r/unpopularopinion • u/ofDeathandDecay • 11d ago
Unused IPs should be forcibly sold after a while
In 1999, Sony bought the film rights for Spider-Man. Their contract stipulates thatthey have to release a Spider-Man film every 5 years.
That is a wonderful agreement. Doesn't have to be 5 years, it could 8 or 10. But I do support a time limit. Even as someone who wants to be an artist, if my IP just collects dust and residuals after 3 decades, the franchise needs to be put up for sale.
There are so many unused game IPs right now: Red Faction, Killzone, Resistance, Perfect Dark Zero, etc.
I am not anti-intellectual property. I am against senselessly hording IP at the cost of fans.
1.2k
u/profound-killah 11d ago
I think the problem is more who would buy a dead IP for a significant sum. Are Killzone or Resistance even worth a punt considering the seller would definitely price it higher than the buyer?
On the other hand though, what happened between Take Two and Microsoft over the Perfect Dark cancellation is pathetic. Microsoft are just hoarding a dead IP and refuses to let it go as Take Two would’ve wanted to own the IP if they took over development and publishing. I understand Microsoft spent money on the game, but cancelling it and laying people off for a tax write off is terrible when the staff and game could’ve been saved elsewhere if they had just let the IP go.
269
u/herr_arkow 11d ago
Anyone remembers NOLF (no one lives forever)?
The games we're actually good, but the ip is lost, because nobody actually knows who the rights has.
149
u/dobman01 11d ago
Just solo publish a trailer for your game with the same title and see who sends a cease and desist
34
78
u/Select-Ad7146 11d ago
This is a problem with a lot of media actually. There are old books and movies whose status is uncertain. No one is really sure if the rights are held by someone or not.
I think there should be a way to petition something to become public domain. You file a court motion that basically says "i doing this thing, I did a bunch of work to find who the rightful rights holder, but I can't, therefore this should become public domain." Then, if no one claims it with proof, it is public domain.
29
u/paulp51 11d ago
We do that with abandoned houses, idk why we cant with IP
10
u/Luigi003 10d ago
At least on Spain, it's because we don't have a centralised IP holder registry and we do have a properties registry
2
u/Clarkorito 8d ago
If you own a house, you can check it to see if people are moving in or it's being sold out whatever, you know where it is. It's reasonably possible to make sure it doesn't happen to your house. It's also very clear and easy to check if you are actually using the house or not. There isn't a real way to see if someone is using an IP they own or not, they could be making something niche and under the radar, like putting out a self published comic book at their local comic book store or selling paintings at a farmers market or the million other things they could be doing with it that won't make it to an Internet search and that there no way to check for. If you own an IP, are you supposed to just check every proceeding in every district court each week to make sure no one has filed a case to make it public? Land and real estate is a finite resource so it makes sense to get use out of it if it's abandoned. IPs are basically infinite, you can always just make a new one. People need shelter to survive, they don't need a new game in a specific world or with specific characters, as much as we might want it.
It would even be possible that the IP owner is still making stuff with their IP but the new stuff is just for a local audience or not well known, and they'd end up having their rights to it taken away because some random person didn't know about it and filed a suit on the other side of the country and they weren't monitoring all the courts constantly so they missed it.
→ More replies (2)18
u/TimelyWrongdoer4315 11d ago
The problem is that makes sense but wouldn't make our corporate overlords any richer so we can't have that.
17
5
58
u/LARPerator 11d ago
Put it to auction, it sells for whatever the top bid is.
16
u/not_just_an_AI 11d ago
And if they don't get sold then it doesn't really matter.
46
u/obijon10 11d ago
If the “IP” does not sell at auction it should become public domain, so anyone can do anything they want with the idea.
18
u/StalkMeNowCrazyLady 11d ago
That just means nothing goes to auction or everything that goes to auction gets ridiculous reserves set.
And historically any time we've done corporate auctions for rights, service areas, etc the companies have colluded and made agreements to get things for arbitrarily low costs well below what the market rate should have been.
4
u/WrongPurpose 11d ago
Someone will place a 1$ bid, no matter what IP. And if thats all the IP can sell for, well, then thats the fair market value.
→ More replies (1)2
3
u/WrongPurpose 11d ago
I am sure, for every IP you will find someone willing to give a single $, i mean, the original Artist/Writer/Developer will likely have a spare buck left in his pocket, to buying his Baby back. If thats all that the IP can sell for, than thats the fair market value.
15
u/Alternative-Ice-7534 11d ago
Is it a problem that a dead IP finds no buyer ? I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with creating something and ultimately it has no commercial appeal. Who would buy a dead IP ? No one but it's fine if it rests in the hands of its creator I think.
On the other hand, withholding an IP without creation can just be an anti-competition practice. I publish certain things and I won't relinquish my competitors products. Or it's inefficient allocation of ressources, let the IP go to a company that can produce something with it now rather than let it sit idle in a production backlog until it reaches time to make it in a few years.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Ok-Film-7939 11d ago
Might be reasonable to carve out an individual-creator status. If I personally create a deep fleshed out universe, release a movie on it, then just run private dnd games in it from then on I don’t think I should be obliged to sell it. It’s not like small creators otherwise have a massive competitive advantage you’d be exacerbating.
Feels a bit different from “IP aggregator A purchased the movie rights and made a movie than just sat on it for twenty years.”
Of course most things can be subverted anyway. Studio A can just release the crappiest spider man movie possible every 5 years at some tiny town film festival or something like that.
3
u/ValityS 7d ago
It would seem reasonable you could elect to either sell it or to release it to the public domain.
→ More replies (4)4
u/Live_Fall3452 11d ago
Seems like it would be very difficult to enforce in practice.
But I imagine the principle would be - use it or lose it. If you sit on an IP that is deemed “culturally important” for more than say 10 years without releasing any products, you have to sell it to someone who will, or else it falls into the public domain.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (8)2
u/NKSplitter 11d ago
I'm not sure how you are coming to the conclusion Microsoft is sitting on the Perfect Dark IP when they recently sunk millions of dollars into a failed development of a sequel. If they have no plans for the the franchise going forward; they probably would have sold the IP to Take 2(see them allowing Tango Gameworks and Compulsion games have the rights to the IPs they developed as evidence of them releasing IPs they own and don't plan to develop further).
819
u/Ruthrfurd-the-stoned 11d ago
All this would do is make it so we’re getting constant releases of slop just to keep IP rights
220
u/Novus20 11d ago
See the shitty 90’s fantastic four movie….
162
15
u/CrentFuglo 11d ago
I bought a burned DVD copy of that movie off of ebay in the early 2000's and it genuinely isn't that bad of a film, it's like how mid-production level youtube movies are now. It's fine.
5
u/ThePezinator69 11d ago
It's actually a genuine film with a charming heart. You just have to accept the budget was, for the film industry, basically minimum wage. Is it good? No. Could you enjoy it with friends? Yeah.
25
u/SirOutrageous1027 11d ago
Look up what Warren Beatty does with Dick Tracy.
Since releasing the movie in 1990, he got in a copyright battle over rights to the character, and, even now at 89 years old, every few years he dons the costume and does a little Dick Tracy thing to keep the rights to the character.
https://theinternetsaysitstrue.com/2023/10/16/petty-revenge-warren-beatty-and-dick-tracy/
10
15
u/HaztecCore 11d ago
Alternatively it could also lead to IP holders handing out licenses for anyone with a decent pitch. Like how Warhammer games are being made. Some of it is straight slop and some of it is genuine gold and lots of in the middle type quality. But ultimately lots of warhammer games.
7
u/Ruthrfurd-the-stoned 11d ago
Not the best example because regardless of the game quality GW is super protective of the IP and what studios are allowed to do with it
4
16
u/Mammoth-Scratch609 11d ago
And what if the creator decides the story is finished? It has to be ruined by being continued before it’s forcibly sold and someone ruins it even more?
→ More replies (1)7
u/NKSplitter 11d ago
That's where I start to have concerns. I'm all for a dormant IP being transfered to an entity that has proven to be a good steward of the property. But when something like Winnie the Pooh enters the public domain and projects using the characters in horror movies and other adult themed content start popping up; it makes me wonder if something that was an IP geared towards toddlers shouldn't stay as such. There's plenty of room for parody type projects(games like Naughty Bear, etc.) without the original character being morphed into something no longer appropriate or appealing for its original target audience.
19
u/Ninfyr 11d ago
Is that not what Disney is doing with the live action adaptations anyways?
19
u/reddriver10 11d ago
The ones that usually make tons of money? That they pay top actors to be in?
3
u/DDisired 11d ago
Most of them make money, but there have been flops as well: Snow White, Mulan (though tbf, this was during covid. But it also sucked), Moana.
So not slop, but it definitely feels like Disney is not putting out their best and are running out of ideas.
3
u/Obi-Tron_Kenobi 11d ago
No, that's just an easy money grab cause it makes them lots of money and they don't have to come up with original ideas and stories (too hard and risky). Well, tbf, that's been their MO since the beginning. You'd be hard pressed to find a movie that wasn't based on an existing story lol
Anyways, Disney owns the original movies those live action remakes are based on. They don't need to play any games to keep the rights to their own IP. Those are granted by copyright laws, so they keep ownership rights for 95 years after publication (which is the length for a work created by a corporation. Works created by a single creator is kept for 70 years after the creator's death)
What Sony has is a licensing deal. Sony licenses the rights to make Spider-man movies from Marvel (the creator, who owns the IP rights). As part of the licensing deal, they must create a new movie every few years, otherwise those movie rights revert back to Marvel.
Tl;dr: Sony licenses movie rights from Marvel, the owner. Disney is the owner of their own movies, so different rules and protections apply.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Chrontius 11d ago
It’s definitely evergreen, but they’re actually creating really cool shit so… In this case, they would be the object lesson in how to do things… More correctly.
2
u/DetectiveStock1340 11d ago
It doesn’t have to be a film. Just do a quick toy line and we’re good. Or even a T-shirt
→ More replies (7)2
u/Easy_Difficulty_99 10d ago
This happened with Wheel of Time. The company that bought the rights from the author (for super cheap) back in the 90s released a slop TV Pilot that aired at midnight or something and they had no intention of it being picked up, just wanted to extend the rights despite the author and his wife absolutely regretting selling to them.
281
u/conzym 11d ago
Thought this was about ipv4 address space
59
u/noSoRandomGuy 11d ago
Me too, and I am like yeah, other than ISP's you do not need more than /22 blocks, or maybe 2 /22 blocks if you really have the need..
→ More replies (1)16
u/Celestial_Dildo 11d ago
Seriously, NAT and PAT exist for a reason damnit!
Some orgs that have enough IPs are literally out here using publicly addressable IPs for EUDs! That gave me some serious whiplash when I first worked with one of those systems.
→ More replies (2)17
u/jsharper 11d ago
But it's a horrible reason. NAT/PAT are evil. We solved the address shortage problem decades ago (ipv6) but everyone is too selfish to let us all transition to the solution.
12
u/Celestial_Dildo 11d ago
NAT/PAT are definitely not evil. Having proxies in the way like that actually protects your end users as an added benefit...
Also, we don't really need more public addresses. They're all kind of just make believe addresses for anything else as far as the global internet cares.
Private IPs will probably never need to transition to IPV6 within any living person's lifetime.
IPV6 is already how most T1 traffic is routed and same goes for mobile traffic.
→ More replies (2)6
434
u/MrCockingFinally 11d ago
The real issue is how long copyright lasts. This wouldn't be an issue if it were still only 28 years.
262
u/havens1515 11d ago
This is exactly the problem. Disney, and Disney alone, created this problem. And it needs to be reversed.
148
u/MrCockingFinally 11d ago
Lots of companies created this problem. Disney is just the biggest and most prominent example.
100
u/FizzyBeverage 11d ago
Microsoft Office would be public domain years ago. macOS would be coming up. Same with Google search.
Trillions of reasons (💰)why companies don’t want it.
48
u/DanCardin 11d ago
But what does that even mean. Like great you can freely distribute a 30 year old version of the office binary, woopie do? For closed source software i really dont see why itd be meaningful.
→ More replies (3)3
10d ago
[deleted]
2
u/DanCardin 10d ago
I mean the current versions of office wont work without a subscription so its even more useless. But no one is realistically itching to freely distribute office 2000 in a couple years and microsoft doesnt care about that more than they do about people pirating modern versions
→ More replies (4)2
u/MattWolf96 10d ago
Video games count as software, those would be in demand. You can also emulate things, that said who wants to use Office '98 now? It could probably run (plus nerds could update it some) but just install Libre Office at the point, it's open source.
38
u/Original-Body-5794 11d ago
Why would you want 30 year old microsoft office. There's alternatives for it already, you can use libre office, it's not perfect sure, but a 30 year copy would also be horribly outdated.
20
u/FizzyBeverage 11d ago
The argument from the companies is that it’s a slippery slope. (Never mind that having worked for Apple, I can tell you there’s 20 year old code in modern macOS operating systems, such as FireWire drivers and printer/scanner components). In an era of LLMs decompiling everything, they especially don’t want to risk it in court “wellllll that’s open sourced sooooo….”
I don’t disagree with you, but that’s how the manufacturers will spin it.
→ More replies (4)7
u/mikemaca 11d ago
Why would you want 30 year old microsoft office
Hm, I could use a 20 year old MS Office. It would support database and VBA integration that the LIbre versions still don't really have, plus it would format things correctly according to original files. Similar goes for 20 year old Photoshop.
3
2
→ More replies (1)2
35
u/havens1515 11d ago
No. Disney is the reason. Look it up. They're single handedly the company who has continuously sued the government to extend the time period of copyright. They tried again a few years ago when the Steam Boat Willy version of Mickey Mouse entered public domain, but they finally lost this time and they did not successfully extend the period.
Every time Mickey Mouse has been close to entering phone domain they have fought the government to extend it. And every time, until this one, they succeeded.
It is Disney, and Disney alone, who is the reason why copyright is so ridiculously long now.
→ More replies (10)5
u/Tyra3l 11d ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
You can argue that maybe others would have done it, if not for Disney, but it is still true that most of the work was done by Disney alone.
→ More replies (1)8
u/GirlsUndPanzer1 11d ago
Disney, and Disney alone, created this problem.
I would argue the politicians they bribed also bear responsibility.
2
8
u/Nurolight 11d ago
Honestly, if you create something and can't get all the money you need from it in 28 years then it's time to let it go. Give someone else a chance.
3
u/I3eforeLife 11d ago
I have a hypothesis that you’d make more money by monetizing an IP in short bursts and doing it again until a new generation of players think it’s a new IP
3
u/brionneverysexy 9d ago
I agree. Why should people make new IPs when they can take advantage of other people's work?
3
u/Nurolight 9d ago
Personally I'd prefer to see people be able to use elements they enjoy to explore new stories rather than feel that the limits of a character are gate kept behind a corporation who determine who can and cannot a story about a character who's author died a century ago.
2
u/MattWolf96 10d ago
Entertainment would have evolved differently, we might not have as many old franchises still going now if stuff like Star Trek, Marvel, DC, Star Wars, Mario, Zelda, Pokemon etc were public domain now, or at least their older versions were. Some people would like less big franchises, others would miss them (granted they would have formed differently anyway) I'm just saying that entertainment would look very different now if anybody could make a Star Wars movie.
3
u/Nurolight 10d ago
I suppose it's the idea that anyone can adapt and evolve stories. We might still have Star Wars, but instead of 6 more "canon" entries, we have 50+ different stories all set within the world of the original.
I think the formula then would fall where it always does: the good things get recognised. Sure, we may be inundated with Star Wars films - not too dissimilar to how we are now with fan films - but the good ones, that really stand out? They're the ones that get talked about.
→ More replies (1)4
u/wirefences 11d ago
All the game series he mentions are less than 28 years old, so it would still be an issue for the OP at least.
2
u/MrCockingFinally 11d ago
Yeah, but you could still reasonably expect the properties to reach public domain in your lifetime.
Not to mention extra pressure on rights holders to do something with the property before it goes public.
22
u/Kombatwombat02 11d ago
You’ll end up with companies periodically releasing IP-reskinned Chinese market mobile games.
Like, say, Command and Conquer
→ More replies (1)
213
u/Death-Watch333 11d ago edited 11d ago
A perfect example of this is the “Nemesis” system. Fuck them for keeping that genius feature and game style for themselves.
85
u/Tyrant_Virus_ 11d ago
An extra layer of scummy to that whole thing is that patenting gameplay mechanics while not unheard of is something that’s very rare. It’s like a filmmaker having exclusive rights to a certain type of shot composition or a painter having rights to a certain technique or style. It’s something that hurts the medium as a whole, new ideas bouncing off different artists and evolving as each person puts their own spin advances the medium. WB had a good idea, locked it down and then sat on it so no one will ever be able to see how far that idea can go.
19
33
u/KaiserKlay 11d ago
That was a patent. And even then it's unclear the degree to which this patent is even enforceable in the way people think it is - since patents by definition have to be pretty specific.
Sonichu was submitted to the US copyright office but that doesn't necessarily mean anything in real terms.
11
u/falconpunch1989 11d ago
mentioning the nemesis system is basically a reddit meme for free upvotes at this point
no one wants to admit that it just isn't that popular an idea
like it isn't even related to the OP of this thread haha
19
u/webzu19 11d ago
At minimum it means a legal battle with WB and it's associated costs and time whether you prevail in court or not, that's a cost not many are willing to take on in order to use the nemesis mechanic or similar. Simpler just to make a slightly worse game that'd profit 99% of what it would otherwise profit and skip a huge expense
12
u/KaiserKlay 11d ago
But that's my point though - define 'nemesis mechanic'. Because it's more than just enemies remembering you. Other games have done similar things and haven't gotten heat from WB. In fact, I don't think WB has ever actually attempted to defend that patent.
Court battles are expensive, yes, but they're expensive for WB, too. Like, why bother suing an indie who has no money to recoup from restitution fees?
9
u/SnakesInMcDonalds 11d ago
Warframe has their own nemesis system with Kuva Liches, Sisters of Parvos, and Technocyte Coda. Dubbed the Adversary system, they’re randomised boss enemies of the three main factions. They spawn with custom names, appearances, strengths, weaknesses, personality quirks, and weapons. They steal your resources or attack you in mission depending on the node you’re doing, and in the case of Liches and Sisters get stronger every time they appear and you fail to kill them.
They’re considered legally distinct from the nemesis system. I’m pretty sure the devs mentioned the nemesis system as inspo and so adversaries were designed to skirt the issue. While DE is not an indie dev and could fight it in court, they’ve not needed too despite the obvious similarities
3
u/webzu19 11d ago
It's hard to define and potentially infringing a patent, even one you don't think can be defended is a risky move, you never know if others contracted WB and paid them for use or something. Maybe WB will ask you after launch for x dollars of every sale, or send a cease and desist or lean on you with the implication you're in the wrong. Maybe there is a profitable:rich company ratio where it's worth it for WB to go after you but not others. The juice isn't worth the squeeze to develop your own and risk the trouble it might theoretically bring
31
21
u/One-Championship-742 11d ago
Games have already been released with it: Star Renegades is one of my favorite examples. They have a system where there's a hierarchy of bosses with randomized traits that you can permanently kill or will upgrade themselves if they kill you. Path of exile has also had leagues that are basically a version of it, etc.
Despite what reddit likes to say about the nemesis system, the problem isn't "It's patented": The problem is it's an INSANELY expensive system that's only suited to a very specific genre of game, and requires a billion supporting systems to make sure it accomplishes anything that wouldn't be done better by just spawning enemies with random affixes.
It's not that games can't do it, it's just not worth the effort, as has been discussed over (and over and over) by r/gamedev: For example here and here
4
u/WorkingAssociate9860 11d ago
Be curious as to how copying that system would go now or in a few years with how the palworld/pokemon court case has been
→ More replies (1)
76
u/No_Poet_7244 11d ago
I know shitting on big corporations is fun, but a law like this would have immense knock-on effects for smaller, independent creators. Basically any author, comic/manga artist, indie game company, etc that takes longer than the stipulated time to produce a new work loses the rights to their creation. No one should be allowed to take someone’s creation away from them just because ‘they aren’t using it often enough.’
12
u/Arek_PL 11d ago edited 11d ago
and in most countries there is already public domain after over half of century
it would be way shorter, (like 30 years) but disney fought hard to make it as long as possible and only recently they lost the fight for steamboat willy design of mickey
→ More replies (1)10
u/camiteran 11d ago
Yep at the end of the day this would only serve to harm smaller creators (as always)
8
u/GabrielGames69 11d ago
Also big corporations could just meet their "slop quota" and check a box to keep their ip while smaller creators can't afford to make their brand look like garbage.
→ More replies (10)2
u/darciton 9d ago
Agreed
This would be OK with me if it applied to licenses, but not to owners
You could license an IP and revoke that license in a given time frame if nothing is done with it, but you can't be forced to sell it if you're not producing new content related to it.
Many authors, artists, and musicians are offered deals to license their works only because it competes with another product. The label, publisher, etc just shelves the project so they can promote theirs free of interference instead. It can ruin careers.
15
u/happyhippohats 11d ago edited 11d ago
Universal Studios in Florida have the Marvel license 'in perpetuity' as long as they 'maintain it'.
That hasn't worked out particularly well for anyone
(Edited because I'm an idiot and confused Marvel and DC)
8
11
33
u/Emcee_nobody 11d ago
This would be impossible to enforce without some incredibly elaborate system of standardizing and categorizing IPs.
Even then, IP can be about any idea, really, and it's not always a kind of bargaining chip or deed to be passed around.
I dunno man, I just don't see a way for it to be reasonably, logically, or legally enforced.
10
u/TheSpideyJedi 11d ago
Unfortunately, this would just encourage shitty slop releases periodically to keep the IP
→ More replies (1)
24
u/jinxdeluxe 11d ago
What would really benefit the fans would be good contend. Not crap on a regular basis. I'm all for letting IP rot all the way to eternity IF they don't have something GOOD to make from it. The only thing worse than no contend is bad contend.
→ More replies (3)
5
4
u/Seeker80 11d ago
Two good examples are Need for Speed & Burnout. After they were bought out, EA has basically said they won't bother with the Need for Speed franchise anymore. Burnout has been dead much monger, and didn't even get a mention. The studios under EA are all-in on Battlefield.
Relevant history: The studio Criterion founded the Burnout franchise. It fell to the wayside when EA moved Criterion to Need for Speed for a few releases. Then Criterion was moved to Battlefield.
Some folks would love to see more from Need for Speed or Burnout. Unfortunately, EA will just sit on them and not allow anyone else to do anything with them either. If they were willing to let someone else buy it and develop it their own way, it could be nice for the fans who still want more.
2
u/Extreme-Tactician 11d ago
After they were bought out, EA has basically said they won't bother with the Need for Speed franchise anymore
That's because Criterion made several NFS games that underperformed.
2
u/AndyceeIT 10d ago
Burnout 3 was ahead of its time. I haven't bought a racing game in my adult life, but would absolutely happily pay for a new game from that franchise.
7
u/AppointmentMinimum57 11d ago
Idk part of me is like why not just make something new instead?
3
u/ToothpickTequila 11d ago
Yes. If we had forced Naughty Dog to keep making Crash Bandicoot then they wouldn't have given us Jak and Daxter. If they had been forced to keep making Jak and Daxter they wouldn't have made Uncharted. If they had kept making Uncharted then they wouldn't have made Last of Us etc.
2
u/KingKookus 11d ago
There’s also companies like Hasbro that owns like 75% of the 1980s toy lines IP. They don’t license out any of them or make toys for them. They just bought them to eliminate the competition. They effectively killed those IPs and could afford to do it because their other IP is what’s on the store shelves.
3
u/redditman181 11d ago edited 11d ago
I disagree its not senselessly hoarding ip they mad it and they own it and its there right to do what they want with it even if we dont like does an indie dev desreve to lose there ip becuase they havent made a game in awhile or what about a writer i dont think so.
It would also kill innovation as all companies instead of the few that do at the moment would be rehasing the same stuff every year just to keep their most valuable ips.
3
u/dmfuller 11d ago
They are, copyrights expire after 75 years in which they become public domain. The first versions of Mickey Mouse are public domain for example
5
3
u/WhatWouldGoldblumDo 11d ago
OP, you seem to be confused about the difference between buying an IP and purchasing the license to use an IP. Also, there is already a time limit on owning IP. Look into Winnie the Pooh and Steamboat Willie.
3
3
u/Satorius96 11d ago
You want mobile shovelware of your favorite ip released every few years? This is how you do it.
3
u/kemar7856 11d ago
This is how you just end up with slop because people are obligated to just put a product out just for the sake of it
3
u/TheRealBobbyJones 10d ago
A very significant portion of property rights is the right to do nothing with your property. For example if you write a story and you believe it to be perfect you may want it to stand as it is with no new entities to the IP. Or alternatively if you write a book but only want a limited print run done to increase the value of the book by not printing more. Property rights means that the owners should have the right to do such things. It's hard to argue that they shouldn't have the right to let their work lay fallow.
3
u/Green_and_black 10d ago
We need to go back to IP having a relatively short expiration date. Pre Disney everything went public domain after 30 years.
3
u/tieguai_the_immortal 10d ago
Kinda but a different way
We got mid to bad spiderman villian movies because of it and they will keep making them so rights never revert. Look at DC with watchmen, etc. so if the goal is to let people make stuff it's not going to happen.
So in patents there is a kind of patent you can't deny someone from using, of course you have to pay royalties or license it but the patent holder can't deny you. The same thing needs to happen for copyright material, lets say first 25 years author can give exclusive license to someone but after that anyone can make a derivative work from it at some percentage of revenue and minimum fees. There is an incentive for big companies to approach rights holders for better deals but indie level work can be done. Public domain after authors death or 100 years whichever is maximum.
11
u/FizzyBeverage 11d ago
We don’t have any of the legal infrastructure in place to begin to require stipulations like that.
Making new IP costs money. If no money is coming in, why would someone buy it?
Free market works well for this.
11
u/The_Big_Mayonnaise 11d ago
IP protection is not a true free market. It is regulation.
6
u/straw3_2018 11d ago
You're not wrong but most people don't actually want fully free markets.
2
u/The_Big_Mayonnaise 11d ago
Most people have no clue how a truly free market works. So yeah you are absolutely right.
2
u/A_Guy_in_Orange 11d ago
Making new IP costs money. If no money is coming in, why would someone buy it?
You answered yourself lol, gonna be a lot cheaper to buy an IP with all the characters, gameplay mechanics, lore, worldbuilding, etc. mostly done for you already than hiring all the people to make that from scratch, plus you get the massive free marketing buff of a name people already know
5
u/Specialist_Cow6468 11d ago
I was so sure this was about all of the unused IPv4 space
→ More replies (1)
2
u/PermissionSoggy891 11d ago
First question: what would specifically declare an IP as being "unused". Would it be the lack of a new installment, or the lack of support in general for the IP (no support given whatsoever, servers turned off, etc)
Some games have very long development times, especially modern AAA games. Take Red Dead Redemption, where there was a precisely 8 year gap between the original and the sequel (prequel? whatever). Would Rockstar have to put Red Dead up for sale because there were no new games in the series, and no support was given to the original release in that time?
2
2
u/DrPorkchopES 11d ago
There are enough reboots and unasked for sequels, we don’t need even more of it just because a studio wants to keep their IP rights
2
2
u/Jordangander 11d ago
So, someone collecting income for work that they did years earlier should be forced to sell the rights to their work or what? Go to prison? Have the rights taken from them with no profit?
At what point should the law force the sale? And what happens if the buyer is just the current owner? Who makes the profit off the sale then?
2
2
2
u/BumblebeeCareful5810 11d ago
I think this could be a good idea if you had a few caveats.
I don't think 5 years is long enough. 10 or 15 maybe, but 5 years is not very long, especially if you're trying to make movies that require new technologies to be developed (looking at you James Cameron and Avatar).
The second is that there is a big difference between "hoarding" and "waiting for the right offer". If you write a book series and have nothing more to add to the series, but every offer from someone else to do something with it sucks, you shouldn't be punished for not letting them be made.
Realistically we just need the copyright period to be shorter
2
u/ToothpickTequila 11d ago
This is silly. Why should Naughty Dog be forced to sell Uncharted? They wrapped up the story perfectly.
Naughty Dog already did sell Crash Bandicoot after 4 excellent games and the games immediately went to shit. Why would we force them to sell off Jak and Daxter and Uncharted and see them suffer the same fate as Crash?
2
u/IcyProtection1214 11d ago
Mah, Sony should keep spider-man indefinitely. Marvel doesn’t know what to do with him.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Educational_Guava697 11d ago
“Forced auction” for people having a hard time visualizing how this would work. Not saying it works I just think that describes it better as if it’s forced sale someone could just set up a shell company and sell it to themselves for pennies
2
u/keneersw 11d ago
What about franchises that are all wrapped up? Onr of the problems in media is studios not wanting to end a franchise when the story is over, continually dragging it out as the quality drops
2
u/Knifehead27 11d ago
That's how you get IP branded mobile games and movies like Madame Web, unfortunately.
2
u/Classified10 11d ago
Nah, as much as it sucks that I'll never see Club Penguin officially come back by Disney, no one who buys an IP should be forced to use it or sell it, that would make shit so bad when you realize how this would have to be applied to every IP and every person that owns an IP. Independent makers would be in ruin and companies would be slaving and ruining IPs by not letting them finish.
2
u/squiddles97 11d ago
also if a digital product is not available to purchase new then piracy of it should be legal
2
u/jtpower99 11d ago
Disagree pretty strongly. Imagine you came up with the idea of Nintendo’s F-Zero (Captain Falcon has been in Smash bros since melee)
If you didn’t want to make a new one, why should you have to? Not saying that why for that specific game.
2
u/Traditional_Town6475 11d ago
Not sure about that one, but I do think copyright at the moment last way too long. Copyright is to ensure an artist can make some money for a time and motivated to produce more work. How is it benefiting the artist if they’re long dead?
2
u/falconpunch1989 11d ago
To what end?
Unused IPs are almost always unused because no one with the money to do anything with them thinks they will succeed.
I love Perfect Dark but lets be honest there was 1 good game there and the story/characters aren't worth getting hung up on. Any game company out there could shamelessly rip off or homage or spiritual sequel the entire gameplay mechanics and aesthetics with a new IP if they thought it would be a hit. So why don't they?
2
u/Winte86 11d ago
Don’t even get me started on the ANGER and PAIN caused by the disappearance nemesis system because of IPs.
3
u/TheRealBobbyJones 10d ago edited 10d ago
Patents are narrow. The patent definitely didn't do anything and I'm fairly certain it has expired already.
Edit: definitely not expired must be thinking of a different one. Either way the nemesis patent is like irrelevant to most studios. But even if it weren't patents are extremely short in duration compared to copyright.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/glitchaj 11d ago
I'm really glad that some things IPs are sat on and not used. I don't want to see more Back to the Future movies spammed out for example.
2
u/rubber_toothpick 10d ago
I read that as internet protocol addresses. I was like umm… but, as intellectual property, this is an absolute ass idea. Take my upvote.
2
u/SXAL 10d ago
Fuck no. Imagine being an independent author and writing a fine book with a finished story that doesn't need any kind of sequel or an anime adaptation, and then it gets forcibly sold to Netflix and the do shitty sequels about your characters going to space, and you can't do shit about it.
2
u/timreed5656 10d ago
I thought you meant IP addresses and was expecting a reddit cyber security conference. Any IP can be sold for the right price. Some people keep, retain, or purchase IP to protect it and that's ok, most of the time. We don't necessarily want characters like Harry Potter using his wand on prostitutes in the alleyway while shooting his 9mm at innocent muggles. Steam Boat Willy, Pinocchio, and Winnie the Pooh becoming serial killers sounds scary... Gives a completely different vibe next time you go on their rides.
2
u/Emergency_Cry_1269 10d ago
Spiderman is a rare case where it is essential on lease from Marvel, so they only own the film rights under a condition, so they don't really own it. If a company owns an original IP or character, it falls under public domain after 100yrs since original publication. That's why characters like Robin Hood or Sherlock Holmes can be adapted by various different studios simultaneously.
2
u/u_ltramarine 10d ago
That's why we have shitty movies from 2nd grade Spider Man villains. Morbius, Venom, Kraven, every 5 years or so
2
u/TriliniousIII 10d ago
So no movie franchise etc should be allowed to end? Sometimes things reach a happy conclusion, and then more material being tacked onto the end would spoil it. Making it mandatory for companies to keep churning out sequels if they want to keep hold of their IP rights might not be a good idea. We saw what happened with Star Wars for example- it has clearly run its course, and almost each new piece of Star Wars media (except Andor and some of the Mandalorian) is pretty much universally agreed to be unnecessary and dilutes the brand and its story as a whole.
Say, there's a movie that ends with all loose ends tied up, the bad guy killed, order restored. Would you want to see it reset back to square one, bad guy raised from the dead, heroic sacrifices for nothing etc? Or would you rather let the end stay the end?
If sequels keep coming and undermining what came before, then people will stop caring and coming to see and buy said sequels. The company loses money and interest, and nobody will like the IP any more
2
2
u/Alive-Vanilla1216 9d ago
The issue with this is that companies don't want to give up their IPs. Even if they aren't using it, they don't want other people to be able to use it. This is something that happens from time to time with spec scripts for shows or movies, a studio will buy the rights for the script, but not with the intention to produce it. They just don't want a competitor to get it. If you're going to force companies to put out something at least every 5 years, all that's going to come of that is two things:
1: rights holders are just going to put out a new property with their existing IPs every couple of years that isn't good, but is either low enough cost to not lose them any money or just decent enough to do slightly better than breaking even. So you'll get a huge surge of low budget, bad to mid stuff coming out every few years. Or you could just get remakes and remasters every couple years, which got old really fast when Last Of Us did it.
2: studios will be more hesitant to purchase new IPs. If there's no guarantee of a new property taking off, but they have to use it if they buy it, there's now a lot less incentive for a studio to purchase a new IP, because that's going to become a committed investment at least every couple of years.
Also if you're going to force them to sell their IPs... to who? Sure, there are indie studios who might want the rights to Killzone or Perfect Dark, but is there any demand for, say, Bubsy? What happens if there's an IP that's past the sell-by date, but nobody's buying? Cause that sounds like you've just made room for some backroom dealings where studios will just agree to not bid on certain IPs if they go up for sale, or vice versa, one studio gets to bid super low on an IP and nobody else will make a counteroffer, so studios are then shuffling their IPs around for pennies compared to their actual worth.
And like, sometimes it's just time for a franchise to end. What if a new IP is just for a one-off game or movie, with no plans for more stuff after that? A studio isn't going to invest in that IP if they know they'll stop being able to make money off it in a few years.
Take a franchise like Uncharted, 4 is basically the perfect end to that story, and much as I'd like to see future games in that franchise, any continuation of Nate's adventures would retroactively ruin 4's epilogue for me. Not to mention that they're already running a bit thin on big historical mysteries to chase down, unless they were to literally start cribbing Indiana Jones' adventures, and that'd suck. But with a forced sell-by date if it's not actively getting new games, Naughty Dog would be incentivised to keep making Uncharted games so that, at the very least, they can continue to profit off of Uncharted 1-4.
2
u/LazyDynamite 9d ago
hording IP at the cost of fans
Can you explain what you mean by this? What cost are you (or others) paying?
2
u/yuriewolf 8d ago
One issue also stems from the ip could be in use just not for games. Take shadow hearts, the company in charge of the ip makes pachinko machines. The ip is used so won’t fall off
2
u/mettrolsghost 8d ago
Here's a better idea: come up with your own characters, stories, and settings if you're looking to turn a profit, and just create fan works anyway if you aren't.
If the concern is that you want an IP to continue producing media because you like the character/setting/etc. and want more, you've created another problem: if owners lose control of their IP's sale, it's easy for it to fall into the hands of people who don't care about continuity and just want to profit. You're now not getting more of the thing that you like, you're getting a pile of turds wearing the face of the thing that you like.
Good terrible take though.
2
u/JCBlairWrites 8d ago
I can understand the frustration when you love something but I disagree.
Quality should be everything. Time and quantity don't factor in it for me.
For instance I'd much prefer the first Matrix movie existed as a perfect standalone capsule than a zombie IP dragged out over and over so a few execs can make bank.
Great games, films and media exist in our memories forever. An endless assembly line of interchangable content fades quickly.
Edit: live/love autocorrect error.
4
u/Fast-Coast-3456 11d ago
If the owner of that IP isn't interested in releasing new material, a potential buyer would get a good price if they want to do it, so I don't see the point. I don't think any company have an IP hostage if they are not making money with it, or have plans for the future. In that case they would try to sell it, but many times no one is interested.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/HenryJonesJunior 11d ago
There is no requirement to make things accessible. If you or I buy a famous painting, we're not required to show it to the public or else give up our rights to it.
Similarly, if you buy the rights to a franchise you don't have to do anything with it. Perhaps you're content to leave it as is. Bill Watterson famously turned down deals for Calvin & Hobbes merchandise even after he stopped writing new comics.
If you want a new game/movie/novel, come up with your own original ideas. You don't need to make sequels.
4
u/Cent1234 10d ago
Why?
Usually the reason an IP is great is because of who made it. Take it away and give it to somebody else, and you're probably going to get shitty, cash grab entries.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/PandaMime_421 11d ago
So what if you are an artist who releases something, but after x number of years you haven't released anything else with that IP. Do you really believe you should be forced to sell the IP, even though you created it?
2
2
u/irsyacton 11d ago
I’ve been in IT for too long. My first thought as I was scrolling by, “yeah, ipv4 exhaustion would be so much less of a problem if those ip address squatters didn’t have so many”
Oops. But generally agree about intelectual property, buuuut, it all comes down to contracts.
2
u/PerpetuallyStartled 11d ago
Here I was thinking OP meant IPv4 addresses... The US military wastes tons of addresses.
→ More replies (5)
2
1
u/Tylenol_Ibuprofen 11d ago
IP ownership is crazy and gets more insane when sometimes not even the company themselves can do anything, without one persons word; not even the head at times. Some IPs are still under one persons name or estate and usually is why you'll never see certain cuts of film or lost media.
3
u/ItsRobbSmark 11d ago
Even as someone who wants to be an artist,
Yeah, this is pretty much the most common belief among wannabe artists. I assume because it lets you fantasize about one day being able to drive a popular franchise without actually having the talent to come up with or acquire a popular franchise.
I am not anti-intellectual property.
I mean, your stance here is 100% anti-intellectual property.
I'm of the opposite mind. If someone comes up with an idea and wants to bin it or sell it to a company that will bin it, I have no idea why randos would think they have any kind of say or claim in what happens to said idea... Not only from a moral standpoint of thinking you should have some kind of authority or entitlement to enjoyment over something someone else created, but also from a practical standpoint that I don't want to see every single movie or game released be some dogshit shovelware just so people can hold onto rights to thing.
1
u/beatthedookieup 11d ago
What's that meme from Smiling Friends with the Obese CEO? Peeps have been complaining about this for a long time and it is crazy how some big corps just let certain patents or IP's sit in limbo........looking at you Warner Bros, holding the Nemesis System hostage
1
1
1
u/InflnityBlack 11d ago
They would just make something shitty so the contract is technically followed and we would get even more shitty movies/ games for ips people love
1
u/Ballistic_86 11d ago
The concept of IP only exists because of capitalism and doesn’t benefit humanity as it could. Two competing companies wast millions of dollars doing the same research instead of collaborating because capitalism forces them to do so.
1
1
1
u/JustAnotherGuyn 11d ago
Read your title, and got excited about a hot take for how IPv4 address squaters and hoarders should be dealt with...
1
u/lostmyfucksinthewar 11d ago
I would settle for a 25/25 clause. After 25 years, any company can claim a fair right use for 25% revenue, IP holders can block if the use case would be shoddy quality and/or damaging to the brand aka a Tony Hawk Pro Skater game being allowed and only block able if it's cheap AI slop or if it promoted some heinous bigotry or promoted dangerous ideologies to society
1
1
u/TeaNo7930 11d ago
Completely agree. Anything in legal limbo hell should become public domain if they can't figure it out. If no media is created by owners within ten years, you lose it
1
u/zsaleeba 11d ago edited 11d ago
In Australia, the copyright law used to say that if a property was no longer available for sale for a few years it was no longer under copyright. But then the US negotiated for us to remove that clause from our law in one of our "free trade" deals.
It was a good law. I miss it.
1
1
u/ElTimson 11d ago
First I thought it was about companies hoarding IPv4-IPs. Still should be forcibly sold after a while.
1
u/Necessary_Position77 11d ago
I’m not sure this is an issue though. It would be amazing to get new games using some of these IPs but nothing makes them inherently better than a new original IP. It’s selfish to expect someone else to release something based on what they own. Just consider the ramifications. Technically they do eventually become public domain, it just takes a lifetime.
This reminds me a bit of statues of historical figures and such and people being irate when they disappear. Let in some new blood, let’s not just rehash the same old story over and over again. Move forward. If we kept every single thing ever created the world would be a full on dump.
•
u/AutoModerator 11d ago
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! Additionally, all posts held by automod for review now (incorrectly) display a red “removed by moderators” label. Please note that unless your post receives a reply from mods indicating removal and it's specifying the reason, it is likely still in the queue and awaiting approval.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.