10-04-2005 11:44									#31
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark 3. OTOH, copyright isnt forever. Its supposed to expire at some point, and material is supposed to enter the public domain. It seems logical that in a field like software, where tech updates obsolece games, and payback cycles are short, that using copyright lengths from traditional media (themselves perhaps unreasonably lengthened) is unreasonable.

Copyright is currently essentially forever, thanks to the Walt Disney Corporation. Copyright used to be much shorter, iirc 50 or 60 years, but ever since Mickey Mouse would have been public domain, W.D. has lobbie congress to extend copyright protection, and it has continued to do so - up to 93 years or something like that, at last call.

Dunk has a good point; however, books and digital media are different, and have been held to be. When you buy a digital program (be it music, video, or software), you are buying the right to use the digital media, not the physical media; otherwise you'd be constantly in violation of the law, as most forms of 'reading' digital media involve making a (very temporary) copy of it (ie a cd player reads the cd, takes the digital code that translates to the sound, writes it to memory somewhere, etc.). It's still not 100% legally clear what constitutes legal vs illegal uses of digital media - but it is generally allowable to make a duplicate for archival purposes, and ripping a song into MP3 format is perfectly acceptable as long as you don't give that song to anyone else.

Abandonware, otoh, is certainly illegal, at the moment. It is indeed the right of the publisher to not release a game as public domain, or even to not sell it. I personally would like to see a law that any copyrighted material that is withheld (unavailable) for 5 years (digital) or 10 years (nondigital) is automatically public domain; but that's not the law, just a wish. Disney does this all the time with their movies; they put them in the vault, stop selling them, for 7 years usually, meaning you only have one chance every 7 years to obtain any given movie (The Lion King, for example, is about to go in the vault, or just has, i'm not sure which). It's sad, but it's their right ... legally...

	10-04-2005 11:49									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Agathon If people desperately want to play these things, and the market continues to refuse to respond, then the market is not doing its job and it is time for regulation.

In what world? If enough people wanted to play the game, it would come out as a bargain title (a $9.99 or $4.99 title in a compusa or best buy or what have you). There aren't enough people interested in these titles to justify the costs of printing the CDs and distributing them - that's the problem. Or at least not enough people willing to pay for them...

quote: If the companies concerned were really interested in releasing their old games, they would do so when confronted with such a threat. But without it, they'll just sit on them to the disappointment of consumers.

See above. It's all about the benjamins ...

quote: It's the government's job to stand up for the consumer in the face of all this AYB crap. Copyright exists for the benefit of consumers, not producers. Unfortunately the producers seem to forget that basic fact.

Huh? What world do you live in again? Copyright exists for the benefit of the producers, just as patent does. Patent law has held back technological advancement for long periods of time at key points in history; the patent on the steam engine hurt development of steam engine related devices for around 20 years, iirc, yet it was upheld in british and american courts because it existed to protect its inventor and his fiduciary interest in the matter. Copyright, similarly, hurts the consumer (who would love to get the product for free) and benefits producers (who bloody well want their money). Of course, without copyright both sides would lose - nobody would produce anything, and so the consumer loses too - which is why we have copyright in the first place. But it's absolutely there for the producer, at least in this capitalist world.

	10-04-2005 12:14									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: In what world? If enough people wanted to play the game, it would come out as a bargain title (a $9.99 or $4.99 title in a compusa or best buy or what have you). There aren't enough people interested in these titles to justify the costs of printing the CDs and distributing them - that's the problem. Or at least not enough people willing to pay for them...

Who said anyone wanted them to do that? They could offer downloads like every two bit shareware company does.

And your argument sucks -- if it were true and these were not marketable commodities, then there would be no good reason not to release them for free.

quote: Huh? What world do you live in again? Copyright exists for the benefit of the producers, just as patent does. Patent law has held back technological advancement for long periods of time at key points in history; the patent on the steam engine hurt development of steam engine related devices for around 20 years, iirc, yet it was upheld in british and american courts because it existed to protect its inventor and his fiduciary interest in the matter. Copyright, similarly, hurts the consumer (who would love to get the product for free) and benefits producers (who bloody well want their money). Of course, without copyright both sides would lose - nobody would produce anything, and so the consumer loses too - which is why we have copyright in the first place. But it's absolutely there for the producer, at least in this capitalist world.

Sorry.... you're dead wrong. And you actually agree with what I said in your penultimate sentence.

Copyright law exists to benefit the public by providing an incentive for people to produce ideas by giving them a limited ability to charge for them. That is why we have copyright, because the production of such ideas benefit society - the aim of copyright law is to ensure that they do. The fact that producers benefit is a means to that end, and nothing else - the end is public benefit -- which is why I was correct in saying that copyright law exists for the benefit of the public.

	10-04-2005 12:36									#34
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Who said anyone wanted them to do that? They could offer downloads like every two bit shareware company does. And your argument sucks -- if it were true and these were not marketable commodities, then there would be no good reason not to release them for free.

It costs the distributors money to release them, to put them available to download, and it has *some* cost to release them for free, cost to potential gains later selling it and/or selling other competing games. My point was that the market is not broken - there is not a big enough market for any one of these games to justify it.
For games that there is a market for, the games are sold; look at many old collections of games, such as Sierra's great Ultimate RPG collection, or Might and Magic releasing their collection when they put MM6 out.

quote: Sorry.... you're dead wrong. And you actually agree with what I said in your penultimate sentence. Copyright law exists to benefit the public by providing an incentive for people to produce ideas by giving them a limited ability to charge for them. That is why we have copyright, because the production of such ideas benefit society - the aim of copyright law is to ensure that they do. The fact that producers benefit is a means to that end, and nothing else - the end is public benefit -- which is why I was correct in saying that copyright law exists for the benefit of the public.

You attribute a far different aim for copyright law than the actual aim. Perhaps you attribute it the aim you would have given it, and this is why your idea of when copyright law should no longer apply is incorrect (to the current law).

Copyright law exists to protect the rights of the producers of copyrightable material. As I said, and you would agree I think, it was put into place because without it, many people would not produce the works they otherwise would, which would hurt the public. So in that sense, the law benefits the public. However, the law was not created for that specific purpose; it was created for the quite selfish purpose of protecting the creator of the works.
That is why copyright law is so express in its grant of right - if it were to benefit the public, it would expire in a short period of time; 5 years of earnings off of a book or song is more than enough to encourage the production of said work. Instead, it lasts for nearly a century - clearly written to protect the copyright holder's rights at the expense of the public's potential benefit (in a sense).

And it is not a limited ability. In the United States at least, and I believe in most countries, it is an unlimited ability - you can charge whatever you want for an item, or not sell it at all, entirely at your whim. No price limitations or limitations of any other significant sort apply. Only on digital media is there any significant ability for the consumer to modify that right, and it is a meaningless distinction to the owner of the copyright, as they are still selling one copy of their copyrighted material, and only one copy is in use.

	10-04-2005 12:51									#35
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by snoopy369 Copyright is currently essentially forever, thanks to the Walt Disney Corporation. Copyright used to be much shorter, iirc 50 or 60 years, but ever since Mickey Mouse would have been public domain, W.D. has lobbie congress to extend copyright protection, and it has continued to do so - up to 93 years or something like that, at last call. Dunk has a good point; however, books and digital media are different, and have been held to be. When you buy a digital program (be it music, video, or software), you are buying the right to use the digital media, not the physical media; otherwise you'd be constantly in violation of the law, as most forms of 'reading' digital media involve making a (very temporary) copy of it (ie a cd player reads the cd, takes the digital code that translates to the sound, writes it to memory somewhere, etc.). It's still not 100% legally clear what constitutes legal vs illegal uses of digital media - but it is generally allowable to make a duplicate for archival purposes, and ripping a song into MP3 format is perfectly acceptable as long as you don't give that song to anyone else. Abandonware, otoh, is certainly illegal, at the moment. It is indeed the right of the publisher to not release a game as public domain, or even to not sell it. I personally would like to see a law that any copyrighted material that is withheld (unavailable) for 5 years (digital) or 10 years (nondigital) is automatically public domain; but that's not the law, just a wish. Disney does this all the time with their movies; they put them in the vault, stop selling them, for 7 years usually, meaning you only have one chance every 7 years to obtain any given movie (The Lion King, for example, is about to go in the vault, or just has, i'm not sure which). It's sad, but it's their right ... legally...

Mickey Mouse is still copyrighted? greedy bastards.

It's not like they make anymore mickey mouse cartoons anymore. No one wants to see that lame ass crap.

	10-04-2005 13:55									#36
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Agathon quote: In what world? If enough people wanted to play the game, it would come out as a bargain title (a $9.99 or $4.99 title in a compusa or best buy or what have you). There aren't enough people interested in these titles to justify the costs of printing the CDs and distributing them - that's the problem. Or at least not enough people willing to pay for them... And your argument sucks -- if it were true and these were not marketable commodities, then there would be no good reason not to release them for free.

Snoopy is right. It is perfectly possible to have a situation with a positive valuation on the consumer side without that valuation being high enough to warrant selling the product. Even should this be the case there are good reasons (LotM's post) to wish to retain the option of giving the material away later, or even selling should the situation change.

quote: Huh? What world do you live in again? Copyright exists for the benefit of the producers, just as patent does. Patent law has held back technological advancement for long periods of time at key points in history; the patent on the steam engine hurt development of steam engine related devices for around 20 years, iirc, yet it was upheld in british and american courts because it existed to protect its inventor and his fiduciary interest in the matter. Copyright, similarly, hurts the consumer (who would love to get the product for free) and benefits producers (who bloody well want their money). Of course, without copyright both sides would lose - nobody would produce anything, and so the consumer loses too - which is why we have copyright in the first place. But it's absolutely there for the producer, at least in this capitalist world.

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Sorry.... you're dead wrong. And you actually agree with what I said in your penultimate sentence. Copyright law exists to benefit the public by providing an incentive for people to produce ideas by giving them a limited ability to charge for them. That is why we have copyright, because the production of such ideas benefit society - the aim of copyright law is to ensure that they do. The fact that producers benefit is a means to that end, and nothing else - the end is public benefit -- which is why I was correct in saying that copyright law exists for the benefit of the public.

Here Agathon is right. I think it's clearer to say copyright law ensures that consumers and producers can engage in mutually beneficial exchange. On the face of it it does this by protecting producers, but as Agathon argues the key goal (if there is one) is to make sure there are no unnecessarily missing markets caused by the underlying 'time inconsistency' problems.

	10-04-2005 20:45									#37
	Re: Re: Abandonware? Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by vovan I recently uhhh, found a floppy with this game... Gold of the Americas. Man, it's a good game.

lol

floppy

thats becoming a thing of the past as well

what with jump drives and cdrw's

but yeah when reading the thread i wandered to a box with older games and was laughing when i saw this but as dr dpike said this site has parameters and we must obey them and that word spoken of must not be abused

Mark and Dan dont ask a lot of us common folk but when they do we should obey

noting wrong with sucking up to da boss well unless its this way then thats just plaine wrong and disturbing

	10-04-2005 22:05									#38
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Agathon That's irrelevant. What people might do is neither here nor there. What they will probably do is what matters.

Entirely false. It's entirely relevant.

quote: Originally posted by Agathon If people desperately want to play these things, and the market continues to refuse to respond, then the market is not doing its job and it is time for regulation.

So, if I were to right a computer game and obtain a copyright, you would suggest that I should be compelled by law to publish it in purpituity or else sacrifice my right to profit by my creation? Is that the regulation you suggest?

quote: Originally posted by Agathon If the companies concerned were really interested in releasing their old games, they would do so when confronted with such a threat. But without it, they'll just sit on them to the disappointment of consumers.

They sit on them because they do not deem it profitable to release them. That climate may change and as such they should retain the right to publish or NOT publish as they see fit. These are computer games for the love of socks, not drugs or food.

quote: Originally posted by Agathon It's the government's job to stand up for the consumer in the face of all this AYB crap. It's the government's job to make sure we get our entertainment? Hardly. Perhaps you should go complain to the government that you can't buy Pong machines anymore. Atari really owes us some restitution for that. [QUOTE] Originally posted by Agathon Copyright exists for the benefit of consumers, not producers. Unfortunately the producers seem to forget that basic fact.

This statement really baffles me.

Exclusive rights to publish a work benefit the consumer? How? And why should it?

Copyrights exist to ensure that only one entity can produce a certain work. Only EA can publish NHL 2005. How does this benefit the consumer? If any company could publish NHL 2005, then it would cost $5 per copy (as a company other than EA has no cost to cover other than mass producing and distributing the game), instead of $50.

	11-04-2005 05:19									#39
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Which then follows that no company would develope NHL 2005 or similar and wait for other companies to develope it instead, hence no-one would be developing anything and consumers would suffer.

I think that was his point.

	11-04-2005 06:16									#40
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by DrSpike Here Agathon is right. I think it's clearer to say copyright law ensures that consumers and producers can engage in mutually beneficial exchange. On the face of it it does this by protecting producers, but as Agathon argues the key goal (if there is one) is to make sure there are no unnecessarily missing markets caused by the underlying 'time inconsistency' problems.

I agree - have agreed the whole time - that copyright law is beneficial to both producers and consumers.

However, and call me cynical if you want, but the reason copyright law was created, was to protect producers, not consumers. Not just on face, but by original intent. This is evident, not just supposed, by looking at the face of the law. It clearly supports producers' interests over consumers' interests at each point, when they conflict. Otherwise it would be much shorter, as i argued earlier, and would certainly have allowances for abandoned product.

	11-04-2005 06:19									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Skanky Burns Which then follows that no company would develope NHL 2005 or similar and wait for other companies to develope it instead, hence no-one would be developing anything and consumers would suffer. I think that was his point.

I think his point was more significant than that, although certainly in so far as you state it skanky, is accurate (the part about protecting consumers). The part about "not producers" is absolutely incorrect.

Aga, correct me if i'm misinterpreting your statement, but I think you are trying to say that copyright law should be interpreted to be more protective of the consumer?

	11-04-2005 06:29									#42
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: The part about "not producers" is absolutely incorrect.

Clearly.

	11-04-2005 07:03									#43
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark 3. OTOH, copyright isnt forever. Its supposed to expire at some point, and material is supposed to enter the public domain. It seems logical that in a field like software, where tech updates obsolece games, and payback cycles are short, that using copyright lengths from traditional media (themselves perhaps unreasonably lengthened) is unreasonable.

I agree completely. After the Sonny-Bono Extension Act, copyrights held by companies last 95 (!!) years. Even the Bernes Convention give lifetime + 50 years for ones held by individuals. That is just completely messed up, esp. for computer games.

	11-04-2005 07:10									#44
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by snoopy369 reason copyright law was created, was to protect producers, not consumers. Not just on face, but by original intent.

IIRC, the original US copyright law gave something like 17 years of monopoly to the creator, which is reasonable. Anything longer than 20 years is not.

quote: Originally posted by snoopy369 Otherwise it would be much shorter, as i argued earlier, and would certainly have allowances for abandoned product.

Sadly, copyright laws had been amended many times as a result of lobbying, to protect the interest of corporations.

	11-04-2005 21:15									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by snoopy369 Copyright is currently essentially forever, thanks to the Walt Disney Corporation. Copyright used to be much shorter, iirc 50 or 60 years, but ever since Mickey Mouse would have been public domain, W.D. has lobbie congress to extend copyright protection, and it has continued to do so - up to 93 years or something like that, at last call.

well thats kinda what I meant. 93 years, it seems to me, is unreasonably long even for traditional copyright, and a fortiori its too long for something like a PC game. Unreasonable things like this undercut the whole IP system. I would rather see copyright for things like books and films go back to 60 years, and for things set to 20 years, at most.

and perhaps even shorter for abandoned product - say 10 years or less.

	12-04-2005 08:14									#46
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Copyright law exists to protect the rights of the producers of copyrightable material. As I said, and you would agree I think, it was put into place because without it, many people would not produce the works they otherwise would, which would hurt the public. So in that sense, the law benefits the public. However, the law was not created for that specific purpose; it was created for the quite selfish purpose of protecting the creator of the works.

No it wasn't.

Owned...

It was created to make sure that these works were produced to benefit society (in fact the earliest copyright laws were a form of censorship = but that's another story). That utilitarian understanding of copyright has been upheld by the SCOTUS in every decision it ever made -- and US copyright law was the model for everyone else's.

Copyright law benefits producers only as a means of benefiting consumers, since it is the consumption of ideas that is valuable, not the production of them. If copyright laws no longer served the public good, that would be the end of them... whatever the producers said.

	12-04-2005 08:21									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark I would rather see copyright for things like books and films go back to 60 years, and for things set to 20 years, at most. and perhaps even shorter for abandoned product - say 10 years or less.

What, 60 years?

17 years is a long time for the producers to gain a reasonable monetary compensation for their efforts. As for computer games, 5 years is a long, long time. Most games are taken off the shelves in one year.

	12-04-2005 08:26									#48
	Remove this text

quote: I agree - have agreed the whole time - that copyright law is beneficial to both producers and consumers.

No one disagrees, but it is only beneficial to producers as a means of being beneficial to consumers (the public).

Let's see. From the US Constitution:

"Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: "Congress shall have Power [...] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

That doesn't say that the point of copyright is to benefit producers, but that benefiting producers is a means to the end of promoting the public goods of the sciences and arts.

This was a landmark case:

quote: 1834: Wheaton v. Peters The case arose from a dispute between the official reporter of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Richard Peters, and the previous reporter, Henry Wheaton. Peters began publishing "Condensed Reports" of cases decided during Wheaton's tenure and Wheaton sued. The case went before the U.S. Supreme Court. Peters argued that Wheaton had failed to properly obtain copyright, while Wheaton argued that authors were entitled to perpetual property rights in their works. Justice McLean delivered the majority decision, stating that "since the statute of 8 Anne, the literary property of an author in his works can only be asserted under the statute. . . . That an author, at common law, has a property in his manuscript, and may obtain redress against any one who deprives him of it, or by improperly obtaining a copy endeavours to realise a profit by its publication cannot be doubted; but this is a very different right from that which asserts a perpetual and exclusive property in the future publication of the work, after the author shall have published it to the world." The decision struck a decisive blow against the notion of copyright as a perpetual natural right, and the utilitarian view of copyright embodied in the U.S. Constitution prevailed, i.e., "that patents and copyrights are exclusive rights of limited duration, granted in order to serve the public interest in promoting the creation and dissemination of new works." See the amicus brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by Tyler Ochoa and Mark Rose in the case of Eldred v. Ashcroft, May 20, 2002.

All modern copyright law is based on this idea.

	12-04-2005 11:49									#49
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Agathon This was a landmark case: quote: 1834: Wheaton v. Peters The case arose from a dispute between the official reporter of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Richard Peters, and the previous reporter, Henry Wheaton. Peters began publishing "Condensed Reports" of cases decided during Wheaton's tenure and Wheaton sued. The case went before the U.S. Supreme Court. Peters argued that Wheaton had failed to properly obtain copyright, while Wheaton argued that authors were entitled to perpetual property rights in their works. Justice McLean delivered the majority decision, stating that "since the statute of 8 Anne, the literary property of an author in his works can only be asserted under the statute. . . . That an author, at common law, has a property in his manuscript, and may obtain redress against any one who deprives him of it, or by improperly obtaining a copy endeavours to realise a profit by its publication cannot be doubted; but this is a very different right from that which asserts a perpetual and exclusive property in the future publication of the work, after the author shall have published it to the world." The decision struck a decisive blow against the notion of copyright as a perpetual natural right, and the utilitarian view of copyright embodied in the U.S. Constitution prevailed, i.e., "that patents and copyrights are exclusive rights of limited duration, granted in order to serve the public interest in promoting the creation and dissemination of new works." See the amicus brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by Tyler Ochoa and Mark Rose in the case of Eldred v. Ashcroft, May 20, 2002. All modern copyright law is based on this idea.

Yes it is. To serve the public interest in promoting the creation and dissemination of new works. Not to have someone else reproduce your work later to sell at a lower cost or disseminate freely. Copyright rulings from the 20th century have created the lifetime copyright in order to make it even more worthwhile to create these types of things and thus better serve the "public interest". The "public interest" is served by the creation of new works being produced. This ruling says nothing about works from 20 years ago.

Whether you like it or not, current copyright law prohibits the distribution of any media without the express permission of the copyright holder. And that was the exact intent of the law, to protect the producers of copyrightable material. The phrase about public interest has nothing to do with us being able to get books or music or computer games 15-20 years after original publication. It's to promote these arts by making them profitable business oppurtunities. It's so the works are created and disseminated in the first place, not so I can play Impossible Mission on my PC 20 years after its been published.

And patents have a duration of 17 years, not copyrights. Patents are longer for pharmaceutical substances.

Patents and copyrights are different. A patent is for a device, process, or idea. Copyright is for things like books, movies, and computer games. No one can ever prodcue a computer game called Civilization where you start out as a little covered wagon, build cities, and so on and so forth. You can make variations, but the exact game of Civilization is copyrighted and you can't prodcue it and sell it. But, now, anyone with the proper equipment can manufacture Tylenol (as long as they don't call it Tylenol, the name is copyrighted )

	12-04-2005 11:54									#50
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Skanky Burns Which then follows that no company would develope NHL 2005 or similar and wait for other companies to develope it instead, hence no-one would be developing anything and consumers would suffer. I think that was his point.

Pretty much, yes.

	12-04-2005 20:16									#51
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Whether you like it or not, current copyright law prohibits the distribution of any media without the express permission of the copyright holder.

Whether you like it or not, the this is not the purpose of copyright law, but a means to an end.

If the law is not actually promoting the end, then it's time to scrap it. It makes no difference that we are talking about things from 20 years ago. That's my point, so come up with an actual argument please, if you wish to dispute it.

	12-04-2005 21:06									#52
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger What, 60 years? 17 years is a long time for the producers to gain a reasonable monetary compensation for their efforts. As for computer games, 5 years is a long, long time. Most games are taken off the shelves in one year.

IIUC the original idea was that an author had copyright in her lifetime, and that the fixed time of 60 years was to assure heirs of the same period of protection a (young) author would have had. For books at least, this doesnt seem all that unreasonable, and I dont recall hearing major griping with the old copyright law. The problems, I think are 1. The extension and 2. the new media.

As for games, I just bought the Paradox Strategy 6 pack, largely for eu2, which is what, 3 years old now?. Ive also recently bought a jewelcase version of Moo2. And again, we're not talking only about sales of the game itself, but issues with sequels, etc.

	14-04-2005 09:15									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Agathon quote: Whether you like it or not, current copyright law prohibits the distribution of any media without the express permission of the copyright holder. Whether you like it or not, the this is not the purpose of copyright law, but a means to an end. If the law is not actually promoting the end, then it's time to scrap it. It makes no difference that we are talking about things from 20 years ago. That's my point, so come up with an actual argument please, if you wish to dispute it.

*points to the other parts of my post*

The "end" was to promote creation of these things. The law does so as it is now.

	14-04-2005 09:56									#54
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

dp

	14-04-2005 09:56									#55
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark For books at least, this doesnt seem all that unreasonable, and I dont recall hearing major griping with the old copyright law.

I reckon people did complain about it when the extension was first put into place. Probably prompted by Mickey Mouse about to fall into public domain, like what would happen this time around.