Discworld rerelease "may happen" but depends on "King Charles", developer says
Discworld rerelease "may happen" but depends on "King Charles", developer says

Discworld rerelease "may happen" but depends on "King Charles", developer says

Discworld rerelease "may happen" but depends on "King Charles", developer says
Discworld rerelease "may happen" but depends on "King Charles", developer says
But why?? Surely "public domain" would be a better option...
But imagine doing nothing and getting half of everything! Its good to be the king.
"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.
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.
You should see what they do to land when someone dies without an heir.
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.