You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] Wahaha ago 

Same reason works got created prior to copyright, which isn't even 300 years old and has only been as strict as it is now for some 50 years or so. Original copyright expired 12 years after publication and actually lead to less books being published, since the incentives changed.

The reason there are crafts that can't make money is because those crafts aren't worth paying money for. Just because you put effort into something doesn't mean people owe you money for it. Unless you're a communist, then that's exactly how it's supposed to work. But since communism also has to deal with reality that's not how it will unfold.

You're asking the wrong questions about open source. The correct question would be to ask why money is spend on people developing open source software. Because the answer tells you a business model that doesn't rely on a state to enforce copyright. Enforcing copyright isn't cheap, but it's basically useless, since there aren't a lot of people acknowledging copyright in it's current form as a just law.

1
0

[–] scandalous-goat 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

We aren't talking about someone shitting on an canvas and calling it art, we're talking about programming, which takes years to master, and graphic and game design, which are also art that require time and practice to master. You are telling me that those skills aren't worth money?

I'm quite familiar with open source. I'm also familiar with the deception of open source, that I dub technological marxism, that aims to level the field of technical knowledge and skills in order to weaken those who dominate. Young, white programmers who wish to land a programming job are encouraged, through some kind of cult-like doctrine, to publish useful code for free. Then strong womyn and dark people get to take those jobs, using said useful software written by those who have the proper aptitudes. It also gets into people's head that their skills aren't worth money, even though, in reality, the skills are extremely desirable.

That's the reason why open source is pushed by multinational corporations: it helps them cut money by not having a skilled programmer on their payroll and to be able make use of third world shitskins. It's the corporate equivalant of the anarcho communist, stoner left "we want everything, for free".

Going back to the topic, why the hell are nintendo evil for protecting their IP and their assets? Those are absolutely desirable when you consider how often people use their stuff in their own projects, instead of taking the time and effort to make their own art and assets. It's not that it isn't worth money, quite the opposite, it's that those developers really want those assets, for free. They don't have the skills to create original assets, original game design and they don't want to spend the time to learn how to do it (or, the brand is strong and they want to have its effect in their project). That's lazy and arguably, theft.

1
0

[–] Wahaha 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

It's not worth money if no one is willing to pay money for it. You could be a doctor with the cure for cancer, but if you don't have anyone with cancer willing to pay you, it's not worth money. It's a really simple concept. If no one wants to spend money on it then it isn't worth the money.

Yes, people may want to use stuff if it's free. Doesn't mean they would pay you money if it wasn't free.

Nintendo is evil for keeping culture from the people. Their stuff is part of culture and they are depriving the people of that culture. It wouldn't even be an issue if copyright still only lasted 12 years, which is a fair compromise, imho. Same thing with the assholes who used to own the Happy Birthday song. They deprived people of their culture.