You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

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.

0
1

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

Ok, we won't come to an agreement. I'll do, however, a bit more research on the copyright length: I'll admit that I didn't put much attention into it. I do want to add that reasons why I'm against piracy and for IP are:

* I want to get paid for what I do. Since it's all so intangible, people have a hard time giving the proper compensation for it: people understand that a device has a price, but they reject costs for a software that's as useful and complex if not more;

* Our culture relies way too much on corporate output. As time moves forward, the less cultures distinguish themselves: they become more and more homogenized. We barely create anything now, we consume.