you have "artistic vision" if you don't actually have any ideas of your own. Hell, even people working on IPs they didn't make try to add something of their own creation rather than just using existing characters.

>It’s not like two people aren’t allowed to paint the same bridge
Which is an argument against you because that bridge isn't their idea, they're copying an existing structure.

>I want
>muh artistic vision
Could you sound any more like a self-entitled 17 year old who doesn't know jack shit about the real world?

>But then it’s completely different from what I want to make
Except if you come up with the idea it would be exactly what you want to make rather than stealing a design from something else.

If a man sells watermelons, and he is the only vendor of melons in town, and his melons begin to rot and stink and decay, and I wish to establish my own melon stand using a seed from a watermelon to grow my own crop and raise them as I see fit in order to create my own idea of a delectable and satisfactory melon, why should the melon vendor be allowed to force me to sell gourds instead

What in the ever loving fuck are you talking about. Those aren't even the same situation.

No, because it’s not what I want to make. I want to make a Pokémon game with graphics like Pokken, gameplay like Gale of Darkness/Colosseum, and all of Game Freak’s original designs rendered in as high quality and faithful accuracy as I can manage.
I want to take the very best from a series I love and express it directly, not just make Pepsi versions of their Coke originals

You will never make a good pokemon game if you don't care about the type of game pokemon actually is. you would never be able to make a good pokemon game if you cannot bring yourself to make a good monster collecting game in general. If I think I can make a better mario game than Nintendo, I'm not gonna complain and screech about how I should be allowed to use Mario characters for my game to prove my point, I would create my own characters and world to prove my point, like how A Hat in Time was able to outdo Nintendo as a Mario game despite not being an actual Mario game

Attached: DlPdT66XoAAOS8V.jpg (1200x1200, 130K)

If someone is creating a product I deep unsatisfactory, why should they prevent me from creating the product I would find satisfactory and distributing it

Wow, this is the single most retarded thing I've seen today.
A better comparison would be opening a shop right next to the watermelon vendor copying whatever logo he has to attract attention. The actual melon is irrelevant.

>I want
>I want
Just move to China you fucknugget.

>I want to make a Pokémon game with graphics like Pokken, gameplay like Gale of Darkness/Colosseum, and all of Game Freak’s original designs rendered in as high quality and faithful accuracy as I can manage
Yeah you wouldn't do that anyway, don't kid yourself. Also faithfulness and accuracy isn't for you to decide especially in a series like Pokemon where designs have subtle changes across the generations.

This isn’t an actual desire of mine, it’s purely hypothetical.
The point is that companies should not have a monopoly over their ideas. We, as consumers, should have every right to create and distribute our own products based on the original IP. It’s the equivalent of patreon exclusive fanart

But people who make fangames or romhacks or mods or anything like that aren’t setting up shop right next to those companies and copying the brand. They’re merely providing competition while using the same branding, sometimes not even selling the product: and yet companies still take down works like this while selling their own, worse products, or maybe no products at all

What if I want a Pokemon game where Jynx actually looks like it originally did? The creator changed a design people liked because some other people didn't and now noone can enjoy the original design.

>why should they prevent me from creating the product I would find satisfactory
It's not you idiot, you just need to make your own with your own ideas. It's not that hard.

But let me ask you this, what if say someone were to take your work "improve" it significantly and then sell it alongside yours essentially ousting you from the trade because they would do it with each and every thing you made, how would you feel?

at this point I'm convinced that you are legitimately chinese and/or underage if you genuinely think you are being oppressed because you can't make money off of someone else's creation.

Attached: 1556553997636.jpg (500x370, 26K)

Faithfulness to the original design. As in, not doing shit like making them “realistic” or having big floppy animal cocks or something. Just depicting them as they were intended to be, but with better graphics and textures.

>what if say someone were to take your work "improve" it significantly and then sell it alongside yours
it wouldn't be competing with his work because you'd have to wait 15+ years after publication of the original work before it enters the public domain.

>This isn’t an actual desire of mine
Sure it isn't, you've just been shitposting for years about this topic with the same posts because you're don't have a dream of stealing the ideas of others.

It would motivate me to do better. I would take the ideas the other person used, and try to improve on them. I would try to compete by raising my standards and the standards of my product
You know, like what the shitty melon vendor should do if he gets competition

You didn't spend hundreds of hours designing every Pokemon.
You didn't spend thousands of hours programming every Pokemon in the game.
You didn't spend thousands of hours programming the game itself.
You are not entitled to an IP simply because you are not satisfied with its current direction.
You're only making yourself look like an underage retard.

Well you have to deal with it. If the creator who had the idea wanted to change it then that's what it's going to be.

You'll understand when you actually create something.

And you totally aren’t being a faggot by ignoring all discussion and just attacking the poster directly, missing the entire point of every post I’ve made because you’re a retard with a brain the size of a walnut

Neither did anyone currently involved in the making of the next Pokémon game
I am entitled to make the game I want as I want it and I am entitled to give that to others if they want it

So what you're saying is that you're perpetuating a cycle of stealing and stagnation where no new ideas are ever created.
> I would try to compete by raising my standards
There is no standard. You haven't made anything to set one.

So because the original creator no longer wishes to use the idea, nobody can use it for anything for more than a century? That seems pretty shitty to me. If it's not being used why shouldn't other people be allowed to use it? Nobody benefits from the current situation, not even the original creator.

at a certain point just make your own characters, literally it's not even that hard. there was a point in time where there was a pokemon ripoff coming out every fucking month, and now we have completely separate games and franchises that people actually like and have their own appealing qualities because they didn't just try to make pokemon

Attached: 14719567_1334434583264039_5308736249673023488_n.jpg (477x477, 53K)

derivative works are still new ideas dude

Then I guess everyone currently working in every industry that existed prior to the invention of copyright is doing the exact same fucking thing

Using your Pokemon example, what's to stop the publishers from pushing out Another game featuring The original 150 Pokemon and quashing any rerelease of Pokemon by any non copyright holder under the justification that they're copying the characters and places from the most recent official release?
I wish people were more creative and just came up with their own stuff rather than riding in the coattails of actual creative people/entities and not be allowed to bank on the risks that other people took.

>ignoring all discussion
Yeah sure, I'm doing that. Not you who still doesn't understand how flawed his argument is. We could tell you over and over again but it's not going to get into your head.

But hey, how about this, give us one original idea.

>I am entitled
Yep, you're a big entitled baby complaining about a childish franchise.

>Neither did anyone currently involved in the making of the next Pokémon game
you DO realize that most of the people who created pokemon never left GF right, even Masuda has been there since Gen 1

Because making Chinese bootleg knockoff characters is any better or less “harmful” than just using the real thing

Problem is you're not making a derivative. You're making the exact same thing over and over.

Wow, look. An actual ad hominem fallacy

All works are derivative
There’s no such thing as an original story

yo kai are great though, they aren't bootlegs of anything

Attached: 6ffae60c6e07dfaa11415b643f8a3136.jpg (1387x2381, 218K)

None of them designed all of the Pokémon
None of them programmed or reprogrammed every aspect of a single Pokémon game
None of them programmed every single Pokémon in the game

socialize the arts

>Autist can't take a bit of banter.
What else is new? Your arguments are literally "I want this! I want this! I want to own this IP I had no part in and didn't spend my entire life creating!". Fuck off.

>I am entitled to make the game I want as I want it and I am entitled to give that to others if they want it
No one gives a shit about your retard game. Also, you aren't entitled because you didn't compensate the creator of the property you're poaching.

>There’s no such thing as an original story
Yeah no, an original story is as easy as typing the first thing that comes to mind.

They’re just derivatives of legendary creatures
It’s literally in the name
“Yo-kai” is a derivative of “youkai”
They aren’t original

Kek

Except for the people who have been there day one.
Which is most of GF even then new artists make their own new pokemon like James Turner for instance.

>You're making the exact same thing over and over.
Do you actually mean this? Where exactly has anyone in this entire thread ever talked about "making the exact same thing over and over?"
Everyone's talking about derivative works.

And yet you didn’t address any of them

Why should I have to compensate the creator if they didn’t do a satisfactory job

>And yet you didn’t address any of them
Lots of Anons already have, but you keep replying with the same retarded logic.

They didn’t do all the work by themselves. They did it collectively.
No one man has created every single thing in a Pokémon game from the ground up by themselves

>Everyone's talking about derivative works.
Yeah no they aren't otherwise copyright wouldn't be an issue at all because they could just make a derivative with their own ideas.

They, or rather you because you're clearly samefagging, just want to steal.

you realize that pokemon has had the same artist working there since the series inception right? the only difference is that he works alongside other artists on top of doing his own designs as well.

Attached: sugimori.jpg (900x482, 36K)

Yes and everything from the formula of the story to the character archetypes to the settings to the issues to the theme to the very rhythm of the words will be ultimately derived from some other work or works

So because they put in their own work and ideas that means you're allowed to take it?

Do you even know what your argument is?

Yes, and he didn’t do all the work either.
No one man is directly responsible for all of any Pokémon game
Read my fucking posts. No one person had created an entire Pokémon game

>Why should I have to compensate the creator if they didn’t do a satisfactory job
Because you're going to make money off of it. You're free to get a refund (in most countries) or not buy the product after testing it, but you're talking about profiting off of others labor.
The fact that you think it's not as good as what you'd make is irrelevant outside of your input and refund.

They all built on eachother’s work, why can’t i build off of theirs

>will be ultimately derived from some other work or works
Sure if you've been constantly been exposed to things like television over the course of your life rotting your mind. Otherwise it's incredibly easy to do.

In a way, isn’t the entire point of the economy people profiting off of others’ labor

>they could just make a derivative with their own ideas.
Oh, nevermind, that clears it up.
You literally have no idea what a derivative work is.

Copyright is an issue because it prevents works from entering the public domain. If you're unable to see how this connects with the creation of derivative works you really, really should look up the definition before you post any more.
It'd be really embarrassing if you kept posting about copyright law without knowing what "derivative work" means.

If you're talking about wageslaves, they're compensated with salary.

THOMAS MALORY WAS A HACK!
NO ORIGINAL IDEA!
0/10

No, people can derive their works from experiences in their lives, nature, just about anything really
There is no such thing as an original story. There is no such thing as an original thought. There is no such thing as being original

>why can’t i build off of theirs
Because
1. You don't want to put in any work you just want to take from others who did as shown by your previous "make it HD" post
2. You aren't employed by them.

The worst part is that you think you can do better but you can't even design your own monsters.

So, wouldn’t the profits of my creation be a salary in a way

I don't even need to try to take down this argument. All I have to say is Sonic the Hedgehog.
Check out how his gameplay was made and you'll see how irrelevant copyright duration is.

that's the point retard

But I do want to put in work. I want to take their ideas, and assemble them together and present them in a way I find good. I want to work to depict their ideas in a way that I think would be the best way. I would still have to work on the depiction, the game, and everything that entails.

Google.

So you simply lack the imagination to create. That explains this thread.

unironically there is infinite potential for anyone to create their own 150 monsters and place them in an original world with an original franchise. But you fuckers will act like you HAVE to use pokemon to make a good pokemon game. Honestly I think the fact is that you guys don't care about making a good pokemon game, all you really want is the ability to make MONEY off of a pokemon game.

Attached: clover.png (1981x1496, 480K)

>anyone could publish their own Pokemon game
But they couldn’t CALL it a Pokemon game, seeing as The Pokemon Company still has trademark rights in that and trademark works differently than copyright.

If you like classics such as: The Illiad, the various round table cycles and the bible.

All of those were, as you put it. "Didn't want to put in any work"

being inspired by something is not synonymous with creating a derivative work

Imagination is just taking old ideas in your subconscious and tweaking them
Any idea, thought, or feeling you’ve had, someone’s already felt, thought, or had an idea similar enough to that to make yours unoriginal. Imagination and creativity are just putting 3 cups of sugar in a cake instead of two
Nothing more than adjustments
There are only 7 kinds of plots

>I want to take their ideas, and assemble them together and present them in a way I find good
Which isn't putting in the work. You're essentially just taking theirs and rearranging it you've added absolutely nothing.

> I want to work to depict their ideas in a way that I think would be the best way.
So you want to steal them. Also you aren't the authority in what is the best way.

I like Pokémon
I want to make a Pokémon game
I don’t just like the mechanics of Pokémon. I like the Pokémon world, I like Pokémon, I want to make Pokémon. I want to create a derivative Pokémon work using established things because I like them

>There are only 7 kinds of plots
Name them.

No. You never signed a contract with the owners of the property for an agreed upon amount of compensation to the owner for use of their product (in the case of the wageslave, this is "x hours or products made = y dollars").
Your example has the employer/employee relationship backwards.

Wow, I guess every fictional work since the Epic of Gilgamesh is just lazy, stolen, hack-fraud garbage

Then make your own monsters.
That's still a derivative work you're just not using the IP, just look at TemTem. Almost exactly the same as pokemon but they don't have anyone on their ass about it.

overcoming the monster; rags to riches; the quest; voyage and return; comedy; tragedy; rebirth

>Then make your own monsters.
>That's still a derivative work

Attached: 1546062358073.jpg (226x223, 6K)

I never signed a contract agreeing to copyright law or trademark law

what about romance or discovery?

But I like Pokémon
I want to make my work about Pokémon
Pokémon, the world they live in, and everything else about them are the whole point
I don’t want to make my own Pokémon, I like Pokémon

Not even close. Hell, a big one I thought you would say is romance.

it looks like its written to make you think they own shakespeares works without ever actually saying it

But that has none of the emotional attachment.

>I think these tales are cool and could be used to tell other stories as well.

>ACKSHUALLY you can't do that, and your version of events is shit because it deviates from the originals in the Historia Brittonum, No one will ever want to read La Morte d'Arthur!

You do realise we're talking about games right? You'd have a point if you were talking about a movie or novel but a game is more than just it's art, it's also mechanics and gameplay.

Those fall into the other categories depending on how they are structured

Feel free to move to a territory without it then.
There is a lot of shit you didn't sign a contract for but take gratis, so this is just one more thing you have to like or lump.

>emotional attachment
Then you didn't really want to create for it did you. Also keep your replies in one post.

That's why people do things like vandalise advertisements. We didn't sign up for your visual pollution.

You idiots have never heard of the 7/9 basic plots?
That’s basic literature

>But that has none of the emotional attachment.
And?

And you're in the wrong. That's not how reasonable adults behave.

nope, i was too busy not being a colossal faggot in my younger years

In a third world country sure but in the first world we don't limit ourselves to only seven concepts.

If you can't see why stories featuring characters that people are familiar with and how that can create a greater sense of gravitas and even understanding due to the shared collective knowledge about characters and settings; you're beyond help.

Plenty of them do, you can tell because people take advertisements down all the time and it's a reasonable thing to do.

Yeah, sure. Reasonable adults are always perfect to soldiers that never express their distaste for something they like
Now if you excuse me, I’ll go back to living in my country that was founded due to a dispute over taxes

>If you can't see why stories featuring characters that people are familiar with and how that can create a greater sense of gravitas and even understanding due to the shared collective knowledge about characters and settings; you're beyond help.
If you think you should be able to skip the hard work of building up your own franchise and creating those attachments from scratch, you're beyond help.

It's literally one of the OLDEST TRADITIONS of our entire species to do this.

So I see you’re busy catching up. Carry on
Well some people also throw rebellion and mystery into the mix and bring it up to nine

>If you can't see why stories featuring characters that people are familiar with and how that can create a greater sense of gravitas and even understanding due to the shared collective knowledge about characters and settings
It doesn't. All that means it's that you don't have to put in work advertising because the IP is big enough to sell itself.
A good story is still a good story regardless of how many recognisable characters you have.

>/pol/ still thinks they played a major part in the election
I'm sure all those Rust Belt factory works that Hillary ignored weren't going to vote until some Beers owned the liberals.

Attached: Redblade.jpg (1536x2048, 232K)

So then why bother copyrighting characters

You wouldn't be able to do anything with the expired copyright of steamboat willie because Disney still owns the trademark for the character, at most you could just sell copies of steamboat willie or use it in a project.
Of course that won't stop Disney Lawyers threatening a lengthy lawsuit at you, even if thdy know they'd lose

Attached: 2.png (797x448, 615K)

>Well some people also throw rebellion and mystery into the mix and bring it up to nine
Which in an of itself should tell you that the possibilities are endless.

Times change. Or do you want to live in caves too?

Good read, thanks for the info dump user.

Attached: 1499617483801.png (414x431, 69K)

Not really. Most stories aren’t avant-garde art pieces designed to subvert trends. Even if the possibilities are endless, people don’t go out of their way to not follow the basic plots

Ignoring the star wars pasta you posted, holy fuck, Pokemon fans are some sad people. Play some other damn games once in a while instead of constantly wishing for ways to wrest Pokemon out of the hands of the laziest motherfuckers on the planet. They're not even keeping the main unique point of the series (transferring all Pokemon to all future games) intact and are forcing some to sit in stasis for years instead, so it's not like it even has anything over other moncap games. Pokemon fans also have this strange complex where they think Pokemon invented moncap so everything like it is a "ripoff."
Pokemon fans deserve this mess at this point.

So no one else can take your idea that you put time and effort into creating?

What’s a house but a high-tech cave
Hell, they even make them out of stone sometimes. Usually real big ones, too.

The free exchange of ideas is not something worth leaving in the dust.

>A good story is still a good story regardless of how many recognisable characters you have.

A story can be significantly more poignant if you're using characters that are readily popular, again, this has been a theme throughout history and has only stopped due to corporate interest. Canonical religious works often amount to fanfiction that couldn't be written today.

But it doesn’t matter, does it. The story’s what’s important.

You do realise that amount of people who do break away is irrelevant, correct? The simple fact that it's possible to make stories outside of those concepts means that was never the limit.

It's a copypasta of a man complaining about star wars that was spammed over the course of approximately 150 threads on Yea Forums and /vp/ a few months ago.

Yeah bro, you really care about the original renditions of King Arthur and not Thomas Mallory's.

Endless possibility doesn’t mean shit if it rarely comes into play
A pink elephant could possibly come into your house and play hop-skotch.

Not them, but you're making this argument with zero basis in reality. Yes, reasonable IP law would mean there's a bunch of pokémon games being released now, but we already have that in fangames and chinese knockoffs. You know how many of those the average normie know about? The wider market's never going to hear about Pokémon Uranium. How about the hundreds of Sonic fangames? You're not going to walk up to someone in a Gamestop and ask what they thought about Sonic Megamix, they'll think you're saying Mania wrong.
The quality (or at least the most popular / marketed and shilled) games will bubble to the surface over the sea of shit. That's where proper competition lies.
>Then make your non-infringing version then
Gonna be honest, that one Spyro fangame died as far as I'm concerned when Activision had their retard moment and the devs changed the character into a flying squirrel. The thing being the actual thing is a incredibly important component that shouldn't be overlooked.

why'd you have to tell me that user
its now ruined for me

Attached: 1457418114283.jpg (305x261, 53K)

>A story can be significantly more poignant if you're using characters that are readily popular
Again that only affects the marketability. If you've written a story that builds up the characters in a way that makes the reader/player/watcher invested then a name or design isn't going to make a difference in regards to the quality of the story.

Companies should have no right to shut down fangames. That’s my opinion

lol, you're fine with people criticizing hillary but as soon as someone starts saying something negative about trump "uuuuuh don't turn this into pol pls"

You're an idiot.

I want to talk about something new instead of whether the donkey is better than the elephant for once, just once please

No it can affect the way people understand your story and the impact it has on people, collective implicit understandings of things is a big fucking deal.

>The wider market's never going to hear about Pokémon Uranium. How about the hundreds of Sonic fangames? You're not going to walk up to someone in a Gamestop and ask what they thought about Sonic Megamix, they'll think you're saying Mania wrong.
You do realise you're basing it on our world with those laws right?
If IP laws were a lot more lax you would see a lot more fangames being advertised and possibly some in retailers if the creator wishes to spend the money to do so, after all you have to spend money to make money.

How many of the countless renditions of the knights of the round table do people know.

1, maybe 2. Despite the fact people were writing stories about them for hundreds of years before the definitive ones we think of existed. You're basing your ideas on something that's basically never happened.

>No it can affect the way people understand your story
It really doesn't unless you've written the story in a way that relies on older works which is a bad idea in an of itself otherwise throughout the story the reader is naturally going to invest themselves in that adventure, characters, world etc. If you've put an adequate amount of effort and description into it.

>only the present matters
>only the majority matters

>unless you've written the story in a way that relies on older works

Every single story you read relies on literary conventions that relied on older literary conventions, etc.

Do you have any idea how long it took us to get away from starting our stories by explaining to everyone "who is this person? how old is he? what does he do for a living?" at the start?

Neet

Man, fuck rich people
I wish I was rich

>Thing works in way for thousands of years
>everyone is fine with this
>suddenly big corporations are the ones controlling the majority of it, not individual artists or authors
>suddenly the old way is bad and we must do the thing that makes the most money.

It's also from reddit, the original rant was linked earlier in the thread.

>How many of the countless renditions of the knights of the round table do people know
Depending on if the story is popular at the time about five or six.

yea, because everyone was doing their own iteration of Romeo and Juliet while Shakespear was still kicking, and i'm sure Beethoven was just waiting for someone else to sell tickets to play his overtures. And let's not forget Da Vinci just allowing his private works to be replicated and sold because they sure could have been made much better by Guy whoever the fuck

I’m sorry, you aren’t allowed to have goblins in your story because I legally own the rights to the mythological term “goblin”

>Every single story you read relies on literary conventions
Conventions aren't the same as characters and settings you idiot.

>Do you have any idea how long it took us to get away from starting our stories by explaining to everyone "who is this person? how old is he? what does he do for a living?" at the start?
You do realise that every story does that right? Getting to know them is rule 101 of writing.

During Beethoven's first concert they played other people's music that had debuted 2 years before.

Imagine being able to say you had Beethoven as an opening act

And more often than not the story is made by the character. Sherlock Holmes would not be the same story with a different character.

>Do you have any idea how long it took us to get away from starting our stories by explaining to everyone "who is this person? how old is he? what does he do for a living?" at the start?
Every story still does that they just don't state it outright for example saying something like "Chris was a meek high school boy" gives an approximation of what his age is, his personality and what he does all in less than a paragraph.
You'd be hard pressed to find a story that isn't a part of a series that doesn't start like that. Hell, old video game manuals even had that.

Nono, he booked the theatre and started out with, 2 pieces that debuted a couple years earlier, then into a mozart.

What a fucking argument. Did it take you until the thread hit autosage to come up with that?

I like your thinking op, stay hopeful, fuck corporations, new stories are stagnant with copyright laws

Iwata left tho

Still, imagine

Ken is working on Sword and Shield? Looks too different compared to other works of himself

Much funnier to imagine the fact that the only time he could get to play was during the week when opera was banned.

What’s the appeal of opera anyways
It’s like a play but everyone is singing

>Sherlock Holmes would not be the same story with a different character.
Yes it would, if he was called "lucky go fuck yourself" it would still be a story about a detective.

That's it. That's the appeal. Music, singing, story, all rolled into one.

Back then it was WAY more novel than it is now.

Left this world.

I’d prefer a good book at home
Fuck noisy shit, fuck crowds. I’ll just sit next to the window in the morning, the birds sing better

>inb4 OP is waiting for page 10 to mass reply

If he does, let’s all call him a faggot

Well we'll have to be quick.

Ah fuck it, why wait

Faggot lol

>all of these fangames that either got shut down or were not big enough to get shut down are hardly known!
Wow, ever consider that it's like that because they were shut down, you drooling fucking retard?
In a world where copyright laws were more lax or repealed those games would get as much advertisement as the person making them was willing to buy. They could even put up posters in gamestop if they paid for them

>tfw don't live in a world where brick and mortar stores fulfil the purpose of being a place you go to explore cool fangames that the person running it wants to display.

Except it would not be about that exact detective, all his mannerisms and personality. The story would inherently change with a new character

Goodbye
I am going to masturbate to unliscensed incest porn and then sleep

>What is every Sonic fangame
The 15 years of exclusivity to a idea isn't anything to scoff at either. Normies, as retarded as they are, still care to some limited extent about things like "From the creators of".

Already gave him that. He went on about some knights of the round table nonsense.

>Except it would not be about that exact detective, all his mannerisms and personality
I don't think you understand changing the character of a story is as simple as changing the name.

Go write a short story about C'thulu, then replace the name C'thulu.

15 years of exclusivity to something you created is not nearly long enough. If you created something you should own it for life, unless you sign or lease the rights to someone else. Others shouldn't get to leach off of the ideas of others.
They'll never admit when they're wrong

>Except it would not be about that exact detective
It would literally be the same detective. More often than not it's usually just the name and any visual depictions that are owned, personality traits are fair game.
In other words you can make literally the exact same character, slap on a different name and it would be a different character.

It's happened so many times that it's ridiculous.