EmuParadise has removed its entire library of retro game ROMs and ISOs

[empsolo]

if you're a musician, you should make more more music.

That doesn't mean he should forfeit whatever proceeds he is getting from music that is already on the market place. Edited August 17, 2018 by empsolo

[RevEng]

[the case] against perpetual copyright.

[mr_me]

An inventor has twenty years before their patent runs out. Then anyone is allowed to take their idea without owing them anything. Inventors should keep inventing.

Edited August 17, 2018 by mr_me

[icemanxp300]

Life of the author plus 75 years seems more than fair. A person should be allowed to let his children reap the benefits of their work before it enters the public domain.

 

That is basically two lifetimes, you might as well just say forever.

 

This sounds more like a monopoly to me lol. Last I knew we had laws preventing such things

 

 

I was a bit shocked when I heard that this site was hit with a lawsuit after so much time has passed.

 

IT WAS NOT!!!! Come on people Nintendo didn't do anything to EmuParadise. They Chose to shut down on their own out of fear.

[empsolo]

That is basically two lifetimes, you might as well just say forever.

125 years isn't forever.

[icemanxp300]

125 years isn't forever.

 

Really and how long are you going to live?

[empsolo]

Really and how long are you going to live?

Maybe to my 80's. Why?

[empsolo]

An inventor has twenty years before their patent runs out. Then anyone is allowed to take their idea without owing them anything. Inventors should keep inventing.

The Patent runs out but not the copyright or trademark on the item in question.

[icemanxp300]

I'm getting to the point where if something last longer than you will live it is forever for you. So making it 125 years or 20000000 years doesn't matter much. There is a difference in allowing someone to profit off THEIR work. Holding copyrights long after said person has died is a bit absurd.

[mr_me]

The Patent runs out but not the copyright or trademark on the item in question.

You're right about trademarks, but it would have to be a very artistic invention to be copyrighted. Either way it won't stop anyone from using that invention royalty free. And if you're a mathematician or physisist you get nothing. No rights at all for your work.

[empsolo]

You're right about trademarks, but it would have to be a very artistic invention to be copyrighted. Either way it won't stop anyone from using that invention royalty free. And if you're a mathematician or physisist you get nothing. No rights at all for your work.

That's why there has been talk about reforming how findings are published in journals so that Scientists and Mathematicians can receive royalties for published findings.

[mr_me]

That's why there has been talk about reforming how findings are published in journals so that Scientists and Mathematicians can receive royalties for published findings.

Sure but whoever is going to exploit their work is only interested in the formulas they discovered. The literary part of the journal is copyrighted, math and physics are considered discoveries and not protected. Edited August 17, 2018 by mr_me

[icemanxp300]

I do find it extremely absurd that someone can only profit 20 years for an invention they work years on making. After 20 years all there hard work is up for grabs. Yet someone spends 20 minutes writing a song or a few weeks programming a game and they are protected for over a 100 years more. According to what you guys are saying anyhow,

[English Invader]

Life of the author plus 75 years seems more than fair. A person should be allowed to let his children reap the benefits of their work before it enters the public domain.

 

Or, as in the case of Hendrix, his greedy and self-serving father.

 

A lot of rich famous people (Lenny Henry for instance) have no intention of leaving their kids any money because they want them to find their own way in the world instead of letting them turn into spoiled, trust-fund brats.

[mr_me]

nope. I, along with my band mates at the time and others who worked on the record own our material. You quite literally have no idea what you are talking about. I don't want to be rude to you, but it's clear you have zero knowledge of this subject. Please stop making completely incorrect statements as if they are facts.

Yup, with record contracts artists typically retain copyright, unless they make a bad deal.

[John Stamos Mullet]

Yup, with record contracts artists typically retain copyright, unless they make a bad deal.

"yup" what? Two posts ago you said record companies own songs.

[mr_me]

"yup" what? Two posts ago you said record companies own songs.

Yup, I'm acknowledging my mistake. I read record contracts are typically ten year licensing deals. Is that right?

 

If you are contracted to write music for someone's specific project, e.g. tv show, do you typically keep copyright with that?

Edited August 17, 2018 by mr_me

[Mr SQL]

I do find it extremely absurd that someone can only profit 20 years for an invention they work years on making. After 20 years all there hard work is up for grabs. Yet someone spends 20 minutes writing a song or a few weeks programming a game and they are protected for over a 100 years more. According to what you guys are saying anyhow,

 

What I find particularly interesting about this is that programming works are inventions and should logically fall under the same 20 year rule:

 

While each game program is an invention individually they often encompass multiple technological inve3ntions, like my current games that leverage new programming language runtimes, a soft blitter chip, and motion blur reduction technology - all compound inventions in addition to the abstract, the game invention.

 

I've had my own software company since the 80's and gave all my old ROM's away for folks to use, but I was asked by the respective software communities. My new ROM's are also free.

[mr_me]

Computer programs can be patented. Well the program itself is copyrighted as a literary work. But if you have a unique technique it can be patented, otherwise that technique can be copied because it wouldn't be protected by copyright. It would have to meet patent criteria, and unlike copyright, if you don't file a patent it's not protected.

Edited August 17, 2018 by mr_me

[John Stamos Mullet]

Yup, I'm acknowledging my mistake. I read record contracts are typically ten year licensing deals. Is that right?

 

If you are contracted to write music for someone's specific project, e.g. tv show, do you typically keep copyright with that?

 

There are many different ways it can be structured. It's a matter of what you are willing to give up, to get up front. In my case, we didn't write anything for a specific show. It was music we wrote before ever having any kind of contract, so we own it outright. We chose to retain the exclusive copyrights, not thinking it would ever amount to much, since we weren't really offered a great deal to sign it over. Then - it kinda did. a little. Again - not enough to live off, but a nice little occasional reminder that something you did was worth people paying for. I see no reason why I should be forced to withdraw my claim to something I created - because you or others want free copies, or others want to profit on my work without my knowledge. That's a load of cheapskate bullshit. I created it. I should have final say in it's use for profit, period.

 

I also have another friend who I was in a band with in 1996, a guy I've know since I was 11 - who then went on to join another band without me the next year. That band got signed by a label in California, and went on tour to support their record. The tour was difficult, and costly, and my friend couldn't handle it. He quit right after a show in Vegas. A few weeks later the record company offered to pay him off to give up his rights to those songs so the band could move on. Desperate for cash to start a new life back home, he did it. He got a little over $10k. That band is now one of the biggest bands in the world, and their music is played all the time on TV, in movies, and at sports stadiums during games. He gets none of it. It was his choice, but it was a poor choice. What you're suggesting is equivalent to forcing people to choose that fate. That is what I vehemently disagree with.

Edited August 17, 2018 by John Stamos Mullet

[mr_me]

There are many different ways it can be structured. It's a matter of what you are willing to give up, to get up front. In my case, we didn't write anything for a specific show. It was music we wrote before ever having any kind of contract, so we own it outright. We chose to retain the exclusive copyrights, not thinking it would ever amount to much, since we weren't really offered a great deal to sign it over. Then - it kinda did. a little. Again - not enough to live off, but a nice little occasional reminder that something you did was worth people paying for. I see no reason why I should be forced to withdraw my claim to something I created - because you or others want free copies, or others want to profit on my work without my knowledge. That's a load of cheapskate bullshit. I created it. I should have final say in it's use for profit, period.

 

I also have another friend who I was in a band with in 1996, a guy I've know since I was 11 - who then went on to join another band without me the next year. That band got signed by a label in California, and went on tour to support their record. The tour was difficult, and costly, and my friend couldn't handle it. He quit right after a show in Vegas. A few weeks later the record company offered to pay him off to give up his rights to those songs so the band could move on. Desperate for cash to start a new life back home, he did it. He got a little over $10k. That band is now one of the biggest bands in the world, and their music is played all the time on TV, in movies, and at sports stadiums during games. He gets none of it. It was his choice, but it was a poor choice. What you're suggesting is equivalent to forcing people to choose that fate. That is what I vehemently disagree with.

If copyright terms were 300 years, it still wouldn't help your friend. I could be mistaken, but I didn't think I suggested anything other than to make more music.

 

Edit: In Canada we have something called copyright moral rights. A creator can never sell away the moral rights on their work even if they give away all other copyrights. Moral rights might be used to prevent work from being used in a way that's objectionable like certain commercial exploitation.

Edited August 17, 2018 by mr_me

[John Stamos Mullet]

If copyright terms were 300 years, it still wouldn't help your friend.

Let's say we apply copyright law to other forms of income.

 

How about if you take a job out of college, and you love it, and you work there straight for 14 years. The company loves you and you get promotion after promotion, and earn a large salary because you're the best in the company at your job.

 

Then on the 14th anniversary of your start date, through no fault of your own - they fire you and give your job to someone else - at the same pay rate and titile level you had to work 14 years to earn - and on top of that, you are no longer allowed to work in that industry, and now have to go back to college again, get a new degree in a different field, and start all over from the bottom again.

 

That's what 14 year copyright expiration are to artists.

[pacman000]

Yup, I'm acknowledging my mistake. I read record contracts are typically ten year licensing deals. Is that right?

 

If you are contracted to write music for someone's specific project, e.g. tv show, do you typically keep copyright with that?

 

Depends on the contract.

 

Watch out for the words "work for hire" if someone asks you to make something for them; that means they get to keep the copyright, if memory serves.

 

"In the copyright law of the United States, a work made for hire (work for hire or WFH) is a work subject to copyright that is created by an employee as part of their job, or some limited types of works for which all parties agree in writing to the WFH designation. Work for hire is a statutorily defined term (17 U.S.C. § 101), so a work for hire is not created merely because parties to an agreement state that the work is a work for hire. It is an exception to the general rule that the person who actually creates a work is the legally recognized author of that work. According to copyright law in the United States and certain other copyright jurisdictions, if a work is "made for hire", the employer—not the employee—is considered the legal author. In some countries, this is known as corporate authorship. The entity serving as an employer may be a corporation or other legal entity, an organization, or an individual.^[1]"

 

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire}

[mr_me]

With software, it's ususually the guy hiring the contract programmer that has to watch out. Otherwise, he doesn't get to own the software he's paid for.

[PlaysWithWolves]

Let's say we apply copyright law to other forms of income.

 

How about if you take a job out of college, and you love it, and you work there straight for 14 years. The company loves you and you get promotion after promotion, and earn a large salary because you're the best in the company at your job.

 

Then on the 14th anniversary of your start date, through no fault of your own - they fire you and give your job to someone else - at the same pay rate and titile level you had to work 14 years to earn - and on top of that, you are no longer allowed to work in that industry, and now have to go back to college again, get a new degree in a different field, and start all over from the bottom again.

 

That's what 14 year copyright expiration are to artists.

 

Under copyright law, he'd lose his job but then be entitled pay until he dies and for his children for another 70 years. Basically like a band member who got fired and replaced after a hit song.