this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
765 points (99.6% liked)

RetroGaming

19213 readers
1 users here now

Vintage gaming community.

Rules:

  1. Be kind.
  2. No spam or soliciting for money.
  3. No racism or other bigotry allowed.
  4. Obviously nothing illegal.

If you see these please report them.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://radiation.party/post/41704

[ comments | sourced from HackerNews ]

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The problem is essentially how do you define ownership? Is there a right to not make something the copyright holder owns publicly available?

I think in the cases of abandonware or more recently the moves by media companies to delist certain media for tax benefits, there's a good argument to be made over forfeiting the copyright, so it's now public domain and fair game. But I also think for something like the Star Wars Holiday Special, where the creator/copyright holder (not sure about that status post-Disney acquisition) genuinely hates it and does not want it available to the public, the owner should be allowed to restrict access to it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

But I also think for something like the Star Wars Holiday Special, where the creator/copyright holder (not sure about that status post-Disney acquisition) genuinely hates it and does not want it available to the public, the owner should be allowed to restrict access to it.

Personally I disagree on that too. If something has been made public once it should stay public, unless it contains actively harmful information or something.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

How do you get tax benefits for that? Sounds pretty shady.