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
Comment on Court rules Gabe Newell must appear in person to testify in Steam anti-trust lawsuit
Gabu@lemmy.world 11 months agoIf 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.
BURN@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Gabu@lemmy.world 11 months ago
We literally do it all the time…
BURN@lemmy.world 11 months 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.
QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 11 months 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”.
Gabu@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Guess what I do for a living. You have 1 guess.
QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 11 months 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?
Gabu@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Commissions don’t give a damn about copyright. The end product is made specifically to please one person and reproductions are already worthless, since only Jimbo wants an impressionist picture of Blue Eyes White Dragon wearing a tutu. Jimbo ends up happy, since he got his picture, I end up happy, as Jimbo pays me for the time it took to paint it, and anyone else that manages to copy it can be happy as well.