110
Discworld rerelease "may happen" but depends on "King Charles", developer says (www.eurogamer.net)
submitted 9 months ago by nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works to c/games@sh.itjust.works
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 59 points 9 months ago

"Whenever something closes in the UK, intellectual property rights revert 50 percent to the original creator and 50 percent to the crown, which is King Charles. So that's the two owners of the games," he explained.

But why?? Surely "public domain" would be a better option...

[-] Deceptichum@kbin.social 43 points 9 months ago

But imagine doing nothing and getting half of everything! Its good to be the king.

[-] GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

"the crown" is just a government entity. Anyone seriously thinking that Charles benefits from this is an idiot plain and simple.

Other countries have a similar system. Instead of having the IP rights up in the air where nobody knows who owns what. The ownership of the IP is clearly defined, half original creator half government. The crown's only option in regard to this IP is to sell or dispose of it.

It's there to prevent mass legal cases about who owns what when a company closes.

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 11 points 9 months ago

Why does anyone need to own it? Public domain is absolutely reasonable in this case, which means anyone can use the IP and nobody gets exclusivity.

That would also prevent mass legal cases because it's clear that everyone has the same access to the IP.

[-] GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Well in this case. No one actually knows who owns the rights to the DiscWorld games. Unless something has changed in the last year.

We're also talking about a game licensing another entity's IP.

But let's assume that we do know. You can't declare something in the public domain without knowing who owns it.

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

And how does the Crown owning half help things? That's just another interested party with a lot of bureaucracy to get anything done.

Instead of that, there should be a process, something like this:

  1. Interested party approaches judge with due diligence showing the property is unclaimed
  2. Judge orders the IP agency to investigate, plaintiff pays some fee to cover that cost
  3. IP agency does own research and informs judge that no owner could be found
  4. Judge reviews evidence and orders the IP office to place a notice that the IP is unclaimed and will revert to public domain after a grace period
  5. After 6 months or so, the plaintiff is granted a temporary license to use the IP (until the end of the grace period), and after the grace period finishes (say, 5 years?), the IP enters the public domain

Other types of property are less complicated because ownership is tracked by the government.

[-] GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

What you're describing is basically what happens. Only between the claimant and the government.

Also worth noting that this only applies when a company closes (is removed from the company register) and any IP isn't transferred out of the company. And in most cases it is full ownership.

So as far as the law is concerned there is no ownership of that IP. Copyrights, trademarks, patents, whatever it might be. But that doesn't mean people don't have a claim.

By moving it to a government entity that is specifically set up to deal with these claims.

It removes any ambiguity. The government can make a clear cut ruling on who owns the IP.

Because "The Crown" is just the government. And unlike a private citizen the government won't use these IPs.

There are only two things the government can do with an IP in this situation, declare someone with a valid claim as the owner, or sell it to a buyer. Who in both cases have to come to the government.

If no claims or offers are made the IP will eventually enter the public domain.

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

eventually enter the public domain

But that's the problem. I'm guessing this takes until whatever the copyright term is in the UK. In the US, that's 70 years (maybe it's longer now, IDK) after the death of the original creator. If it's sold, that's still going to take a long time because they'd likely be stuck in legal limbo just like this one is and take years to clean up anytime someone wants to use the IP.

In short, I don't think unclaimed IP should be sold, it should either be claimed or put into the public domain, after a grace period. Imo, copyright duration should be much shorter, such as 14 years (original US copyright term) with an optional extension, and copyright should only be transferred once (exception for immediate family).

[-] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 9 months ago

You should see what they do to land when someone dies without an heir.

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I'm guessing it's the same as here in the US, but instead of "the state" owning the property, "the Crown" does. It probably just gets auctioned after some grace period (i.e. time for a legal heir to come forth).

But I'm pretty sure IP just goes to public domain here if there's no legal heir. But I couldn't find evidence for that, most sites just describe the process of finding an heir.

[-] rikudou@lemmings.world 34 points 9 months ago

Holy shit, the monarchy is disgusting in the UK.

[-] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 3 points 9 months ago

It is pretty absurd.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 1 points 9 months ago

BuT tHe tOuRisM rEvEnuE

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Whilst this is really just a cute story, if the guy really wanted to get it re released, there are plenty of avenues. Basically, he has to ask them to either sell or dispose of their claim to the ip. They aren't involved in licensing or anything like that. they either sell or dispose of claims.

They probably don't even know they have a claim. If they did they likely would have sold it long ago.

[-] Deceptichum@kbin.social 27 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

You shouldn’t have to beg them to sell you back your game. Trying to defend this pathetic monarchy in anyway is a joke.

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

calm down, no one's defending the monarchy.

The Crown is an entity that's part of the UK parliament and thus state, a lot of legal proceedings based on hundreds of years are law just go in there because that's what happens.

It's part of a law that has to deal with vacant goods, goods unclaimed. they have to go somewhere.

This guy didn't own 100% of his stuff, he either gave it away or sold it a long time ago, the people who owned the other half dissolved their company without selling or giving the ip back. so it' goes to the same place that everything in this situation does, it's handled by the governmental legal entity that figures out what to do with them. and yes they do sometimes just say "they don't own it" if they don't care to sell it

it's called Bona Vacantia if you want to go look it up instead of huffing and puffing over it

[-] Spike@feddit.de 13 points 9 months ago

That title is not even Pratchett anymore, that's straight Adams.

[-] bagfatnick@kulupu.duckdns.org 8 points 9 months ago

I feel like the developer should actually get some legal advice. In the U.K., “the crown” does not refer to the monarchy, but some legal entity that might as well be the state.

One source: https://harperjames.co.uk/article/bona-vacantia-buying-ip-from-the-crown/

[-] evanuggetpi@lemmy.nz 7 points 9 months ago

I loved this game.

[-] CheeryLBottom@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

I loved that game and because of it, I bought all of the books. It has a lot of wild puzzles haha

[-] evanuggetpi@lemmy.nz 6 points 9 months ago

Yeah, I remember a few puzzles were so hard. I doubt I'd have the same patience these days.

[-] addie@feddit.uk 2 points 9 months ago

Same problem as the old Infocom Hitchhiker's Guide adventure, I think. They'd prioritised making 'Discworld' puzzles over puzzles that were fun, interesting or made any sense. The animation, voice acting still make it an entertaining game if you've got a guide next to you, and it's great seeing how they've interpreted what's in the books onto the screen. The design hasn't aged well, though?

[-] addie@feddit.uk 3 points 9 months ago

Such a fan that you've gone with the username, too? Good stuff.

this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
110 points (96.6% liked)

Games

16716 readers
484 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works