Comment on Court rules Gabe Newell must appear in person to testify in Steam anti-trust lawsuit

• Gabu@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  If anyone could sell the thing you just spent time and money creating for free, there would be little incentive to create the thing

  In one sentence, you’ve already demonstrated that you don’t understand artists at all.

  source

  • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    In one sentence, you’ve already demonstrated that you don’t understand how artists subsist at all. You’ve also confused the word “incentive” with “motivation”.

    source

    • Gabu@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Guess what I do for a living. You have 1 guess.

      source

      • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Look, I understand that money isn’t the primary incentive for (hopefully all) artists. But I don’t think a system where you effectively cannot make a living as a full-time artist is beneficial for society either. Since you’re an artist, can I ask how you subsist without an alternative source of income?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • BURN@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    No, he understands just fine

    Artists might create out of love, but they’re not going to share it for free so someone else can make a profit

    source

    • Gabu@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      We literally do it all the time…

      source

      • BURN@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Not all artists do

        I’m glad your line of work allows you to make a living, but the same model doesn’t work for everyone.

        source
• Excrubulent@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Copyright is a tool that gives creators the ability to commercialize their work. That its spirit, nothing more.

  That’s what we are told is the purpose because otherwise we wouldn’t accept its existence. In practice it doesn’t work that way. The persistent story is that artists get very little compensation whilst whichever large entity is acting as the middleman for their copyright - often owning it outright despite doing nothing to make it - takes the vast majority of the profit.

  It is a tool of corporate control, nothing more. Without copyright there would be no way a middleman could insert themselves and ripoff artists, take their money, and compromise their work with financially-driven studio meddling.

  And the idea that the “spirit” of copyright is for artists, that completely falls apart when you understand that modern copyright terms exist almost entirely to profit one company’s IP - Disney is just delaying the transfer of Mickey Mouse into the public domain. That’s why copyright is now lifetime +75 years, or something ridiculous like that. That is not for artists to be compensated. Mickey Mouse isn’t going to be unmade when that happens. If Disney can’t operate as a business with all the time and market share they’ve built then they should just go under. There’s no justification for it beyond corporate greed.

  Also without copyright there couldn’t be monopolies like Disney buying Fox, Marvel and Star Wars. That is an absurd situation and should be an indication that antitrust is effectively gone.

  And as for artists getting paid, we’re transitioning more and more to a patron model, where people are paid just to create, and release most of their work for free with some token level of patron interaction. You don’t need copyright for that.

  source
• mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  At least in the US, we have a lifetime for exclusive rights, at which point the material moves into the public domain. It really seems like a good system to me.

  It’s not a good system to have it be 50 years past the death of the creator. Having access to content in public domain has historically caused art to flourish by serving as a base for creators to build off of. But for the past few decades companies have been plundering from pu lic domain while not contributing anything back.

  Our original copyright system in the US gave a baseline 17 years of copyright, with an additional 17 years extension that you could apply to. 34 years is a perfectly fair span of time to get value out of your creation because nobody is going to wait that long to get access to art they want. But it also ensured that the public domain continually had new content added that wasn’t completely antiquated. This is the system we should be pushing to return to.

  source
• Jarix@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  It wouldn’t be a problem if you didn’t need to sell the things you make and could just give them away.

  So copyright is only useful to protect your profits. There are many people who put effort into many things not because they expect to make money but because of the act of doing it.

  Just something to think about, not really sure what point im trying to make

  source